I'm not a paid subscriber, so I couldn't comment on the other Ukraine posts, but on this one I can. So I want to take the opportunity to respond, not for sake of argument, but because I see an underlying idea that I believe should be challenged. I want to talk about it.
I disagree with your take on Ukraine. My question is--are you a cynic? And do we have to accept a cynical worldview as 'the real'? That is what I see underlying your position; what I see it reducing down to. And I outright reject cynicism. I think it's a terrible way to view the world and live life.
Cynicism is a narrative--a judgement. It's not a necessity or objective requirement to reach that conclusion about reality, no matter how much corruption or evil there is. We do not have to decide that the nature of reality is dark.
In your writing above, the initial cynicism plays out by use of strawmen: first by claiming that having ideals always leads to its inversion (e.g. antiracism), and second that ideals are a function of progress, which pins them to shitty materialist metaphysics. Yes, you can do them that way, but you don't have to. You can have authentic values, ideals, and principles, in service to good, in an animist context. This is what I try to do as a magician.
Further, there is cynicism underlying the rest of the argument about Ukraine, to the point that it distorts and undermines 'the real'. If you're colouring reality with an ideology, I don't think you can see it clearly.
Thus, I would like to propose an alternative take on Ukraine: there absolutely are good guys, Ukraine is one of them, and JD Vance/Trump/Trump's administration are making a catastrophic series of unforced errors. Notwithstanding their narcissism and obsession with proving their 'betterness' than the Biden admin., everything they are doing is making a general European war more probable, not less.
To explain it, I have to first get rid of Russian propaganda: 1) There was no CIA-backed coup in 2014 in Ukraine; 2) NATO is not an aggressive, dangerous, imperial force gobbling up territory; and 3) Russia was provoked into the conflict by NATO or Ukraine itself making political choices. All of these are provably false, and 3) is a twisted, toxic, immoral ethic equivalent to 'look what you made me do'.
We need to situate the perspective properly--with Ukraine at centre--and reject 'spheres of influence' and a geopolitics built around 'great powers'. Ukraine, as a state, is a sovereign, constituted by the will of its people, and is entitled as a sovereign to self-determination. We need to understand that, and focus on it, because what Ukraine wants is the only perspective that matters in terms of right and wrong.
And what do the Ukrainians want? Not to be Russian. That's unequivocal. They also want to move out of the orbit of Russia and toward Europe, and decisions to that effect are the actual cause of the war.
You can see this If you go back to 2012, from the pre-maidan era, where the Yanukovych govt was trying to convince a skeptical EU to begin the accession process. We need to really internalise that--why would a coup be necessary, to replace the Yanukovych govt with a pro-Western one, when the pro-Russian Yanukovych govt was already intent on joining the EU?
Likewise, the EU was actually reluctant to accept Ukraine, because they felt Ukraine didn't have sufficient safeguards in law to protect rights--especially with Yulia Tymoshenko in jail for political persecution. That's another important point that has been forgotten--the EU actually resisted Ukraine--so again, what good would a coup have done if the other party to the process was reluctant to accept the deal?
But both sides (EU/Ukraine) did have the desire to work it out--and the Yanukovych govt did introduce sufficient changes to keep the process moving, which was due to be formally announced at the Vilnius summit in November 2012. That never happened.
Why didn't it happen? Because the Russians engaged in economic warfare against Ukraine. In August 2012, they banned the import of Ukrainian goods into Russia, and attempted to force the other members of the Eurasian Economic Union to do the same. The ban caused Ukraine millions in losses; created economic chaos, even forced Ukraine to talk to the IMF for a bailout. The move made clear to Ukraine that joining the EU would end up an act of economic destruction. Yanukovych cancelled the accession process over the economic woes--and that is what caused the protests, leading to the revolution.
The protests themselves had no central leader, no authority, and were not aligned with any specific political party--initially it was started by students. And as Yanukovych and the Berkut cracked down, the protests reciprocally grew in size and strength. The more brutal Yanukovych became, the larger the protests got. Until eventually, after Berkut snipers murdered 100 protesters (which I watched live on YouTube), Yanukovych and most of his ministers fled. The Rada sacked him for deserting his post, not impeached for crimes against the people. Poroshenko became President, and... called elections, which Zelensky won handily. So what kind of coup ends with an election and the peaceful transfer of power? It was a revolution, and it restored the 2004 Constitution. Calling it a coup is propaganda.
More importantly, the point in recounting this is to demonstrate that the people of Ukraine have proven unequivocally what they want. They want EU and they want NATO--because NATO actually works to deter Russia, which is why most of the post-Soviet states joined it. The key thing to remember about NATO is that it's voluntary, not expansionary or coercive, and purely defensive. No NATO states have designs on Russian territory or want to control Russia, or even to threaten it. What NATO represents to these small states is freedom from Russian control. Which is why the Russians hate it so much.
So if Ukraine is so clear about their intentions, why is it that people who are supposed to be anti-imperial feel like it's acceptable to ignore them? It's frustrating to watch everyone who says they care about the people of Ukraine treating them like a toddler in a custody battle.
To decide not only what is good for Ukraine, but worse, to engage with the very people who want to impose their will on Ukraine, and are willing to kill and destroy to do it.
Thus, it's because I'm not a cynic and I do have the very principles you call 'neoliberal' (even though I'm not neoliberal) that I can see that what Zelensky and Ukraine wants is actual freedom--the ability to decide for themselves what kind of future they'll have. I see in them exactly the same thing we all want for ourselves. I see the same rights that we have and believe in. Or in other words, I see a 'good guy', not corruption--if Russia stops fighting, the war ends; if Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. It's existential, and that's not hyperbole. I see a people with a distinct heritage resisting having that heritage erased from existence. And if all of that is true, and I think it's objectively, provably true, then that is what is 'the real'--things actually are what they appear to be. I think it is only after we have already succumbed to cynicism and adopted a pessimistic, jaded view of the world that we decide otherwise.
I said earlier that Vance/Trump are making a series of unforced errors--so let me explain them. They are: turning a security conference into a domestic political issue; antagonising states that are allies, weakening the relationships; withdrawing or becoming isolationist when there is a legitimate threat to European stability (repeating the same mistake they made in 1939); engaging in appeasement; and demonstrating repeatedly that they have no principles or ethics (e.g. trying to buy Greenland, removing Palestinians from Gaza, negotiating peace with Russia directly without either the EU (who is expected to be guarantor of the deal) or Ukraine, etc.) and cannot be trusted. Those errors, if they continue to occur, will end with Europe rejecting the US, and the US withdrawing from European affairs. That in turn might mean Europe potentially having to directly enter the war in Ukraine to keep Ukraine from collapsing. Because unlike what some people think, what Trump seems to think, Ukraine will fight on and the EU can't let them fail (or at least some EU states will not let them fail (aka UK/Poland/France)). Most EU states have very good reason to believe that if Russia consolidates a victory over Ukraine, it will begin targeting them to destabilise their politics, economics, and social systems.
Finally, I know this is a wall of text--it's just that all the cynicism and jaded takes got to me, and I didn't want to just unsubscribe to something I otherwise value and respect. I hope it doesn't come across as being argumentative, I think it's worth having a dialogue about. I think we hate our own Western countries too much, to the point it enables those who would destroy them to act with impunity. We don't recognise the value of what we have, even if our society is deeply flawed and we continually fail to live up to our principles. People don't understand that the alternatives are much worse if you value being able to make choices for yourself.
and if we get rid of the American propaganda that your three central points are "Russian propaganda," what happens?
damn shame you spent hours laboring over this comment when you could have just asked yourself why you think everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is being duped by propaganda—whereas you're the clear-eyed moral titan who can see through it all.
nobody can feed *you* a slanted narrative, right? you're just too damn clever. unlike the rest of us poor slobs.
we can disagree about the significanxe of facts in a complex situation, but taking one collection of facts and dumping it into a bucket labeled "Russian propagand" is pure, defiant stupidity.
First, you haven't refuted any claims I made, you just dismissed them out of hand by calling them 'American propaganda'. That approach speaks to weakness in both thought and argument.
Second, you're attacking me the person, rather than the ideas or values. I never said anything about everyone else being wrong, or that I'm better than anyone else. Those are things you're projecting onto me; they arise from a conflict in you. And again they don't have anything to do with the content. Also, the name-calling and insults do little to make your point better.
Third, all three of those items are Russian propaganda--they literally originate from Russia--and there have been Kremlin talking points in other Ukraine content. I stand by the analysis--I have defended my position with facts. Unlike you who haven't come anywhere near an argument or a fact.
Finally, the post was about the fact that this counter-narrative 'there's no good guys' and other writing on Ukraine is built on a cynical view of the world, which I argue distorts it. The thing that is so dangerous about cynicism and deep belief in conspiracy is that it comes packaged with an equivalent amount of certainty. At a high-enough level of either or both, people stop looking for truth or doing critical thinking because they don't need to--they're certain--they already know the truth. Which is what I see in your reply. I can absolutely be wrong--but I'm actively looking for truth and I will abandon an indefensible position. I cannot say the same about you, based on what you wrote, which means you're only right if you're lucky, because you wouldn't know why you're right.
Again--being cynical or jaded is a choice. We don't have to view the world through a dark lens. Especially when that cynicism is being weaponised via false equivocation to bring people onside of a mass-murdering dictator. I think if you you find yourself agreeing with Putin, it's a sign you need to reevaluate.
Also, there really wasn't a need for such a reply to me--it's weak and lazy. I wrote what I wrote because I respect Rhyd. I read his work every time it comes into my inbox, and I wanted to say something I've been holding back. It was for him, and it was a labour to write, because I care. I don't mind talking to you--if you want to discuss the issue--but if you're just gonna insult, ignore anything inconvenient, and dismiss good-faith effort, you don't need to bother because I'll just ignore you.
explain the difference: i say something is American propaganda, and it speaks to "weakness in both thought and argument." you say something is "Russian propaganda" and it's an incisive, legitimate analysis.
i can explain how American propaganda works, because i'm an American. i'm the target audience.
can you explain how all this "Russian propaganda" has affected all the people who are observing and commenting on these three points, independently of one another? it must be some incredibly devious program of influence, with all these "Russian" talking points spread so consistently around the world—in spite of the fact that Russian media is being actively suppressed almost everywhere outside of Russia.
i mean, it *sounds* an awful lot like the same neo-McCarthyite bullshit that CNN and MSNBC have been peddling for the purposes of ginning up a war, but go on. let's hear it.
No, what I said was weakness in thought and argument was dismissing a claim without bothering to refute it. There was nothing in your reply that even attempted to argue that my points were wrong.
There is also a difference between something being propaganda and something being true or false. Propaganda is almost always misleading or wrong--but it doesn't have to be, per se. Those three things I listed literally ARE Russian propaganda--you can hear them said directly from Putin or Lavrov himself. This part should not be controversial.
The question is--are they true? And I've provided evidence to support the fact that they are provably false. On the coup topic, for example, the only evidence given for the claim that it was a coup is a recording of Victoria Nuland on the phone, talking about who the US would like to see in power, plus the very true history of the CIA fomenting revolutions to install new administrations. This is a very clever tactic--you take the belief amongst people that the CIA does this kind of stuff all the time, and you add to it a hint that they might have been doing so again, and voila, you have 'proof'. But that call doesn't prove anything other than a State Dept official had an opinion about who they wanted to be in charge after a revolution took place. What a shock.
I would also argue that my points are not propaganda--by definition--because they do not go to support any political position or party. I am trying to do two things: 1) challenge the validity of cynicism as a basis for geopolitics; and 2) place Ukraine in the centre of the discussion about affairs affecting them, and build a moral position around the legitimacy of their unequivocal desires and intention. I am dismantling propaganda.
