Controversial Logic questions regarding Ukraine
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
if this is too controversial and it gets taken down I’ll understand:
I can point out logical fallacies all day in U.S foreign policy but please put your political opinions aside for a moment and just look at what’s being said. I see arguments that suggest withdrawing weapons and support from Ukraine is the right move because it will lead to peace. Isn’t this a fallacy like presumption of knowing the outcome of an event in which have no way of predicting? And also just ignoring all other consequences? It also seems to be shifting the responsibility and blame away from Russia. Another argument is “Only diplomacy “ will solve this not weapons to Ukraine”. How is this not a red herring? The aggressors pursue diplomacy when they feel they can no longer get their objectives or if it’s no longer worth it. Nobody even seems to know what Russia wants as their very vague in the details . Once again it shifts responsibility away and diplomacy in war changes by the situation on the ground.
It just seems the point I see often is “ooooo we can stop the violence if we the U.S just stop weapons and aid and Ukraine will be forced to just give up some territory”. I can see no evidence of any good faith from Russia. People hate the Sudetenland analogy but it’s striking How similar they are.
Comments on Question
Thumbs Up to the points you make.
I agree with Arlo; what you're offering are opinions, not fallacies.
Ironically, it might be hard to spot a fallacious statement regarding the situation in Ukraine for the simple reason that the situation is so complex. In one corner are people who blame the war on the U.S., which has been shoving nuclear weapons in Russia's face and promoting NATO membership ever since the Cold War supposedly ended.
In the other corner are those who claim the war is simply a greedy grab for Ukraine's natural resources, which are said to pose a threat to Russia's fossil fuel industry.
I have a third theory. The U.S. has long been Israel's primary ally, but we're quickly declining in power and prestige. Therefore, Israel may see Russia - the country where most Jews originated - as an important ally. It could therefore be to Israel's advantage to knock out Ukraine in order to strengthen Russia.
Note that most of the so-called Russian Oligarchs are Jews, many of whom have moved to Israel. Ukraine's fearless leader, Zalensky, is Jewish as well. And don't forget that Malaysian (i.e. Muslim) airliner that was shot down over Ukraine a few years ago and Putin's comments on "denazification." Note Russia's stoic refusal to defend its ally, Syria, from Israeli attacks.
In summary, I think the reasons for the war are all the above. Putin is a war hawk, just like his U.S. counterparts. At the same time, the U.S. has done its part to provoke war. And I smell some Israeli involvement as well.
Frankly, think the situation has deteriorated beyond the point of a diplomatic solution. It's a hopeless mess.
Answers
1There is nothing "too controversial" on this forum :) I just sometimes delete posts not remotely related to fallacies (e.g., "You are all going to burn in hell you filthy atheists!").
As for this topic, I see no clear argument therefore no clear fallacy. What I see is mixed views on foreign policy and possible scenarios being offered as what some feel are most probable outcomes.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I don't see "logic questions" in the two paragraphs. I do see opinions, value statements, and unsupported claims: ["withdrawing weapons and support ... is the right move", "(doing so) will lead to peace", "Only diplomacy will solve ..."]. What I also don't see is an actual argument ... "doing something will lead to something else because ..." or examples to support links being made.
To be technical, I don't see any fallacies because I don't see an argument ... just opinions.