Yes, that’s what he has been saying all along. The question is whether we should buy it. I, personally, don’t really buy into it that much. Maybe just a bit. Like I said in my reply to Nanda Ale’s comment, I believe that love for personal power/wealth/influence is stronger than nationalism. Maybe not in the past, but at least it is so these days, as a result of capitalism, globalization, and the kinda nihilistic modern atmosphere (I don’t think the first 2 are bad things btw). Again, this is just my own opinion on a very subjective matter.
And then there’s also the question of, even if Putin is that full-on nationalist that he claims he is, does this war actually help in that direction? I have my doubts. What will be the end result of this for Russia? A huge loss of power and influence on all levels. So, not really that good for empire building. Unless he has the Hitler mindset of risking-it-all, which falls already into basket of irrationality/madness, specially in a time with nuclear weapons in the equation which weren’t in Hitler’s time.
So you are basically saying that you agree that his words matches his actions, but since you don’t believe his word and can’t find any ulterior motive, you are confused by his actions. I don’t understand. If you agree with this, his actions should be evidence that he does indeed believe what he says. Not counting all his surface level lies and obvious propaganda here.
I think this might be the crux of this whole debate to be honest: Me and several others have tried to explain different takes in different words, and you seem continuously dissatisfied with them (and I appreciate your dedication to finding an answer, even if at some point I run out of things to add). It is absolutely worth looking for ulterior motives, but I don’t necessarily expect to find any major ones at this point. The time to really suspect ulterior motives are when the words and actions don’t match up, or the words themselves don’t make sense.
“I believe that love for personal power/wealth/influence is stronger than nationalism”
I think that varies tremendously from person to person, more so than from era to era. I think what varies between eras is the Overton Window.
“does this war actually help”
Not the way it is currently playing out, no. If he would in fact have been greeted with flowers, and taken most of the country in a few days with little resistance, it would have been a huge win for him. This is evidence that he thought this would happen.
“So you are basically saying that you agree that his words matches his actions, but since you don’t believe his word and can’t find any ulterior motive, you are confused by his actions. I don’t understand. If you agree with this, his actions should be evidence that he does indeed believe what he says. Not counting all his surface level lies and obvious propaganda here.”
That’s just an obvious fallacy. Words can justify actions and yet not coincide with the real motivations behind said actions. It’s called, like you acknowledge, lies and propaganda.
And it’s not like I can’t find any ulterior motive either. In reply to Nanda Ale’s comment I admitted those seemed like pretty plausible ulterior motives. And I suspect a few others. As others have said, wars are often complicated. So why aren’t I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications?
Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn’t make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil’s advocate with Putin. Or, I don’t know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?
“”does this war actually help”
Not the way it is currently playing out, no. If he would in fact have been greeted with flowers, and taken most of the country in a few days with little resistance, it would have been a huge win for him. This is evidence that he thought this would happen.”
No, it’s not evidence of such. If, for instance, the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment apply, he might have already thought that the war wouldn’t be easy, might even weaken Russia, yet it might consolidate his power, since Russia will still probably win, just not easily and not in a way that will be worth the victory. But it can still raise his domestic popularity and consolidate his power.
And there are many other ulterior motives which can justify a harder war, even irrationality, all-in desperate plays, etc.
“why aren’t I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications? Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn’t make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil’s advocate with Putin. Or, I don’t know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?”
Of course you are! I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial. Sorry about that! It has helped me shake down my picture, and I guess playing devils advocate is the best I can do to understand what is going on. This (obviously) does not imply that I agree with any of Putins actions (goes without saying). I also don’t necessarily expect us to be able to converge our understanding, since we have different priors and different information. Sorry if you felt pressured, that is not my intent :) I am happy to leave this debate here if it doesn’t feel productive to you. I don’t think I’m likely to change my stance much at this point without new information or arguments, and I’m not necessarily saying that you should either. If some confusion remains as to what my stance is, I am happy to elaborate. That said:
“Words can justify actions and yet not coincide with the real motivations behind said actions.”
Sure. There might be an endless series of masks behind masks. But when we see that his actions consistently line up with a certain layer of mask, then that is evidence that that mask contains some real information. Basically; which of his words has predicted his actions, so far? Those might continue to do so. Obviously many of his words are blatant lies, like “we won’t invade”, “The Ukrainians are bombing their own people”, “Zelenskyy is a Nazi/Nato puppet” etc, but if we can consistently differentiate between this surface level of lies (this outermost mask), from the lower levels that may or may not have predictive power, then we might learn something about his real motives. As it happens, it seems to me that some of what he has been saying has predictive power. I’m trying to extract that. This is not a reliable process, what with all the deliberate misinformation going around, but I hope to be able to do better than chance.
“the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically. “Consolidate power” is super vague at best, and I think the opposite is happening right now. If you have a different take, I’d be interested in that too.
″ I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial.”
We on Lesswrong are oversensitive about that. Some degree of it should be tolerated. But I don’t even think this discussion has been really adversarial, at least not reaching personal levels. When I say that x is a fallacy or that you’re playing devil’s advocate a bit too much, I only say it for the argument’s sake, there’s absolutely nothing personal in it.
“It has helped me shake down my picture,”
I’m glad to hear it!
“”the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically.”
Is basically boils down to power consolidation, yes. I don’t think it’s vague. It’s a common political theme that nothing works as well as a war to either distract the populace from important matters, and/or to consolidate popularity and therefore power. Specially in less liberal-minded countries.
Other ulterior motives that I personally suspect are: hatred, and all-in desperation moves.