But to answer your question, about how Russian propaganda made it into mainstream American politics, it happened because the Kremlin had a message for Republican Dissidents, and Republican Dissidents became MAGA, and MAGA became the Republican Party. Putin actually managed to bring both the far-left (communists/anarchists) and the far-right in the US into alignment. For the far-left, he takes the American Imperialism/hegemony angle, where America is always up to no good, always at war, always involved in other countries' politics, overthrowing their government, etc, and positions Russia as its victim, and with NATO as the transnational sidekick. For the far-right, he built on the cynicism of the dissidents and the foaming-at-the-mouth hatred by Republicans of the Biden regime. Anything that Biden supported must automatically be evil and wrong. That's where the messaging starts.
It's actually incredible to see what has happened to Republicans, truly. This version of the party hates American institutions and American govt, is bitter and angry about American wars, things that we would never predict would be applicable to Republicans. All Putin had to do with that is agree that all of the Ukraine stuff is Biden corruption, especially with Russiagate, and the Biden laptop stuff. He can build on the idea that Biden is pushing Russia and the world into WWIII, rope in Tucker Carlson, the sucker, and Rogan, Gabbard, etc. Job done.
In other words, it's not Russian Media (Tass/RT/Sputnik) spreading it--Americans do the job for him because they want to believe what he says. They all equivocate--all say that, of course Putin is bad and evil, but <insert Kremlin talking point about how equally bad Ukraine/Biden is>, which eases the cognitive disgust of climbing into bed with a Putin argument.
And the goal, of the Kremlin's messages for both Left and Right--are one thing: get America to withdraw its support for Ukraine, which makes it easier for Russia to win. The Russians, if you haven't noticed, are still trying to win the war. They have not given up on it.
I would also add, from a magical, astrological point of view--we have had the massive Plutonic energy of the rise and prominence of Conspiracy, which is absolutely the result of seeing Pluto dancing back and forth in Cap and Aquarius, the US's 2nd and 3rd houses, so govt and communication.
Finally, as to your point about McCarthy and 'warmongering', it's Putin who wants the war, needs it, because if he didn't act he would have lost (control of) Ukraine forever. I think the argument that the media is pushing a war that would naturally have stopped (by suing for peace) otherwise is without merit. Anything that isn't control over Ukraine, either directly by conquering it, or indirectly by destabilising Ukrainian politics and installing a puppet govt, is a loss for him. He has to keep going until he wins. He cannot lose or his regime will fall and he's dead, literally.
But if you really want to know what I think is the worst part--it's the lie Putin told in 2021 to resurrect the old Imperial Czarist lie that Russia is the only legitimate heir to Kyivan Rus (which Putin calls Ancient Rus to avoid using the name Kyiv). That lie is Capital-E Evil.
those are some pretty impressive acrobatics. it sounds like you're taking one possible interpretation of one set of facts, which can't be evaluated without looking closely at their provenance, and calling them "evidence." and then taking another set of facts—also without much regard for provenance or nuance—and calling it "propaganda."
lining things up into this particular narrative fits neatly within the geopolitical interests of the U.S., including its ongoing campaign of unchecked militarism. taking a critical view of that narrative is what used to understood as "anti-war" Leftism... which you're now calling "cynicism." for what purpose? whose interests are *you* serving?
moreover—you're continuing to insult people's intelligence by arbitrarily deciding that the pattern of evidence they're perceiving—which is no more speculative than yours—is just "Russian propaganda." they're dupes, in other words, but *you're* not.
except you're not getting CIA briefings either, are you? so you don't actually know for certain what is factual and what isn't. you're speculating along with the rest of us.
so, again—why do you get to decide by fiat that you're the smart one in the room, and the rest of us are just parroting propaganda?
Let's do a play-by-play review. I made a claim that three things were false Russian propaganda, then I supplied evidence to back up those points. In other words, I made an argument, an argument that disproves certain claims.
* 2014 was a coup to install a pro-Western govt --> demonstrated that a pro-Russian govt already wanted to join the EU, that the cancelling of the access process came as a result of Russian economic warfare, that the EU wasn't that interested in letting Ukraine in, etc. All things that undermine the idea that there was a coup and support the fact that it was a revolution. Additionally I have also supplied the evidence that is said to prove it was a coup, which should have been your job, and pointed out how it's a clever fabrication built on a circumstantial recording.
* NATO is an aggressive, expansionist, imperial project --> rejected this idea by showing that NATO is voluntary, that all these individual countries WANTED to join it, for good reason, that it's purely a defensive alliance, and Article 5 only obliges member states to go to war if another member is attacked first. All of these things are facts.
* That NATO or Ukraine provoked Russia into an invasion --> This is self-evident. Showed the political decisions made by Ukraine that led to the 2014 invasion, which started the war. Further Ukraine isn't in NATO, probably won't be for the forseeable future, so nothing happening in Ukraine had anything to do with NATO.
Further I want to especially call out the logic of the abuser involved in this claim. Just because Ukraine made a political decision or NATO admitted a new state, or moved troops around in NATO member-states, or just anything that pissed Vlad off--none of that justifies an invasion of Ukraine. Zero. It's the same logic as saying that it's okay to hit your partner because they made you mad.
If you want to challenge the validity of what I said, the onus is on you to provide counter-evidence to disprove my conclusion. Or to provide evidence to support the 'alternative set of facts or interpretation of facts'. I am the only one in the conversation to make an argument or adopt a position. All you've done is attack me personally.
But the whole point of even bringing up these three things is to make the point that Ukraine has been explicitly clear about what it is they want, which I can then position as the only valid concern in relation to what is morally right in this situation. That all of this discussion about what is 'realistic' for them, or that the war should end in a way that they don't approve of, for the 'greater good', is imperial thought; it assumes the right to decide things for others, and it's morally bankrupt.
More importantly, I'm really trying to zero in on the fact that the take I'm criticising is propped up entirely by cynicism. That a certainty around it makes it something people want to believe, and that evidence contradicting it gets dismissed, waved off, because information is valid depending on its source. And that things aren't what they appear to be because we know the hidden, darker, actual truth, and are certain of it. This is not a position that someone reasoned their way into, it's something that resonates with a judgement about the nature of the world.
And yes, it's cynicism, the acceptance of darkness and weakness, and not 'anti-war Leftism'. The anti-war part is a cop-out, a way to avoid responsibility. It's easy to say that you want the conflict to end, both Ukraine and Russia say they want the war to end. Everyone does. But the anti-war part quits right there--it has no preference for HOW the war should end, only that it does as soon as possible. In refusing to make a choice about what side is right, it abdicates any responsibility for the outcome. But it absolutely matters how it ends! They're not all equivalent moral choices--Ukraine ceasing to exist as a country, having its heritage wiped out, overwritten by Russia, and its people enslaved by a system they manifestly do not want to live under, that's an EVIL outcome. The right ending, the good one, is the one that restores Ukraine's territory, affords its people the right to choose their future for themselves, validates the idea that states cannot simply take what they want, and punishes the aggressor. And the only reason why people don't support that ending is because they're actually just afraid that the Russians will nuke the world if they lose. I reject this: fear is not an acceptable basis to build a good/correct moral value on. If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, Utilitarian Ethics are the company who paved it.
Finally--please stop projecting your own insecurities onto me. I don't know why having an idea criticised comes across to you as a personal attack against your character. I don't think I'm better than anyone, I don't think I'm superior, I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence, and I'm not deciding anything by fiat, which you must accept. All of that is nonsense, your own personal problem, and you're just doing it to try cut me down instead of making a better argument. I don't care if you disagree, just play the ball, not the man. It's the last time I'll say it--if I see it again my part in our conversation ends.
It's good to see that some people are still in tune with what academic rigour means. I miss the days of serious debate in tutorials, where you could hold an utterly opposing view, but were expected to back it up with rigorous research and valid points that would then be reviewed by your peers in a tutorial, with the guidance of a tutor who was expecting polite and respectful disagreement.
So incredibly funny for you to accuse Rhyd of using strawmen right after you label him as a cynic and then go on to trash cynicism. Can you even hear yourself? I’m surprised R.G. Miga took the time to engage with you any further; you are not to be taken seriously.
They were strawmen. He picked the worst possible, weakest examples, then used them to build an argument around, as if they were the only case possible. He then concluded that having ideals leads to their inversion. We saw it display with the 'woke' ideology, with Orwellian language and behaviour, so it absolutely can be true! But it's not the ONLY thing that can be true. Where's the steel-man case for having ideals? Or, for example, if things like human rights are ideals, which we would say certainly qualify, does having rights always mean they end up being inverted?
If you think that, go be a outed gay pagan magician in Saudi Arabia, and complain you can't get married. Protest for gay rights. See how you get on.
Of course I trash cynicism! I think it's lazy, weak, cowardly, and cheap. It disempowers agency, and supports bankrupt ethics like Utilitarianism. It's a position that I am entitled to argue for, because it's my personal view.
What I think is wild is when people think saying things like 'can you hear yourself' or 'you are not to be taken seriously' is somehow going to land. What's the point of even writing them? It says nothing, convinces no one, and contributes nothing to the conversation.
I immediately distrust anyone who accuses someone they disagree with of cynicism. Because:
1. It's flirting with the ad hominem fallacy. Cynicism is an unpopular philosophy and trying to associate Rhyd's positions with it is more about proving guilt by association than dealing with his content.
2. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a cynic, nor does cynicism demand a particular stance on Ukraine. As it happens, I AM a cynic, and I somewhat disagree with Rhyd on Ukraine, though I don't say much because he is obviously better informed than I am. I'm just enough of a cynic to think Rhyd is a bit idealistic. And not in a naive, fight for his ideals way, bit in the sense that he thinks, for example, that the Biden family is involved in shady dealings with a whiff of conspiracy regarding Ukraine. Personally, my bet is Hunter Biden is just an incompetent white boy from a well-connected family whose Daddy got him a lucrative job with a sketchy oil company, and that he was likely kept away from whatever shady dealings went on so he wouldn't bungle them. Likewise, as a parent myself, I suspect his pardon was not a political move, but simply the result of an old man who didn't have anything to lose just saying "Fuck it" and pardoning his kid. We're always looking for deeper reasons for things, and sometimes there are. But sometimes the world turns on incompetents and old men who might as well do whatever the fuck they want because they've got one foot in the grave and the other in the Oval Office. That's a cynical view.
Almost everything that contains even an ounce of criticism can be called ad hominem in this era, because people associate their identity with their (current) ideas. For me it's a question of what is being criticised--the idea or the person. The former is fair game, the latter isn't.
I disagree on trying to use guilt-by-association versus the content. I think I am very straightforwardly dealing with the content, and giving some key specifics. As I said a the beginning of my post, I can't access the 'paid-only' content (only the preview), and can't comment. So I'm trying to conglomerate a lot of separate reactions into one post.
The Ukraine situation is obviously the lightning rod and litmus test for worldviews, so is incredibly useful as a way of accessing and discussing them. The worldview problem is the one I am most interested in engaging with, because it's the one that drives decision-making.
It is my honest assessment that this 'there are no good guys' counter-narrative, which by the way is shared by many others beyond this substack, is something that resonates with a cynical worldview, and is not something per se that was reached by process of reason or logic. When we start from a position that says things aren't what they appear to be because we know a hidden truth, and we can dismiss information based on its source alone, we're in a position impervious to truth. Instead, we're looking for coherence or congruence with something we believe in already.
If you think that Rhyd is a bit idealistic, I must be off the charts! Lol. I disagree on whether or not it's fine to be a cynic. It's not. It's a judgement about the nature of the world, something that is imposed upon it. Personally, I think cynicism is weak, cowardly, lazy, and cheap. That's why I reject it. But my own moral judgement isn't what I am most concerned with. It's our (Western) apparent willingness to discount and discard the factors that support our own self-determination, to throw baby out with bathwater, and the inability to recognise that the alternatives to Western society, the ones already engaged in or preparing to employ violence towards their aims, they intend to step into the void and enforce their orthodoxy. Worldviews like cynicism normalise such activity, which make us passive and mean we can't spot the difference between a legitimate threat and imperialist politics. I don't give a shit about Biden, Trump, or American politics--but it floors me that a situation like Ukraine would be viewed in the same way as any US domestic issue, just another instance of corruption. The comparisons between 1939 and today are not meritless, and I see the same mistakes being made again, lessons of the past unheeded.
1. Your first argument- that all critiques are ad hominem these days- is flawed. You show a lack of understanding of even the most basic ideas of cynicism. Since you don't understand what cynicism is, the only possible use the label can have for you is to tag certain ideas for destruction. In doing so, you are advocating for setting aside Rhyd's ideas on the basis of the attitude you assume he used in inventing them, not on the merit of his arguments. Which is a sub-type of ad hominem. And no, this is not because Rhyd identifies strongly with his ideas because of identity politics- it actually doesn't matter what his ideas are or how strongly he holds them. Your attempt to link them to a word you don't understand beyond it having a negative connotation shows your intent to discredit his ideas on something other than their own merits.
2. I disagree that Ukraine is any sort of lightning rod or litmus test for anyone's worldview. It may be a way you reduce the complexity of thought among other people to "us" and "them", but that is your personal interpretation. For example, a Russian dissident could hope the the war in Ukraine drags on to weaken Putin's position within Russia, while hoping to do worse than Putin. A Chechen Islamist could hope the US continues to fund Ukraine in hope that Russia being distracted by Ukraine will allow them to establish a caliphate in a rebuilt Chechnya. Those people would be on your side of such a simplistic litmus test, while potentially being a greater threat to your ideals than Putin. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is how the US ended up funding the Taliban and forces that ultimately pulled off the 9/11 attacks.
3. "It's our (Western) apparent willingness to discount and discard the factors that support our own self-determination, to throw baby out with bathwater, and the inability to recognise that the alternatives to Western society, the ones already engaged in or preparing to employ violence towards their aims, they intend to step into the void and enforce their orthodoxy. Worldviews like cynicism normalise such activity, which make us passive and mean we can't spot the difference between a legitimate threat and imperialist politics."
In this, you identify an "us" (Western society) and a "them" (presumably Putin/ Russia and the alliance he seeks to build). Cynics were the first in the Western tradition to regard themselves as "cosmopolitans" (citizens of the world) and to assert common humanity as more important than membership in a clan or city-state. Cynics also historically regarded hierarchies as ridiculous and demeaning, and viewed the only legitimate authority as that of Nature. It is true that cynics would first question the motives of those who set themselves up as leaders of men before advocating for conscription or war. And historically, they would be right to do so. At one point in time, a lot of stupid things were done to protect us from the threat of the USSR, which was also supposed to be an existential threat to Western society. Before that, Muslims or Orthodox Christians were the threats to Western society that required support for military crusades. Even Alexander the Great is said to have paid his respects to Diogenes the Cynic before setting out on a campaign which I'm sure was sold as some version of protecting Greek society from other societies. Diogenes told him to stop standing in his sunlight. Ironically, it was from the ideals of cosmopolitanism and equality espoused by the cynics that we Westerners have build our greatest achievements. So maybe listening to the cynics isn't such a bad idea for those who want to learn something from history.
In 1. You're attacking points I didn't make and reaching conclusions that don't follow from them. I made it very clear I am criticising ideas and not people--and in fact in this thread it is I who have been personally attacked.
There is also a semantic game being played here with the term 'cynicism', in trying to separate the standard mainstream definitions of the term and common usage from the pure philosophical tradition, and then to use that distinction to build an awkward No True Scotsman with it. The Oxford definition of cynicism: 'an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest', and also 'an attitude characterized by a general distrust of the motives of others'. I made the claim that this is true because of an inability to take at face value, as bona fide, what actually is stated to have happened, and more importantly what people are saying they want. Instead, we distrust this, label it as corruption, self-interested meddling, and then use that denial to discard any entitlement to agency. Because of this dark lens the situation is being viewed through, Ukraine is unworthy and it's fine to decide things for them, like what their borders ought to be. The Russians, who are murdering them, are being afforded more concern.
You can claim I have insufficient knowledge of the cynic philosophical tradition, in a basic mid-wit 'well, actually... ' type way, if you want, I get that you are an adherent and any time the word is used that's what comes to mind. But don't try to claim my points have no relation to the term, because it's obviously untrue. I'm using the term in the vernacular in which most people use it, and I think it is the best way to describe what I see happening.
In 2. I don't understand what you're trying to argue. If you disagree that it's a litmus test or a lightning rod, fine. But the point about complexity of thought is both mistaken and not applicable. My entire argument focuses on the idea that what Ukraine wants is the fundamental, central, consideration, and that everyone who fails to put them into the centre is engaging in imperial thought, and supporting the immoral attempt to subjugate them. So those examples you list, of other types of people who might be on team us or them, only applies to your characterisation of 'us vs them', nothing of mine.
I want to be very clear about Russia--the reason I am against them isn't because they're the western boogeyman. It's because of what they're doing and saying. They invaded another country without justification, intentionally targeted and murdered civilians and non-combatants, espoused actual genocidal language, and are intent to destroy a system of principles and rules so that they can dominate those around them. I'm not a stan for the EU or NATO, and I don't care one way or another whether Ukraine joins them. But I care those choices are being forcibly taken from Ukraine and that there's one country who is flagrantly intending to destabilise a system that presents the alternative to the use of force as the basis of relations. Russia is the only country in Europe who is threatening its neighbours, and I want
Russia to be stopped so that stability can return.
In 3. I think I have learned something from history! That's the entire point. But let me confide something: I am indulging myself in this conversation in a way that I probably ought not to. I don't believe time is simply linear and bends toward progress. What we're seeing in this situation and in general is the breakdown of modern society--the failing of the false promise of materialism, the Gods of the Copybook Headings returning. It's a cycle, in this case signified astrologically by the transit of Uranus specifically but in tandem with the other outer planets, all of which are changing signs. This cannot be stopped, the collective shadow has yet to be integrated.
I don't know if you've read Bayo Akomolafe, about how we respond to a crisis being part of it, and to turn that another way--trying to solve the crisis with the same mindset that caused it is the problem. I do not believe in advocacy, and I don't engage in it, in general, because advocacy is built on an idea that one knows the outcomes that will occur, and has positioned themselves at the centre of the universe, fit to have their cause implemented on others. But all advocates come into conflict with the advocates of the opposing position; that conflict is the cause of the crisis. All the Anti-War advocates will be opposed by those they claim are 'hawks', and the result is a fractured, polarised society descending into disorder, and it becomes impossible to solve problems. I look at the situation in Ukraine and Palestine, other places, and I think it's absolutely obvious that if basic rights like self-determination and sovereignty were respected, there wouldn't be a war or conflict. It amazes me that so many in the magical community, who I think should know this, don't seem to, lost to a morass of other perspectives and considerations that aren't built on maintaining right relation from the bottom-up.
Is what I'm doing now advocacy, I guess you could call it that, and that means I probably shouldn't have said anything, to actually allow my post- philosophical positions to actually be post-, to remove any intention of mine to contest the process. But I didn't, so this is my fault, to have gotten carried away, and the medicine that I'm not yet in true acceptance. So I take your point about not standing in my own sunlight.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your second and third points, so I'm just going to let that percolate for a while and maybe I'll get it. However, I think you are missing something within my first point. My point is not that "cynicism" REALLY means the philosophy of cynicism, or to move words around. My point is that the modern definition has no content. It doesn't tag a philosophy that Rhyd could follow or not. It's the mental tag for the stereotype of the depressed, misanthropic pessimist who only picks apart what others do and contributes nothing. Since the modern definition of "cynicism" is just a stereotype, it can't be used in any way except an ad hominem attack to discredit those who question "too much"- which is a subjective judgement in itself. And my point in bringing up the history was to point out that the modern definition of cynicism was created for exactly that reason- to discredit those who questioned the social elites of Greek and Rome millennia ago. The modern definition of cynicism says far more about those accusing others of it than those accused of it.
I think everyone who knows me personally would find it hilarious you think I'm a cynic, as I'm unfortunately renown for being an incorrigible optimist.
But I don't think you realised that Idealism is actually a philosophical movement and not a synonym for "optimist" nor the opposite of "cynicism." And materialism, especially the animist-Marxist materialism which I espouse, is against philosophical Idealism.
You said: "The Ukraine situation is obviously the lightning rod and litmus test for worldviews." Nah. I'd argue Palestine/Israel is a hell of a lot more divisive, since it's a clash between Global North and Global South. Few in the Global South are gonna lose sleep one way or another if Ukraine's borders get a bit smaller with a less-than-favorable peace deal.
But if you want to make the 1939 comparison, because it seems everyone who wants more Ukrainian men to die on their behalf does, I'll remind you how Germany got to the situation of economic collapse that made Hitler possible. That was the Treaty of Versailles, where Germany was forced into poverty as punishment for starting the first world war. Seems those hoping Russia will be likewise punished for its aggression might be forgetting what happens in such situations...
I do not sense optimism in such a take, and I'm only judging by what is written, since I don't know you personally.
The main reason for claiming cynicism, and why I think it's true, is the inability to take at face value what is happening, and instead to point to a hidden truth, which is darker, base, corrupted. It can't, for example, be that a people reached a fork in the road, had a moment in their culture where they wanted to purge corruption from their institutions, and go in a different direction from the troubles and oppression they had been constantly plagued by. Instead these changes must all be the result of others' manipulations and machinations. There is a total failure to situate Ukrainians in the centre of their own story and of a conflict about them, and a willingness to ignore what they say is what they want in favour of what others think is best for them, or the world in general.
I am actually uninterested in and opposed to such meta-perspectives--global north and south, and so on. If I as a person would want to be able to make choices for myself and live the lifestyle I choose, then I want the same for others. It comes down to as simple a thing as the basic respect for agency and autonomy. If you would not want someone else to determine things for you, then don't support it happening to them.
BTW, I know that idealism is a philosophical school. I would claim that the writing above uses 'ideals' not in a strict philosophical sense to describe the primacy of mind and idea, but in the banal sense of basic principles, and argues against having them.
If you want to engage in a more philosophical dialogue, an even hotter take is that animist-Marxist materialism is a contradiction. Materialism seems to me to be a fundamental denial of the animist cosmos and metaphysics. Not sure how it is justifiable to work with spirits and the divine while also supporting the idea that claims none of those things can exist because reality is entirely dead stochastic matter. The cognitive dissonance of that must be intense.
I take exception to the claim that I want Ukrainian men to die on my behalf, that's a cheap shot and untrue. And you wonder why I claimed you were a cynic...
What I want is not to support the domination of others, the re-colonising and oppression of a people, and the validation of the idea that violence makes right. It is self-evident that forcing Ukraine to surrender any amount of their territory or land to a people who have subjugated them in every incarnation of the state (Russian Empire, USSR, Federation) is wrong. I don't think this is even an unpopular opinion--I think most people would very easily support a solution in which Ukraine restored its territory, the Russians were forced back into their own borders, and Ukraine became free to choose its future--because this is the right thing, the Good outcome. The only reason I can think of for why that option has been taken off the menu is fear--people are (irrationally) afraid the Russians will nuke the world rather than lose. And accordingly they are fine with sacrificing a country to prevent it from happening, they just won't admit it openly. So where you claimed I want them to die on my behalf, actually I think you demand they surrender on yours.
It wasn't the treaty of versailles which caused the German economy to collapse enabling the nazis taking power. It was the worldwide depression of the 1930s. Mid-Weimer Germany enjoyed considerable prosperity.
Arendt's point that propaganda is ultimately not trying to tell you what to believe; it is trying to get you to the point of not believing anything. At the point we are at, holding fast to the beliefs of one's tribe is a poor substitute for Truth, but it's the best we have.
We can post all kinds of contradictory "evidence" of what happened in Ukraine in 2014, but that doesn't tell us what each and every Ukrainian or Crimean thought was their best way forward then or now. It's a stretch to trust plebiscites or even elections these days. But even if we could trust them, surely the losers in a "fair" election have the right to not be dominated by the winners. But this logic justifies both the Maidan revolution/coup/whatever and the Eastern Ukraine secession (at first attempted and heavily attacked by the Kyiv government)which has morphed into a Russian occupation.