Yes, that’s what he has been saying all along. The question is whether we should buy it. I, personally, don’t really buy into it that much. Maybe just a bit. Like I said in my reply to Nanda Ale’s comment, I believe that love for personal power/wealth/influence is stronger than nationalism. Maybe not in the past, but at least it is so these days, as a result of capitalism, globalization, and the kinda nihilistic modern atmosphere (I don’t think the first 2 are bad things btw). Again, this is just my own opinion on a very subjective matter.
And then there’s also the question of, even if Putin is that full-on nationalist that he claims he is, does this war actually help in that direction? I have my doubts. What will be the end result of this for Russia? A huge loss of power and influence on all levels. So, not really that good for empire building. Unless he has the Hitler mindset of risking-it-all, which falls already into basket of irrationality/madness, specially in a time with nuclear weapons in the equation which weren’t in Hitler’s time.
“that’s what he has been saying all along”
So you are basically saying that you agree that his words matches his actions, but since you don’t believe his word and can’t find any ulterior motive, you are confused by his actions. I don’t understand. If you agree with this, his actions should be evidence that he does indeed believe what he says. Not counting all his surface level lies and obvious propaganda here.
I think this might be the crux of this whole debate to be honest: Me and several others have tried to explain different takes in different words, and you seem continuously dissatisfied with them (and I appreciate your dedication to finding an answer, even if at some point I run out of things to add). It is absolutely worth looking for ulterior motives, but I don’t necessarily expect to find any major ones at this point. The time to really suspect ulterior motives are when the words and actions don’t match up, or the words themselves don’t make sense.
“I believe that love for personal power/wealth/influence is stronger than nationalism”
I think that varies tremendously from person to person, more so than from era to era. I think what varies between eras is the Overton Window.
“does this war actually help”
Not the way it is currently playing out, no. If he would in fact have been greeted with flowers, and taken most of the country in a few days with little resistance, it would have been a huge win for him. This is evidence that he thought this would happen.
“So you are basically saying that you agree that his words matches his actions, but since you don’t believe his word and can’t find any ulterior motive, you are confused by his actions. I don’t understand. If you agree with this, his actions should be evidence that he does indeed believe what he says. Not counting all his surface level lies and obvious propaganda here.”
That’s just an obvious fallacy. Words can justify actions and yet not coincide with the real motivations behind said actions. It’s called, like you acknowledge, lies and propaganda.
And it’s not like I can’t find any ulterior motive either. In reply to Nanda Ale’s comment I admitted those seemed like pretty plausible ulterior motives. And I suspect a few others. As others have said, wars are often complicated. So why aren’t I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications?
Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn’t make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil’s advocate with Putin. Or, I don’t know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?
“”does this war actually help”
Not the way it is currently playing out, no. If he would in fact have been greeted with flowers, and taken most of the country in a few days with little resistance, it would have been a huge win for him. This is evidence that he thought this would happen.”
No, it’s not evidence of such. If, for instance, the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment apply, he might have already thought that the war wouldn’t be easy, might even weaken Russia, yet it might consolidate his power, since Russia will still probably win, just not easily and not in a way that will be worth the victory. But it can still raise his domestic popularity and consolidate his power.
And there are many other ulterior motives which can justify a harder war, even irrationality, all-in desperate plays, etc.
“why aren’t I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications?
Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn’t make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil’s advocate with Putin. Or, I don’t know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?”
Of course you are! I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial. Sorry about that! It has helped me shake down my picture, and I guess playing devils advocate is the best I can do to understand what is going on. This (obviously) does not imply that I agree with any of Putins actions (goes without saying). I also don’t necessarily expect us to be able to converge our understanding, since we have different priors and different information. Sorry if you felt pressured, that is not my intent :) I am happy to leave this debate here if it doesn’t feel productive to you. I don’t think I’m likely to change my stance much at this point without new information or arguments, and I’m not necessarily saying that you should either. If some confusion remains as to what my stance is, I am happy to elaborate.
That said:
“Words can justify actions and yet not coincide with the real motivations behind said actions.”
Sure. There might be an endless series of masks behind masks. But when we see that his actions consistently line up with a certain layer of mask, then that is evidence that that mask contains some real information. Basically; which of his words has predicted his actions, so far? Those might continue to do so. Obviously many of his words are blatant lies, like “we won’t invade”, “The Ukrainians are bombing their own people”, “Zelenskyy is a Nazi/Nato puppet” etc, but if we can consistently differentiate between this surface level of lies (this outermost mask), from the lower levels that may or may not have predictive power, then we might learn something about his real motives. As it happens, it seems to me that some of what he has been saying has predictive power. I’m trying to extract that. This is not a reliable process, what with all the deliberate misinformation going around, but I hope to be able to do better than chance.
“the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically. “Consolidate power” is super vague at best, and I think the opposite is happening right now. If you have a different take, I’d be interested in that too.
″ I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial.”
We on Lesswrong are oversensitive about that. Some degree of it should be tolerated. But I don’t even think this discussion has been really adversarial, at least not reaching personal levels. When I say that x is a fallacy or that you’re playing devil’s advocate a bit too much, I only say it for the argument’s sake, there’s absolutely nothing personal in it.
“It has helped me shake down my picture,”
I’m glad to hear it!
“”the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically.”
Is basically boils down to power consolidation, yes. I don’t think it’s vague. It’s a common political theme that nothing works as well as a war to either distract the populace from important matters, and/or to consolidate popularity and therefore power. Specially in less liberal-minded countries.
Other ulterior motives that I personally suspect are: hatred, and all-in desperation moves.
“But I don’t even think this discussion has been really adversarial”
I’m relived to hear it!
re:Ulterior motives
I believe we are mostly in agreement over the underlying forces behind this conflict then.