All I know for sure is lots of people are dying. I'm pretty sure that most of the dead people and their families would rather they weren't dead, regardless of political outcomes. Until the Russian invasion, it was non-controversial to call both Russia and Ukraine (and Zelensky in particular) deeply corrupt, remember? The hordes of deserters from both sides of the conflict are apparently less convinced of the righteousness of their causes than the armchair warriors on the internet.
We can't stop the lies. But we can stop the killing because the majority of weapons being supplied in both Ukraine and Gaza are coming from US. Will this lead to a fair and just peace? No, there can be no fair and just peace in this era of unending narrative war. In that war, you can choose to be right, or you can choose to be happy (or at least at peace with those who disagree with you.) You can't have both.
"We can't stop the lies. But we can stop the killing because the majority of weapons being supplied in both Ukraine and Gaza are coming from US. " - True. But the supporters of Ukraine/Israel will be howling and gnashing their teeth and try to destroy your career/relationships/public image if you agitate for that, won't they? So agitating for a stop of weapons in the public square simply involves arguing and presenting opposing narratives. They'll attack you so there is no choice but attack them in return. You can't will political change without a narrative war happening.
I'd like to totally agree with you. But I would have to think that narrative wars can be won. Our recent histories of asymmetrical warfare incline me to believe that even overwhelming force is ultimately powerless against ruthless enough determination. Similarly, overwhelming evidence and even censorship seems to be ineffective against stubbornly-held beliefs and tribal solidarity. I hate to be in the position of defending Trump's wrecking ball impulsiveness and callousness. But it is an alternative to the proven pointlessness of the wars of attrition on battlefields real and intellectual. I'm not saying it's good thing.
I suspect that the fact that Trump engineered that cease fire in Gaza is due to the pro-Palestine side (which I belong to and have fought on) having won the narrative war. Trump is very attuned to what people want on a gut level and he likes to look good by showily if superficially obliging. (If it's not economic.) IMO people wanted, on a gut level, an end to the genocide. And so he did that. I know it is a shitty ceasefire and no end to the suffering but still better.
Do you think if the US stops the supply of weapons or aid to Ukraine, then the war will end? And if it did, what kind of ending would it produce? Would the Ukrainians be happy with the peace deal? Or would they be sacrificed to what others consider a greater good? Supporters of Ukraine in that situation would be howling at you because they don't want to be the sacrifice.
That's the problem with the anti-war position. One can say that they just want the conflict to end, then abdicate any responsibility for what it looks like, or the outcome it creates. It's saying 'I'm fine with Ukraine being wiped off the map, and its people and their heritage erased, subsumed by Russia, because I want the killing to end'. That is a possible ending to the war, but not the only one, and picking an ending that avoids cementing evil requires choosing a side and paying the cost for supporting it.
Russia will win anyway and if I could, I would chose to sacrifice less actual living, breathing young men on the altar of abstract ideas like 'Ukraine'. Russia has no intention of wiping the actual living people of the map - quite unlike Israel - so fighting for 'Ukraine' the abstract concept is throwing ones life away for foam and delusion.
You don't have to invoke Israel, that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Ukraine is not an abstract idea, don't confuse the state for the people. Ukraine is a very real thing, made of very real people, with a very long heritage, and that's actually central to this entire affair. Have you seen Putin's 2021 paper on Russian history? He resurrects the old Imperial lie that Russia is the only inheritor of Kyivan Rus (which applies equally to Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia), and because of it, there is no such thing as Ukraine, or Ukrainian people. He has quite literally argued that it's fine for Russia to re-conquer Ukraine because it is merely to reunite the wayward Russians with their motherland.
Telling Ukraine that it isn't real, it's just a delusion, I can't say that would go over very well with Ukranians. Has to be a product of American culture--I can't imagine other cultures agreeing that there's no such thing as their identity, the tie of blood to land, the lineage of ancestors to place.
I also think Ukrainians in the trenches would disagree with your characterisation of their sacrifices and struggle. Why is it that someone on the outside knows best about what matters to them?
One thing that is obvious is that at every turn, the determination of Ukraine has been underestimated and ignored. People said that a revolution there could obviously not have been true--had to be the Americans; they said Ukraine couldn't stand up to the Russian army; they're saying now that without the US, they'll just surrender; and it was obvious yesterday that Trump and Vance thought they could strong-arm Zelensky into groveling and complying. He didn't.
I asked you that question because it's clear to me that the Ukrainians will keep fighting, with or without the US's help, even in the context of the world's worst insurgency; nor will they accept a deal that sacrifices them. It's a failure to place Ukraine at the centre of the Ukrainian conflict, to understand and respect what they obviously intend. If the US wants to be isolationist and withdraw, then fine, so be it. But it will not be a solution to the crisis and it will not result in the outbreak of peace.
I'm just gonna say: get some fowl! Chickens, ducks, geese... They will viciously take care of those pests haha.
I'm partly joking of course, since I don't know your conditions or long term garden plans, but hey, if you're open to the possibility some time... Go forward.
It's very hard to keep a plot of land with only one or two things going on. Only when the system starts to becomes, well, a complex ecosystem, it achieves natural succession and stability. I know it also sounds idealistic, but after all there's a lot of complexity in a healthy landscape, and there still has to be a certain human hand if what you're achieving in the end is a garden.
"But that’s not how the real works. If someone forces me to kill someone else on their behalf and then tells me it’s because they’re making me “free,” I’m pretty likely to suspect otherwise. And if you’re witnessing a fight between two people, and then you see a third person hand one of them a weapon, you’re going to assume that third party is also involved in the fight as well."
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be a concept most Americans grasp. How many people actually want to hire someone to peer into bedroom windows to see if anyone is having gay sex? How many want to hire armed men to put kids in cages? How many would contribute to a GoFundMe to buy bombs to blow up Palestinian children? How many want to hire armed men to prevent twelve year olds who got raped from having an abortion? But Americans continue to vote for an contribute to politicians and organizations that want to use their money to do exactly those things. Because they feel like if someone else does the actual bad thing, they aren't responsible, even if they paid for and advocated for the bad thing to be done. They believe the moral high ground of opposing immigration, antisemitism, or abortion is more important than the actual consequences of enforcing their views. The same is true of Ukraine- most of the pro-Zelensky crowd don't actually like Ukraine any more than most "pro-lifers" like forcing women to carry dead fetuses to term. But they believe that fighting the evil of Russia and standing up to bad things is worth the consequences (that are conveniently enacted on people they don't know).
Then there is also the aspect of socially-constructed reality, which is my modern gloss on Stirner's idea of "spooks". The socially constructed reality is that Ukraine is good guys and Russia is bad guys. Submission to the socially constructed reality is considered pro-social behavior. Heresy is denying the socially constructed reality, and is assumed to be the result anti-social traits such as believing you are smarter than the group or the leaders of the group and unwillingness to bend and submit to the socially-constructed reality. By questioning the socially-constructed reality, you are automatically excommunicated from the group, and therefore assumed to be part of another group. Which is actually considered preferable to thinking for yourself and not submitting to any of the available options for socially constructed realities. Submission to something means you do not own yourself, which means ownership of your mind could at some point be transferred to their group through conversion or conquest. If you own your own mind, you will always be a threat. See also: how much the Democrats blame people who refuse to vote or leftists who don't like them for what the Republicans do, while trying to convert and win over the Republicans who are actually doing the things they don't like.
Which goes into where I'm a bit more cynical than you. Over the years, I've noticed more and more issues being Balkanized. Just like imperial powers once intentionally drew maps that created "countries" with parts of several ethnic or religious groups in them so they could prevent unified resistance to their colonization, I see political issues being split and divided between the two American parties in a way that forces incoherence and fighting within the parties. What other than Balkanization could account for the Democratic Party supporting women's bodily autonomy and equality- but also the abolition of sex-segregated sports that allow women to compete fairly without being flattened by a 300lb-lean body-weight male? How is it that the Republicans are both the pro-natalist party and the party trying to ban IVF? How come the "America First" party is funding Israel's war in Gaza? Or how about how is the party of big business and rural America promising to deport the undocumented cheap labor force American farming and industry relies on? I don't know if it's a "conspiracy"- like you I try to avoid conspiratorial thinking, and besides I'm really doubtful that most of those involved are intelligent and discreet enough to pull off a conspiracy so well even if they wanted to. Hanlon's Razor ("never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity") argues against a deliberate Balkanization of politics, but I can't deny the pattern I see. While I don't believe some mastermind is pulling the strings to Balkanize issues, I do think the party positions have become socially-constructed realities ("faiths") that people are supposed to swallow whole and tithe to the church of. Sadly, cults which demand adherence to obviously stupid rules to signal group cohesion are more stable and long-lasting than cults which are more laissez faire. Which may explain why very extreme positions on issues are popular in both parties, even among people who individually don't agree with those positions. Supporting those extreme and illogical positions signals submission to the faith, while criticism of them signals dangerous individualism and arrogance.
I really enjoyed reading this, and there's a lot of really good things in it that I agree with. It's very well spoken.
I would ask you--in this statement: 'The socially constructed reality is that Ukraine is good guys and Russia is bad guys.' do you intend to imply that there are no good guys (or bad guys) because it's all an artifice? Is there good and evil, with capital G and E?
'But they believe that fighting the evil of Russia and standing up to bad things is worth the consequences (that are conveniently enacted on people they don't know).'
I believe this--I am not a utilitarian--and I am personally willing to pay the consequences, even if it is my own death. You for sure understand that I've gone out heavy for Ukraine, for the justness of its cause, and the point you make is valid, so I want to make it clear that if war comes to my shore, and it very well could spread into the rest of Europe, I will put my body where my principles are. I do not advocate for things that I would not do myself.
"I will put my body where my principles are. I do not advocate for things that I would not do myself."
Talk is cheap. You probably genuinely feel you would be willing to die fighting Russian imperialism. But would you sacrifice your children to that ideal? Would you support a war that is cutting off life-saving care for a spouse or a parent who is severely ill? How would you handle having to leave a parent with dementia without care in the face of an invading army to take your children and flee to safety? Or to fight Russia? Dying as a soldier in war is nothing compared to surviving in war. And you have no right to make those decisions for others even if you theoretically would put yourself in that position. Others have different morals and worldviews, and what might seem cowardly to you might be an act of great courage to someone else and the reverse.
As far as whether there is a Good and Evil- not in Ukraine. That place has been a meatgrinder for the young men of Europe for hundreds of years. Russia's always fighting a group of other world powers for control of the trade routes and natural resources of Ukraine. I don't agree with the Russian imperialism that began this round of war in Ukraine- but I also don't think throwing gas on that fire helped anyone. Either in this instance, or back when it was young British soldiers dying in Crimea, or during WWI and the Russian Civil War (which had heavy investment from other world powers) or during WWII. Nor was there nearly the same amount of political will to support Rojava despite their principles being far more admirable and more aligned with Western ideals than the far-right ideals of Ukrainian groups such as the Azov battalion. If we are the good guys, why is it that our military aid always seems to go to far-right "freedom fighters" like the Taliban or Azov battalion or Netanyahu and company rather than to groups aligned with our supposed ideals of ethnic and gender equality?
But whether or not there is Good or Evil in Ukraine or elsewhere, my point about a socially-constructed reality is different from what you are thinking about whether there is Good or Evil in a philosophical sense. I recommend you read a bit of Stirner's philosophy. Even if you heartily disagree with it, it will change the way you think and make you more in tune with your own interests and wants.
Perhaps the problem is not the beetles, but that growing “expensive” exotic plants on a balcony with purchased soil is not the material condition those plants need.
The beetles are a symptom of conditions unbounded by the complex relationships that exist in a functioning ecosystem.
Picking them out and boiling them in order to save expensive exotic hobby plants is an apt metaphor for many of the responses to “our current environmental situation”.
thoughts on "lore" in place of "myth" as "a popular but factually dubious narrative"?
we need "myth" for more important work, as shown here.
(also, tangential hot take: superhero movies are modern *epics*, not modern "myths." there is no such thing as a "modern" myth.)
I'm not a paid subscriber, so I couldn't comment on the other Ukraine posts, but on this one I can. So I want to take the opportunity to respond, not for sake of argument, but because I see an underlying idea that I believe should be challenged. I want to talk about it.
I disagree with your take on Ukraine. My question is--are you a cynic? And do we have to accept a cynical worldview as 'the real'? That is what I see underlying your position; what I see it reducing down to. And I outright reject cynicism. I think it's a terrible way to view the world and live life.
Cynicism is a narrative--a judgement. It's not a necessity or objective requirement to reach that conclusion about reality, no matter how much corruption or evil there is. We do not have to decide that the nature of reality is dark.
In your writing above, the initial cynicism plays out by use of strawmen: first by claiming that having ideals always leads to its inversion (e.g. antiracism), and second that ideals are a function of progress, which pins them to shitty materialist metaphysics. Yes, you can do them that way, but you don't have to. You can have authentic values, ideals, and principles, in service to good, in an animist context. This is what I try to do as a magician.
Further, there is cynicism underlying the rest of the argument about Ukraine, to the point that it distorts and undermines 'the real'. If you're colouring reality with an ideology, I don't think you can see it clearly.
Thus, I would like to propose an alternative take on Ukraine: there absolutely are good guys, Ukraine is one of them, and JD Vance/Trump/Trump's administration are making a catastrophic series of unforced errors. Notwithstanding their narcissism and obsession with proving their 'betterness' than the Biden admin., everything they are doing is making a general European war more probable, not less.
To explain it, I have to first get rid of Russian propaganda: 1) There was no CIA-backed coup in 2014 in Ukraine; 2) NATO is not an aggressive, dangerous, imperial force gobbling up territory; and 3) Russia was provoked into the conflict by NATO or Ukraine itself making political choices. All of these are provably false, and 3) is a twisted, toxic, immoral ethic equivalent to 'look what you made me do'.
We need to situate the perspective properly--with Ukraine at centre--and reject 'spheres of influence' and a geopolitics built around 'great powers'. Ukraine, as a state, is a sovereign, constituted by the will of its people, and is entitled as a sovereign to self-determination. We need to understand that, and focus on it, because what Ukraine wants is the only perspective that matters in terms of right and wrong.
And what do the Ukrainians want? Not to be Russian. That's unequivocal. They also want to move out of the orbit of Russia and toward Europe, and decisions to that effect are the actual cause of the war.
You can see this If you go back to 2012, from the pre-maidan era, where the Yanukovych govt was trying to convince a skeptical EU to begin the accession process. We need to really internalise that--why would a coup be necessary, to replace the Yanukovych govt with a pro-Western one, when the pro-Russian Yanukovych govt was already intent on joining the EU?
Likewise, the EU was actually reluctant to accept Ukraine, because they felt Ukraine didn't have sufficient safeguards in law to protect rights--especially with Yulia Tymoshenko in jail for political persecution. That's another important point that has been forgotten--the EU actually resisted Ukraine--so again, what good would a coup have done if the other party to the process was reluctant to accept the deal?
But both sides (EU/Ukraine) did have the desire to work it out--and the Yanukovych govt did introduce sufficient changes to keep the process moving, which was due to be formally announced at the Vilnius summit in November 2012. That never happened.
Why didn't it happen? Because the Russians engaged in economic warfare against Ukraine. In August 2012, they banned the import of Ukrainian goods into Russia, and attempted to force the other members of the Eurasian Economic Union to do the same. The ban caused Ukraine millions in losses; created economic chaos, even forced Ukraine to talk to the IMF for a bailout. The move made clear to Ukraine that joining the EU would end up an act of economic destruction. Yanukovych cancelled the accession process over the economic woes--and that is what caused the protests, leading to the revolution.
The protests themselves had no central leader, no authority, and were not aligned with any specific political party--initially it was started by students. And as Yanukovych and the Berkut cracked down, the protests reciprocally grew in size and strength. The more brutal Yanukovych became, the larger the protests got. Until eventually, after Berkut snipers murdered 100 protesters (which I watched live on YouTube), Yanukovych and most of his ministers fled. The Rada sacked him for deserting his post, not impeached for crimes against the people. Poroshenko became President, and... called elections, which Zelensky won handily. So what kind of coup ends with an election and the peaceful transfer of power? It was a revolution, and it restored the 2004 Constitution. Calling it a coup is propaganda.
More importantly, the point in recounting this is to demonstrate that the people of Ukraine have proven unequivocally what they want. They want EU and they want NATO--because NATO actually works to deter Russia, which is why most of the post-Soviet states joined it. The key thing to remember about NATO is that it's voluntary, not expansionary or coercive, and purely defensive. No NATO states have designs on Russian territory or want to control Russia, or even to threaten it. What NATO represents to these small states is freedom from Russian control. Which is why the Russians hate it so much.
So if Ukraine is so clear about their intentions, why is it that people who are supposed to be anti-imperial feel like it's acceptable to ignore them? It's frustrating to watch everyone who says they care about the people of Ukraine treating them like a toddler in a custody battle.
To decide not only what is good for Ukraine, but worse, to engage with the very people who want to impose their will on Ukraine, and are willing to kill and destroy to do it.
Thus, it's because I'm not a cynic and I do have the very principles you call 'neoliberal' (even though I'm not neoliberal) that I can see that what Zelensky and Ukraine wants is actual freedom--the ability to decide for themselves what kind of future they'll have. I see in them exactly the same thing we all want for ourselves. I see the same rights that we have and believe in. Or in other words, I see a 'good guy', not corruption--if Russia stops fighting, the war ends; if Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. It's existential, and that's not hyperbole. I see a people with a distinct heritage resisting having that heritage erased from existence. And if all of that is true, and I think it's objectively, provably true, then that is what is 'the real'--things actually are what they appear to be. I think it is only after we have already succumbed to cynicism and adopted a pessimistic, jaded view of the world that we decide otherwise.
I said earlier that Vance/Trump are making a series of unforced errors--so let me explain them. They are: turning a security conference into a domestic political issue; antagonising states that are allies, weakening the relationships; withdrawing or becoming isolationist when there is a legitimate threat to European stability (repeating the same mistake they made in 1939); engaging in appeasement; and demonstrating repeatedly that they have no principles or ethics (e.g. trying to buy Greenland, removing Palestinians from Gaza, negotiating peace with Russia directly without either the EU (who is expected to be guarantor of the deal) or Ukraine, etc.) and cannot be trusted. Those errors, if they continue to occur, will end with Europe rejecting the US, and the US withdrawing from European affairs. That in turn might mean Europe potentially having to directly enter the war in Ukraine to keep Ukraine from collapsing. Because unlike what some people think, what Trump seems to think, Ukraine will fight on and the EU can't let them fail (or at least some EU states will not let them fail (aka UK/Poland/France)). Most EU states have very good reason to believe that if Russia consolidates a victory over Ukraine, it will begin targeting them to destabilise their politics, economics, and social systems.
Finally, I know this is a wall of text--it's just that all the cynicism and jaded takes got to me, and I didn't want to just unsubscribe to something I otherwise value and respect. I hope it doesn't come across as being argumentative, I think it's worth having a dialogue about. I think we hate our own Western countries too much, to the point it enables those who would destroy them to act with impunity. We don't recognise the value of what we have, even if our society is deeply flawed and we continually fail to live up to our principles. People don't understand that the alternatives are much worse if you value being able to make choices for yourself.
Thanks for your time.
and if we get rid of the American propaganda that your three central points are "Russian propaganda," what happens?
damn shame you spent hours laboring over this comment when you could have just asked yourself why you think everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is being duped by propaganda—whereas you're the clear-eyed moral titan who can see through it all.
nobody can feed *you* a slanted narrative, right? you're just too damn clever. unlike the rest of us poor slobs.
we can disagree about the significanxe of facts in a complex situation, but taking one collection of facts and dumping it into a bucket labeled "Russian propagand" is pure, defiant stupidity.
First, you haven't refuted any claims I made, you just dismissed them out of hand by calling them 'American propaganda'. That approach speaks to weakness in both thought and argument.
Second, you're attacking me the person, rather than the ideas or values. I never said anything about everyone else being wrong, or that I'm better than anyone else. Those are things you're projecting onto me; they arise from a conflict in you. And again they don't have anything to do with the content. Also, the name-calling and insults do little to make your point better.
Third, all three of those items are Russian propaganda--they literally originate from Russia--and there have been Kremlin talking points in other Ukraine content. I stand by the analysis--I have defended my position with facts. Unlike you who haven't come anywhere near an argument or a fact.
Finally, the post was about the fact that this counter-narrative 'there's no good guys' and other writing on Ukraine is built on a cynical view of the world, which I argue distorts it. The thing that is so dangerous about cynicism and deep belief in conspiracy is that it comes packaged with an equivalent amount of certainty. At a high-enough level of either or both, people stop looking for truth or doing critical thinking because they don't need to--they're certain--they already know the truth. Which is what I see in your reply. I can absolutely be wrong--but I'm actively looking for truth and I will abandon an indefensible position. I cannot say the same about you, based on what you wrote, which means you're only right if you're lucky, because you wouldn't know why you're right.
Again--being cynical or jaded is a choice. We don't have to view the world through a dark lens. Especially when that cynicism is being weaponised via false equivocation to bring people onside of a mass-murdering dictator. I think if you you find yourself agreeing with Putin, it's a sign you need to reevaluate.
Also, there really wasn't a need for such a reply to me--it's weak and lazy. I wrote what I wrote because I respect Rhyd. I read his work every time it comes into my inbox, and I wanted to say something I've been holding back. It was for him, and it was a labour to write, because I care. I don't mind talking to you--if you want to discuss the issue--but if you're just gonna insult, ignore anything inconvenient, and dismiss good-faith effort, you don't need to bother because I'll just ignore you.
explain the difference: i say something is American propaganda, and it speaks to "weakness in both thought and argument." you say something is "Russian propaganda" and it's an incisive, legitimate analysis.
i can explain how American propaganda works, because i'm an American. i'm the target audience.
can you explain how all this "Russian propaganda" has affected all the people who are observing and commenting on these three points, independently of one another? it must be some incredibly devious program of influence, with all these "Russian" talking points spread so consistently around the world—in spite of the fact that Russian media is being actively suppressed almost everywhere outside of Russia.
i mean, it *sounds* an awful lot like the same neo-McCarthyite bullshit that CNN and MSNBC have been peddling for the purposes of ginning up a war, but go on. let's hear it.
No, what I said was weakness in thought and argument was dismissing a claim without bothering to refute it. There was nothing in your reply that even attempted to argue that my points were wrong.
There is also a difference between something being propaganda and something being true or false. Propaganda is almost always misleading or wrong--but it doesn't have to be, per se. Those three things I listed literally ARE Russian propaganda--you can hear them said directly from Putin or Lavrov himself. This part should not be controversial.
The question is--are they true? And I've provided evidence to support the fact that they are provably false. On the coup topic, for example, the only evidence given for the claim that it was a coup is a recording of Victoria Nuland on the phone, talking about who the US would like to see in power, plus the very true history of the CIA fomenting revolutions to install new administrations. This is a very clever tactic--you take the belief amongst people that the CIA does this kind of stuff all the time, and you add to it a hint that they might have been doing so again, and voila, you have 'proof'. But that call doesn't prove anything other than a State Dept official had an opinion about who they wanted to be in charge after a revolution took place. What a shock.
I would also argue that my points are not propaganda--by definition--because they do not go to support any political position or party. I am trying to do two things: 1) challenge the validity of cynicism as a basis for geopolitics; and 2) place Ukraine in the centre of the discussion about affairs affecting them, and build a moral position around the legitimacy of their unequivocal desires and intention. I am dismantling propaganda.
But to answer your question, about how Russian propaganda made it into mainstream American politics, it happened because the Kremlin had a message for Republican Dissidents, and Republican Dissidents became MAGA, and MAGA became the Republican Party. Putin actually managed to bring both the far-left (communists/anarchists) and the far-right in the US into alignment. For the far-left, he takes the American Imperialism/hegemony angle, where America is always up to no good, always at war, always involved in other countries' politics, overthrowing their government, etc, and positions Russia as its victim, and with NATO as the transnational sidekick. For the far-right, he built on the cynicism of the dissidents and the foaming-at-the-mouth hatred by Republicans of the Biden regime. Anything that Biden supported must automatically be evil and wrong. That's where the messaging starts.
It's actually incredible to see what has happened to Republicans, truly. This version of the party hates American institutions and American govt, is bitter and angry about American wars, things that we would never predict would be applicable to Republicans. All Putin had to do with that is agree that all of the Ukraine stuff is Biden corruption, especially with Russiagate, and the Biden laptop stuff. He can build on the idea that Biden is pushing Russia and the world into WWIII, rope in Tucker Carlson, the sucker, and Rogan, Gabbard, etc. Job done.
In other words, it's not Russian Media (Tass/RT/Sputnik) spreading it--Americans do the job for him because they want to believe what he says. They all equivocate--all say that, of course Putin is bad and evil, but <insert Kremlin talking point about how equally bad Ukraine/Biden is>, which eases the cognitive disgust of climbing into bed with a Putin argument.
And the goal, of the Kremlin's messages for both Left and Right--are one thing: get America to withdraw its support for Ukraine, which makes it easier for Russia to win. The Russians, if you haven't noticed, are still trying to win the war. They have not given up on it.
I would also add, from a magical, astrological point of view--we have had the massive Plutonic energy of the rise and prominence of Conspiracy, which is absolutely the result of seeing Pluto dancing back and forth in Cap and Aquarius, the US's 2nd and 3rd houses, so govt and communication.
Finally, as to your point about McCarthy and 'warmongering', it's Putin who wants the war, needs it, because if he didn't act he would have lost (control of) Ukraine forever. I think the argument that the media is pushing a war that would naturally have stopped (by suing for peace) otherwise is without merit. Anything that isn't control over Ukraine, either directly by conquering it, or indirectly by destabilising Ukrainian politics and installing a puppet govt, is a loss for him. He has to keep going until he wins. He cannot lose or his regime will fall and he's dead, literally.
But if you really want to know what I think is the worst part--it's the lie Putin told in 2021 to resurrect the old Imperial Czarist lie that Russia is the only legitimate heir to Kyivan Rus (which Putin calls Ancient Rus to avoid using the name Kyiv). That lie is Capital-E Evil.
those are some pretty impressive acrobatics. it sounds like you're taking one possible interpretation of one set of facts, which can't be evaluated without looking closely at their provenance, and calling them "evidence." and then taking another set of facts—also without much regard for provenance or nuance—and calling it "propaganda."
lining things up into this particular narrative fits neatly within the geopolitical interests of the U.S., including its ongoing campaign of unchecked militarism. taking a critical view of that narrative is what used to understood as "anti-war" Leftism... which you're now calling "cynicism." for what purpose? whose interests are *you* serving?
moreover—you're continuing to insult people's intelligence by arbitrarily deciding that the pattern of evidence they're perceiving—which is no more speculative than yours—is just "Russian propaganda." they're dupes, in other words, but *you're* not.
except you're not getting CIA briefings either, are you? so you don't actually know for certain what is factual and what isn't. you're speculating along with the rest of us.
so, again—why do you get to decide by fiat that you're the smart one in the room, and the rest of us are just parroting propaganda?
Let's do a play-by-play review. I made a claim that three things were false Russian propaganda, then I supplied evidence to back up those points. In other words, I made an argument, an argument that disproves certain claims.
* 2014 was a coup to install a pro-Western govt --> demonstrated that a pro-Russian govt already wanted to join the EU, that the cancelling of the access process came as a result of Russian economic warfare, that the EU wasn't that interested in letting Ukraine in, etc. All things that undermine the idea that there was a coup and support the fact that it was a revolution. Additionally I have also supplied the evidence that is said to prove it was a coup, which should have been your job, and pointed out how it's a clever fabrication built on a circumstantial recording.
* NATO is an aggressive, expansionist, imperial project --> rejected this idea by showing that NATO is voluntary, that all these individual countries WANTED to join it, for good reason, that it's purely a defensive alliance, and Article 5 only obliges member states to go to war if another member is attacked first. All of these things are facts.
* That NATO or Ukraine provoked Russia into an invasion --> This is self-evident. Showed the political decisions made by Ukraine that led to the 2014 invasion, which started the war. Further Ukraine isn't in NATO, probably won't be for the forseeable future, so nothing happening in Ukraine had anything to do with NATO.
Further I want to especially call out the logic of the abuser involved in this claim. Just because Ukraine made a political decision or NATO admitted a new state, or moved troops around in NATO member-states, or just anything that pissed Vlad off--none of that justifies an invasion of Ukraine. Zero. It's the same logic as saying that it's okay to hit your partner because they made you mad.
If you want to challenge the validity of what I said, the onus is on you to provide counter-evidence to disprove my conclusion. Or to provide evidence to support the 'alternative set of facts or interpretation of facts'. I am the only one in the conversation to make an argument or adopt a position. All you've done is attack me personally.
But the whole point of even bringing up these three things is to make the point that Ukraine has been explicitly clear about what it is they want, which I can then position as the only valid concern in relation to what is morally right in this situation. That all of this discussion about what is 'realistic' for them, or that the war should end in a way that they don't approve of, for the 'greater good', is imperial thought; it assumes the right to decide things for others, and it's morally bankrupt.
More importantly, I'm really trying to zero in on the fact that the take I'm criticising is propped up entirely by cynicism. That a certainty around it makes it something people want to believe, and that evidence contradicting it gets dismissed, waved off, because information is valid depending on its source. And that things aren't what they appear to be because we know the hidden, darker, actual truth, and are certain of it. This is not a position that someone reasoned their way into, it's something that resonates with a judgement about the nature of the world.
And yes, it's cynicism, the acceptance of darkness and weakness, and not 'anti-war Leftism'. The anti-war part is a cop-out, a way to avoid responsibility. It's easy to say that you want the conflict to end, both Ukraine and Russia say they want the war to end. Everyone does. But the anti-war part quits right there--it has no preference for HOW the war should end, only that it does as soon as possible. In refusing to make a choice about what side is right, it abdicates any responsibility for the outcome. But it absolutely matters how it ends! They're not all equivalent moral choices--Ukraine ceasing to exist as a country, having its heritage wiped out, overwritten by Russia, and its people enslaved by a system they manifestly do not want to live under, that's an EVIL outcome. The right ending, the good one, is the one that restores Ukraine's territory, affords its people the right to choose their future for themselves, validates the idea that states cannot simply take what they want, and punishes the aggressor. And the only reason why people don't support that ending is because they're actually just afraid that the Russians will nuke the world if they lose. I reject this: fear is not an acceptable basis to build a good/correct moral value on. If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, Utilitarian Ethics are the company who paved it.
Finally--please stop projecting your own insecurities onto me. I don't know why having an idea criticised comes across to you as a personal attack against your character. I don't think I'm better than anyone, I don't think I'm superior, I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence, and I'm not deciding anything by fiat, which you must accept. All of that is nonsense, your own personal problem, and you're just doing it to try cut me down instead of making a better argument. I don't care if you disagree, just play the ball, not the man. It's the last time I'll say it--if I see it again my part in our conversation ends.
It's good to see that some people are still in tune with what academic rigour means. I miss the days of serious debate in tutorials, where you could hold an utterly opposing view, but were expected to back it up with rigorous research and valid points that would then be reviewed by your peers in a tutorial, with the guidance of a tutor who was expecting polite and respectful disagreement.
So incredibly funny for you to accuse Rhyd of using strawmen right after you label him as a cynic and then go on to trash cynicism. Can you even hear yourself? I’m surprised R.G. Miga took the time to engage with you any further; you are not to be taken seriously.
They were strawmen. He picked the worst possible, weakest examples, then used them to build an argument around, as if they were the only case possible. He then concluded that having ideals leads to their inversion. We saw it display with the 'woke' ideology, with Orwellian language and behaviour, so it absolutely can be true! But it's not the ONLY thing that can be true. Where's the steel-man case for having ideals? Or, for example, if things like human rights are ideals, which we would say certainly qualify, does having rights always mean they end up being inverted?
If you think that, go be a outed gay pagan magician in Saudi Arabia, and complain you can't get married. Protest for gay rights. See how you get on.
Of course I trash cynicism! I think it's lazy, weak, cowardly, and cheap. It disempowers agency, and supports bankrupt ethics like Utilitarianism. It's a position that I am entitled to argue for, because it's my personal view.
What I think is wild is when people think saying things like 'can you hear yourself' or 'you are not to be taken seriously' is somehow going to land. What's the point of even writing them? It says nothing, convinces no one, and contributes nothing to the conversation.
I immediately distrust anyone who accuses someone they disagree with of cynicism. Because:
1. It's flirting with the ad hominem fallacy. Cynicism is an unpopular philosophy and trying to associate Rhyd's positions with it is more about proving guilt by association than dealing with his content.
2. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a cynic, nor does cynicism demand a particular stance on Ukraine. As it happens, I AM a cynic, and I somewhat disagree with Rhyd on Ukraine, though I don't say much because he is obviously better informed than I am. I'm just enough of a cynic to think Rhyd is a bit idealistic. And not in a naive, fight for his ideals way, bit in the sense that he thinks, for example, that the Biden family is involved in shady dealings with a whiff of conspiracy regarding Ukraine. Personally, my bet is Hunter Biden is just an incompetent white boy from a well-connected family whose Daddy got him a lucrative job with a sketchy oil company, and that he was likely kept away from whatever shady dealings went on so he wouldn't bungle them. Likewise, as a parent myself, I suspect his pardon was not a political move, but simply the result of an old man who didn't have anything to lose just saying "Fuck it" and pardoning his kid. We're always looking for deeper reasons for things, and sometimes there are. But sometimes the world turns on incompetents and old men who might as well do whatever the fuck they want because they've got one foot in the grave and the other in the Oval Office. That's a cynical view.
Almost everything that contains even an ounce of criticism can be called ad hominem in this era, because people associate their identity with their (current) ideas. For me it's a question of what is being criticised--the idea or the person. The former is fair game, the latter isn't.
I disagree on trying to use guilt-by-association versus the content. I think I am very straightforwardly dealing with the content, and giving some key specifics. As I said a the beginning of my post, I can't access the 'paid-only' content (only the preview), and can't comment. So I'm trying to conglomerate a lot of separate reactions into one post.
The Ukraine situation is obviously the lightning rod and litmus test for worldviews, so is incredibly useful as a way of accessing and discussing them. The worldview problem is the one I am most interested in engaging with, because it's the one that drives decision-making.
It is my honest assessment that this 'there are no good guys' counter-narrative, which by the way is shared by many others beyond this substack, is something that resonates with a cynical worldview, and is not something per se that was reached by process of reason or logic. When we start from a position that says things aren't what they appear to be because we know a hidden truth, and we can dismiss information based on its source alone, we're in a position impervious to truth. Instead, we're looking for coherence or congruence with something we believe in already.
If you think that Rhyd is a bit idealistic, I must be off the charts! Lol. I disagree on whether or not it's fine to be a cynic. It's not. It's a judgement about the nature of the world, something that is imposed upon it. Personally, I think cynicism is weak, cowardly, lazy, and cheap. That's why I reject it. But my own moral judgement isn't what I am most concerned with. It's our (Western) apparent willingness to discount and discard the factors that support our own self-determination, to throw baby out with bathwater, and the inability to recognise that the alternatives to Western society, the ones already engaged in or preparing to employ violence towards their aims, they intend to step into the void and enforce their orthodoxy. Worldviews like cynicism normalise such activity, which make us passive and mean we can't spot the difference between a legitimate threat and imperialist politics. I don't give a shit about Biden, Trump, or American politics--but it floors me that a situation like Ukraine would be viewed in the same way as any US domestic issue, just another instance of corruption. The comparisons between 1939 and today are not meritless, and I see the same mistakes being made again, lessons of the past unheeded.
1. Your first argument- that all critiques are ad hominem these days- is flawed. You show a lack of understanding of even the most basic ideas of cynicism. Since you don't understand what cynicism is, the only possible use the label can have for you is to tag certain ideas for destruction. In doing so, you are advocating for setting aside Rhyd's ideas on the basis of the attitude you assume he used in inventing them, not on the merit of his arguments. Which is a sub-type of ad hominem. And no, this is not because Rhyd identifies strongly with his ideas because of identity politics- it actually doesn't matter what his ideas are or how strongly he holds them. Your attempt to link them to a word you don't understand beyond it having a negative connotation shows your intent to discredit his ideas on something other than their own merits.
2. I disagree that Ukraine is any sort of lightning rod or litmus test for anyone's worldview. It may be a way you reduce the complexity of thought among other people to "us" and "them", but that is your personal interpretation. For example, a Russian dissident could hope the the war in Ukraine drags on to weaken Putin's position within Russia, while hoping to do worse than Putin. A Chechen Islamist could hope the US continues to fund Ukraine in hope that Russia being distracted by Ukraine will allow them to establish a caliphate in a rebuilt Chechnya. Those people would be on your side of such a simplistic litmus test, while potentially being a greater threat to your ideals than Putin. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is how the US ended up funding the Taliban and forces that ultimately pulled off the 9/11 attacks.
3. "It's our (Western) apparent willingness to discount and discard the factors that support our own self-determination, to throw baby out with bathwater, and the inability to recognise that the alternatives to Western society, the ones already engaged in or preparing to employ violence towards their aims, they intend to step into the void and enforce their orthodoxy. Worldviews like cynicism normalise such activity, which make us passive and mean we can't spot the difference between a legitimate threat and imperialist politics."
In this, you identify an "us" (Western society) and a "them" (presumably Putin/ Russia and the alliance he seeks to build). Cynics were the first in the Western tradition to regard themselves as "cosmopolitans" (citizens of the world) and to assert common humanity as more important than membership in a clan or city-state. Cynics also historically regarded hierarchies as ridiculous and demeaning, and viewed the only legitimate authority as that of Nature. It is true that cynics would first question the motives of those who set themselves up as leaders of men before advocating for conscription or war. And historically, they would be right to do so. At one point in time, a lot of stupid things were done to protect us from the threat of the USSR, which was also supposed to be an existential threat to Western society. Before that, Muslims or Orthodox Christians were the threats to Western society that required support for military crusades. Even Alexander the Great is said to have paid his respects to Diogenes the Cynic before setting out on a campaign which I'm sure was sold as some version of protecting Greek society from other societies. Diogenes told him to stop standing in his sunlight. Ironically, it was from the ideals of cosmopolitanism and equality espoused by the cynics that we Westerners have build our greatest achievements. So maybe listening to the cynics isn't such a bad idea for those who want to learn something from history.
In 1. You're attacking points I didn't make and reaching conclusions that don't follow from them. I made it very clear I am criticising ideas and not people--and in fact in this thread it is I who have been personally attacked.
There is also a semantic game being played here with the term 'cynicism', in trying to separate the standard mainstream definitions of the term and common usage from the pure philosophical tradition, and then to use that distinction to build an awkward No True Scotsman with it. The Oxford definition of cynicism: 'an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest', and also 'an attitude characterized by a general distrust of the motives of others'. I made the claim that this is true because of an inability to take at face value, as bona fide, what actually is stated to have happened, and more importantly what people are saying they want. Instead, we distrust this, label it as corruption, self-interested meddling, and then use that denial to discard any entitlement to agency. Because of this dark lens the situation is being viewed through, Ukraine is unworthy and it's fine to decide things for them, like what their borders ought to be. The Russians, who are murdering them, are being afforded more concern.
You can claim I have insufficient knowledge of the cynic philosophical tradition, in a basic mid-wit 'well, actually... ' type way, if you want, I get that you are an adherent and any time the word is used that's what comes to mind. But don't try to claim my points have no relation to the term, because it's obviously untrue. I'm using the term in the vernacular in which most people use it, and I think it is the best way to describe what I see happening.
In 2. I don't understand what you're trying to argue. If you disagree that it's a litmus test or a lightning rod, fine. But the point about complexity of thought is both mistaken and not applicable. My entire argument focuses on the idea that what Ukraine wants is the fundamental, central, consideration, and that everyone who fails to put them into the centre is engaging in imperial thought, and supporting the immoral attempt to subjugate them. So those examples you list, of other types of people who might be on team us or them, only applies to your characterisation of 'us vs them', nothing of mine.
I want to be very clear about Russia--the reason I am against them isn't because they're the western boogeyman. It's because of what they're doing and saying. They invaded another country without justification, intentionally targeted and murdered civilians and non-combatants, espoused actual genocidal language, and are intent to destroy a system of principles and rules so that they can dominate those around them. I'm not a stan for the EU or NATO, and I don't care one way or another whether Ukraine joins them. But I care those choices are being forcibly taken from Ukraine and that there's one country who is flagrantly intending to destabilise a system that presents the alternative to the use of force as the basis of relations. Russia is the only country in Europe who is threatening its neighbours, and I want
Russia to be stopped so that stability can return.
In 3. I think I have learned something from history! That's the entire point. But let me confide something: I am indulging myself in this conversation in a way that I probably ought not to. I don't believe time is simply linear and bends toward progress. What we're seeing in this situation and in general is the breakdown of modern society--the failing of the false promise of materialism, the Gods of the Copybook Headings returning. It's a cycle, in this case signified astrologically by the transit of Uranus specifically but in tandem with the other outer planets, all of which are changing signs. This cannot be stopped, the collective shadow has yet to be integrated.
I don't know if you've read Bayo Akomolafe, about how we respond to a crisis being part of it, and to turn that another way--trying to solve the crisis with the same mindset that caused it is the problem. I do not believe in advocacy, and I don't engage in it, in general, because advocacy is built on an idea that one knows the outcomes that will occur, and has positioned themselves at the centre of the universe, fit to have their cause implemented on others. But all advocates come into conflict with the advocates of the opposing position; that conflict is the cause of the crisis. All the Anti-War advocates will be opposed by those they claim are 'hawks', and the result is a fractured, polarised society descending into disorder, and it becomes impossible to solve problems. I look at the situation in Ukraine and Palestine, other places, and I think it's absolutely obvious that if basic rights like self-determination and sovereignty were respected, there wouldn't be a war or conflict. It amazes me that so many in the magical community, who I think should know this, don't seem to, lost to a morass of other perspectives and considerations that aren't built on maintaining right relation from the bottom-up.
Is what I'm doing now advocacy, I guess you could call it that, and that means I probably shouldn't have said anything, to actually allow my post- philosophical positions to actually be post-, to remove any intention of mine to contest the process. But I didn't, so this is my fault, to have gotten carried away, and the medicine that I'm not yet in true acceptance. So I take your point about not standing in my own sunlight.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your second and third points, so I'm just going to let that percolate for a while and maybe I'll get it. However, I think you are missing something within my first point. My point is not that "cynicism" REALLY means the philosophy of cynicism, or to move words around. My point is that the modern definition has no content. It doesn't tag a philosophy that Rhyd could follow or not. It's the mental tag for the stereotype of the depressed, misanthropic pessimist who only picks apart what others do and contributes nothing. Since the modern definition of "cynicism" is just a stereotype, it can't be used in any way except an ad hominem attack to discredit those who question "too much"- which is a subjective judgement in itself. And my point in bringing up the history was to point out that the modern definition of cynicism was created for exactly that reason- to discredit those who questioned the social elites of Greek and Rome millennia ago. The modern definition of cynicism says far more about those accusing others of it than those accused of it.
I think everyone who knows me personally would find it hilarious you think I'm a cynic, as I'm unfortunately renown for being an incorrigible optimist.
But I don't think you realised that Idealism is actually a philosophical movement and not a synonym for "optimist" nor the opposite of "cynicism." And materialism, especially the animist-Marxist materialism which I espouse, is against philosophical Idealism.
You said: "The Ukraine situation is obviously the lightning rod and litmus test for worldviews." Nah. I'd argue Palestine/Israel is a hell of a lot more divisive, since it's a clash between Global North and Global South. Few in the Global South are gonna lose sleep one way or another if Ukraine's borders get a bit smaller with a less-than-favorable peace deal.
But if you want to make the 1939 comparison, because it seems everyone who wants more Ukrainian men to die on their behalf does, I'll remind you how Germany got to the situation of economic collapse that made Hitler possible. That was the Treaty of Versailles, where Germany was forced into poverty as punishment for starting the first world war. Seems those hoping Russia will be likewise punished for its aggression might be forgetting what happens in such situations...
I do not sense optimism in such a take, and I'm only judging by what is written, since I don't know you personally.
The main reason for claiming cynicism, and why I think it's true, is the inability to take at face value what is happening, and instead to point to a hidden truth, which is darker, base, corrupted. It can't, for example, be that a people reached a fork in the road, had a moment in their culture where they wanted to purge corruption from their institutions, and go in a different direction from the troubles and oppression they had been constantly plagued by. Instead these changes must all be the result of others' manipulations and machinations. There is a total failure to situate Ukrainians in the centre of their own story and of a conflict about them, and a willingness to ignore what they say is what they want in favour of what others think is best for them, or the world in general.
I am actually uninterested in and opposed to such meta-perspectives--global north and south, and so on. If I as a person would want to be able to make choices for myself and live the lifestyle I choose, then I want the same for others. It comes down to as simple a thing as the basic respect for agency and autonomy. If you would not want someone else to determine things for you, then don't support it happening to them.
BTW, I know that idealism is a philosophical school. I would claim that the writing above uses 'ideals' not in a strict philosophical sense to describe the primacy of mind and idea, but in the banal sense of basic principles, and argues against having them.
If you want to engage in a more philosophical dialogue, an even hotter take is that animist-Marxist materialism is a contradiction. Materialism seems to me to be a fundamental denial of the animist cosmos and metaphysics. Not sure how it is justifiable to work with spirits and the divine while also supporting the idea that claims none of those things can exist because reality is entirely dead stochastic matter. The cognitive dissonance of that must be intense.
I take exception to the claim that I want Ukrainian men to die on my behalf, that's a cheap shot and untrue. And you wonder why I claimed you were a cynic...
What I want is not to support the domination of others, the re-colonising and oppression of a people, and the validation of the idea that violence makes right. It is self-evident that forcing Ukraine to surrender any amount of their territory or land to a people who have subjugated them in every incarnation of the state (Russian Empire, USSR, Federation) is wrong. I don't think this is even an unpopular opinion--I think most people would very easily support a solution in which Ukraine restored its territory, the Russians were forced back into their own borders, and Ukraine became free to choose its future--because this is the right thing, the Good outcome. The only reason I can think of for why that option has been taken off the menu is fear--people are (irrationally) afraid the Russians will nuke the world rather than lose. And accordingly they are fine with sacrificing a country to prevent it from happening, they just won't admit it openly. So where you claimed I want them to die on my behalf, actually I think you demand they surrender on yours.
It wasn't the treaty of versailles which caused the German economy to collapse enabling the nazis taking power. It was the worldwide depression of the 1930s. Mid-Weimer Germany enjoyed considerable prosperity.
Arendt's point that propaganda is ultimately not trying to tell you what to believe; it is trying to get you to the point of not believing anything. At the point we are at, holding fast to the beliefs of one's tribe is a poor substitute for Truth, but it's the best we have.
We can post all kinds of contradictory "evidence" of what happened in Ukraine in 2014, but that doesn't tell us what each and every Ukrainian or Crimean thought was their best way forward then or now. It's a stretch to trust plebiscites or even elections these days. But even if we could trust them, surely the losers in a "fair" election have the right to not be dominated by the winners. But this logic justifies both the Maidan revolution/coup/whatever and the Eastern Ukraine secession (at first attempted and heavily attacked by the Kyiv government)which has morphed into a Russian occupation.
All I know for sure is lots of people are dying. I'm pretty sure that most of the dead people and their families would rather they weren't dead, regardless of political outcomes. Until the Russian invasion, it was non-controversial to call both Russia and Ukraine (and Zelensky in particular) deeply corrupt, remember? The hordes of deserters from both sides of the conflict are apparently less convinced of the righteousness of their causes than the armchair warriors on the internet.
We can't stop the lies. But we can stop the killing because the majority of weapons being supplied in both Ukraine and Gaza are coming from US. Will this lead to a fair and just peace? No, there can be no fair and just peace in this era of unending narrative war. In that war, you can choose to be right, or you can choose to be happy (or at least at peace with those who disagree with you.) You can't have both.
"We can't stop the lies. But we can stop the killing because the majority of weapons being supplied in both Ukraine and Gaza are coming from US. " - True. But the supporters of Ukraine/Israel will be howling and gnashing their teeth and try to destroy your career/relationships/public image if you agitate for that, won't they? So agitating for a stop of weapons in the public square simply involves arguing and presenting opposing narratives. They'll attack you so there is no choice but attack them in return. You can't will political change without a narrative war happening.
I'd like to totally agree with you. But I would have to think that narrative wars can be won. Our recent histories of asymmetrical warfare incline me to believe that even overwhelming force is ultimately powerless against ruthless enough determination. Similarly, overwhelming evidence and even censorship seems to be ineffective against stubbornly-held beliefs and tribal solidarity. I hate to be in the position of defending Trump's wrecking ball impulsiveness and callousness. But it is an alternative to the proven pointlessness of the wars of attrition on battlefields real and intellectual. I'm not saying it's good thing.
I suspect that the fact that Trump engineered that cease fire in Gaza is due to the pro-Palestine side (which I belong to and have fought on) having won the narrative war. Trump is very attuned to what people want on a gut level and he likes to look good by showily if superficially obliging. (If it's not economic.) IMO people wanted, on a gut level, an end to the genocide. And so he did that. I know it is a shitty ceasefire and no end to the suffering but still better.
“Rant” by Diane di Prima comes to mind. From the poem:
“There is no way out of the spiritual battle
There is no way to avoid taking sides
There is no way you can not have a poetics
no matter what you do: plumber, baker, teacher”
http://home.insightbb.com/~gardner.j/rant.html
That is great poem!
"the taste in all our mouths is the taste of our power
and it is bitter as death
bring yr self home to yrself, enter the garden
the guy at the gate w/ the flaming sword is yrself"
Do you think if the US stops the supply of weapons or aid to Ukraine, then the war will end? And if it did, what kind of ending would it produce? Would the Ukrainians be happy with the peace deal? Or would they be sacrificed to what others consider a greater good? Supporters of Ukraine in that situation would be howling at you because they don't want to be the sacrifice.
That's the problem with the anti-war position. One can say that they just want the conflict to end, then abdicate any responsibility for what it looks like, or the outcome it creates. It's saying 'I'm fine with Ukraine being wiped off the map, and its people and their heritage erased, subsumed by Russia, because I want the killing to end'. That is a possible ending to the war, but not the only one, and picking an ending that avoids cementing evil requires choosing a side and paying the cost for supporting it.
Russia will win anyway and if I could, I would chose to sacrifice less actual living, breathing young men on the altar of abstract ideas like 'Ukraine'. Russia has no intention of wiping the actual living people of the map - quite unlike Israel - so fighting for 'Ukraine' the abstract concept is throwing ones life away for foam and delusion.
You don't have to invoke Israel, that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Ukraine is not an abstract idea, don't confuse the state for the people. Ukraine is a very real thing, made of very real people, with a very long heritage, and that's actually central to this entire affair. Have you seen Putin's 2021 paper on Russian history? He resurrects the old Imperial lie that Russia is the only inheritor of Kyivan Rus (which applies equally to Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia), and because of it, there is no such thing as Ukraine, or Ukrainian people. He has quite literally argued that it's fine for Russia to re-conquer Ukraine because it is merely to reunite the wayward Russians with their motherland.
Telling Ukraine that it isn't real, it's just a delusion, I can't say that would go over very well with Ukranians. Has to be a product of American culture--I can't imagine other cultures agreeing that there's no such thing as their identity, the tie of blood to land, the lineage of ancestors to place.
I also think Ukrainians in the trenches would disagree with your characterisation of their sacrifices and struggle. Why is it that someone on the outside knows best about what matters to them?
One thing that is obvious is that at every turn, the determination of Ukraine has been underestimated and ignored. People said that a revolution there could obviously not have been true--had to be the Americans; they said Ukraine couldn't stand up to the Russian army; they're saying now that without the US, they'll just surrender; and it was obvious yesterday that Trump and Vance thought they could strong-arm Zelensky into groveling and complying. He didn't.
I asked you that question because it's clear to me that the Ukrainians will keep fighting, with or without the US's help, even in the context of the world's worst insurgency; nor will they accept a deal that sacrifices them. It's a failure to place Ukraine at the centre of the Ukrainian conflict, to understand and respect what they obviously intend. If the US wants to be isolationist and withdraw, then fine, so be it. But it will not be a solution to the crisis and it will not result in the outbreak of peace.
I'm just gonna say: get some fowl! Chickens, ducks, geese... They will viciously take care of those pests haha.
I'm partly joking of course, since I don't know your conditions or long term garden plans, but hey, if you're open to the possibility some time... Go forward.
It's very hard to keep a plot of land with only one or two things going on. Only when the system starts to becomes, well, a complex ecosystem, it achieves natural succession and stability. I know it also sounds idealistic, but after all there's a lot of complexity in a healthy landscape, and there still has to be a certain human hand if what you're achieving in the end is a garden.
"But that’s not how the real works. If someone forces me to kill someone else on their behalf and then tells me it’s because they’re making me “free,” I’m pretty likely to suspect otherwise. And if you’re witnessing a fight between two people, and then you see a third person hand one of them a weapon, you’re going to assume that third party is also involved in the fight as well."
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be a concept most Americans grasp. How many people actually want to hire someone to peer into bedroom windows to see if anyone is having gay sex? How many want to hire armed men to put kids in cages? How many would contribute to a GoFundMe to buy bombs to blow up Palestinian children? How many want to hire armed men to prevent twelve year olds who got raped from having an abortion? But Americans continue to vote for an contribute to politicians and organizations that want to use their money to do exactly those things. Because they feel like if someone else does the actual bad thing, they aren't responsible, even if they paid for and advocated for the bad thing to be done. They believe the moral high ground of opposing immigration, antisemitism, or abortion is more important than the actual consequences of enforcing their views. The same is true of Ukraine- most of the pro-Zelensky crowd don't actually like Ukraine any more than most "pro-lifers" like forcing women to carry dead fetuses to term. But they believe that fighting the evil of Russia and standing up to bad things is worth the consequences (that are conveniently enacted on people they don't know).
Then there is also the aspect of socially-constructed reality, which is my modern gloss on Stirner's idea of "spooks". The socially constructed reality is that Ukraine is good guys and Russia is bad guys. Submission to the socially constructed reality is considered pro-social behavior. Heresy is denying the socially constructed reality, and is assumed to be the result anti-social traits such as believing you are smarter than the group or the leaders of the group and unwillingness to bend and submit to the socially-constructed reality. By questioning the socially-constructed reality, you are automatically excommunicated from the group, and therefore assumed to be part of another group. Which is actually considered preferable to thinking for yourself and not submitting to any of the available options for socially constructed realities. Submission to something means you do not own yourself, which means ownership of your mind could at some point be transferred to their group through conversion or conquest. If you own your own mind, you will always be a threat. See also: how much the Democrats blame people who refuse to vote or leftists who don't like them for what the Republicans do, while trying to convert and win over the Republicans who are actually doing the things they don't like.
Which goes into where I'm a bit more cynical than you. Over the years, I've noticed more and more issues being Balkanized. Just like imperial powers once intentionally drew maps that created "countries" with parts of several ethnic or religious groups in them so they could prevent unified resistance to their colonization, I see political issues being split and divided between the two American parties in a way that forces incoherence and fighting within the parties. What other than Balkanization could account for the Democratic Party supporting women's bodily autonomy and equality- but also the abolition of sex-segregated sports that allow women to compete fairly without being flattened by a 300lb-lean body-weight male? How is it that the Republicans are both the pro-natalist party and the party trying to ban IVF? How come the "America First" party is funding Israel's war in Gaza? Or how about how is the party of big business and rural America promising to deport the undocumented cheap labor force American farming and industry relies on? I don't know if it's a "conspiracy"- like you I try to avoid conspiratorial thinking, and besides I'm really doubtful that most of those involved are intelligent and discreet enough to pull off a conspiracy so well even if they wanted to. Hanlon's Razor ("never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity") argues against a deliberate Balkanization of politics, but I can't deny the pattern I see. While I don't believe some mastermind is pulling the strings to Balkanize issues, I do think the party positions have become socially-constructed realities ("faiths") that people are supposed to swallow whole and tithe to the church of. Sadly, cults which demand adherence to obviously stupid rules to signal group cohesion are more stable and long-lasting than cults which are more laissez faire. Which may explain why very extreme positions on issues are popular in both parties, even among people who individually don't agree with those positions. Supporting those extreme and illogical positions signals submission to the faith, while criticism of them signals dangerous individualism and arrogance.
I really enjoyed reading this, and there's a lot of really good things in it that I agree with. It's very well spoken.
I would ask you--in this statement: 'The socially constructed reality is that Ukraine is good guys and Russia is bad guys.' do you intend to imply that there are no good guys (or bad guys) because it's all an artifice? Is there good and evil, with capital G and E?
'But they believe that fighting the evil of Russia and standing up to bad things is worth the consequences (that are conveniently enacted on people they don't know).'
I believe this--I am not a utilitarian--and I am personally willing to pay the consequences, even if it is my own death. You for sure understand that I've gone out heavy for Ukraine, for the justness of its cause, and the point you make is valid, so I want to make it clear that if war comes to my shore, and it very well could spread into the rest of Europe, I will put my body where my principles are. I do not advocate for things that I would not do myself.
"I will put my body where my principles are. I do not advocate for things that I would not do myself."
Talk is cheap. You probably genuinely feel you would be willing to die fighting Russian imperialism. But would you sacrifice your children to that ideal? Would you support a war that is cutting off life-saving care for a spouse or a parent who is severely ill? How would you handle having to leave a parent with dementia without care in the face of an invading army to take your children and flee to safety? Or to fight Russia? Dying as a soldier in war is nothing compared to surviving in war. And you have no right to make those decisions for others even if you theoretically would put yourself in that position. Others have different morals and worldviews, and what might seem cowardly to you might be an act of great courage to someone else and the reverse.
As far as whether there is a Good and Evil- not in Ukraine. That place has been a meatgrinder for the young men of Europe for hundreds of years. Russia's always fighting a group of other world powers for control of the trade routes and natural resources of Ukraine. I don't agree with the Russian imperialism that began this round of war in Ukraine- but I also don't think throwing gas on that fire helped anyone. Either in this instance, or back when it was young British soldiers dying in Crimea, or during WWI and the Russian Civil War (which had heavy investment from other world powers) or during WWII. Nor was there nearly the same amount of political will to support Rojava despite their principles being far more admirable and more aligned with Western ideals than the far-right ideals of Ukrainian groups such as the Azov battalion. If we are the good guys, why is it that our military aid always seems to go to far-right "freedom fighters" like the Taliban or Azov battalion or Netanyahu and company rather than to groups aligned with our supposed ideals of ethnic and gender equality?
But whether or not there is Good or Evil in Ukraine or elsewhere, my point about a socially-constructed reality is different from what you are thinking about whether there is Good or Evil in a philosophical sense. I recommend you read a bit of Stirner's philosophy. Even if you heartily disagree with it, it will change the way you think and make you more in tune with your own interests and wants.
Your garden analogy can be taken further.
Perhaps the problem is not the beetles, but that growing “expensive” exotic plants on a balcony with purchased soil is not the material condition those plants need.
The beetles are a symptom of conditions unbounded by the complex relationships that exist in a functioning ecosystem.
Picking them out and boiling them in order to save expensive exotic hobby plants is an apt metaphor for many of the responses to “our current environmental situation”.
That's given me a lot to think about, and makes my own viewing of the word 'myth' change somewhat.