Bullshit scholarship – Escaping from Bullshit

What were the actual or real reasons in your judgment for the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Qwen2.5-Max

To assess the actual or real reasons behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it is important to move beyond Vladimir Putin’s stated justifications—such as the false claim of “genocide against Russian speakers in the Donbas” 6—and examine deeper geopolitical and historical factors.

1. Geopolitical Ambitions and Sphere of Influence

One of the primary drivers of the invasion appears to be Russia’s desire to reassert its dominance over Ukraine, a country it views as historically and culturally tied to Russia. Putin has long opposed Ukraine’s increasing alignment with Western institutions like NATO and the European Union, which he perceives as encroaching on Russia’s traditional sphere of influence 6. This was evident as early as 2014 when protests erupted in Ukraine after then-President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a deal for greater integration with the EU, leading to Russia’s annexation of Crimea 5. The 2022 invasion can be seen as an escalation of this ongoing effort to prevent Ukraine from fully integrating into Western political, economic, and military structures.

2. Preventing Ukrainian Sovereignty and Independence

Another real reason for the invasion lies in Russia’s attempt to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence. Since the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution, Ukraine has pursued reforms aimed at reducing corruption, strengthening democratic institutions, and aligning more closely with the West. These developments likely alarmed Putin, who may have feared that a successful, independent Ukraine could serve as a model for pro-democracy movements within Russia itself 7. By invading Ukraine, Russia sought to destabilize the country and reinstall a government more favorable to Moscow’s interests.

3. Historical and Ideological Motivations

Putin has also framed the invasion in ideological terms, arguing that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people” and that Ukraine is an artificial state created by Soviet policies. This narrative ignores centuries of distinct Ukrainian identity and nation-building but serves to justify Russia’s actions under the guise of “reuniting” what Putin sees as a fractured historical entity 6. Such rhetoric reflects a broader ambition to restore Russia’s status as a great power and reverse the perceived humiliation of the post-Soviet era.

4. Domestic Political Considerations

While external factors dominate the discourse, domestic considerations within Russia likely played a role as well. In the years leading up to the invasion, Putin faced growing internal dissent, including the Bolotnaya pro-democracy protests (2011–13) and later opposition led by figures like Alexei Navalny 7. A foreign conflict could serve to rally nationalist sentiment, distract from domestic issues, and consolidate support around Putin’s leadership.

Judgment

In my reasoned judgment, the real reasons behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine stem from a combination of geopolitical ambitions (to counter NATO expansion and maintain regional hegemony), efforts to suppress Ukrainian independence, ideological motivations rooted in distorted historical narratives, and domestic political calculations. While Putin publicly cited falsehoods such as “genocide” in Donbas 6, these claims were largely pretexts masking a broader strategy aimed at reasserting Russian control over Ukraine and reshaping the global order to suit Moscow’s interests.

Sources:

5: Explains the origins of tensions between Russia and Ukraine since 2014.
6: Outlines Putin’s false claims and broader justifications for the invasion.
7: Highlights Russia’s domestic challenges and their potential impact on the decision to invade.

Was NATO really a threat to a nuclear power of Russia?

Qwen2.5-Max

The claim that NATO posed a threat to Russia, particularly its nuclear capabilities, has been widely disputed. NATO itself has consistently stated that it “does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia” 1. The alliance’s actions have been defensive in nature, responding to what it describes as “Russian threats and hostile actions” rather than initiating aggression 2.

Russia, on the other hand, possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with an estimated stockpile of 5,580 warheads, of which 4,380 are operational 4. This makes Russia the most heavily armed nuclear power globally, far exceeding any potential military imbalance that could be attributed to NATO’s conventional forces.

Moreover, NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, which Russia claims left it feeling increasingly threatened, was not intended as an offensive move against Russia but rather aimed at stabilizing post-Cold War Europe by integrating former Soviet bloc states into Western institutions 5. Despite these assurances, Russia framed NATO’s actions as encroaching upon its sphere of influence, leading to heightened tensions.

In conclusion, while Russia has argued that NATO represents a significant threat, this perspective is largely based on perceived geopolitical encirclement rather than actual military necessity or imbalance. NATO maintains that it does not pose a direct threat to Russia 1, especially given Russia’s overwhelming nuclear capabilities 4.

Who are the main commentators that say Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO– name 20

Qwen2.5-Max12:31 pm

The claim that Russia invaded Ukraine primarily because of NATO expansion has been a subject of significant debate. While some commentators and scholars argue that NATO’s eastward expansion provoked Russia, this perspective is often challenged by others who point to internal Russian motivations and historical grievances as the primary drivers of the invasion. Below are notable figures associated with the argument that NATO played a role in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine:

Commentators Who Argue NATO Expansion Contributed to the Invasion

John Mearsheimer – A prominent realist scholar who argues that NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe and promises of eventual Ukrainian membership provoked Russia 3.
Stephen F. Cohen – An American historian who suggested that NATO’s actions were perceived as existential threats by Russia.
Patrick Buchanan – A conservative commentator who has argued that NATO’s encroachment on Russia’s borders justified Putin’s concerns.
Jeffrey Sachs – An economist who has claimed that Western policies, including NATO expansion, contributed to the conflict.
Henry Kissinger – While not excusing Russia’s actions, Kissinger has noted that ignoring Russian security concerns about NATO was a mistake.
Ray McGovern – A former CIA analyst who argues that NATO’s eastward push destabilized relations with Russia.
Dimitri Simes – President of the Center for the National Interest, who has emphasized Russia’s grievances over NATO.
Andrew Bacevich – A military historian who criticizes U.S. foreign policy, including NATO’s role in provoking Russia.
Ted Galen Carpenter – A senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who has long argued that NATO expansion antagonized Russia.
Richard Sakwa – A professor of Russian and European politics who contends that NATO’s actions created a “new Cold War.”
Paul Craig Roberts – A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who claims NATO’s expansion justified Russia’s defensive posture.
Michael Lind – A political analyst who suggests that NATO’s inclusion of Eastern European states inflamed tensions.
Scott Ritter – A former Marine intelligence officer who argues that NATO’s broken promises to Russia led to the invasion.
Alexander Dugin – A Russian philosopher whose ideas influenced Russian nationalism, citing NATO as an existential threat.
Chris Hedges – A journalist and author who critiques NATO’s role in escalating tensions with Russia.
Robert Bridge – A writer critical of Western policies, emphasizing NATO’s provocations against Russia.
Gilbert Doctorow – A political analyst who argues that NATO’s eastward expansion left Russia with no choice but to act.
Jack Matlock – Former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, who believes NATO’s moves undermined post-Cold War stability.
William Engdahl – An author and geopolitical analyst who blames NATO for provoking Russia’s invasion.
George Szamuely – A columnist who argues that NATO’s aggressive stance toward Russia made war inevitable.

Counterarguments and Context

Critics of this perspective, such as Alexander Motyl, argue that blaming NATO for the invasion ignores the agency of Vladimir Putin and his regime’s broader ambitions. Motyl writes that “Russian grievances over NATO helped spark the war ‘makes no sense,’” highlighting instead the role of authoritarianism and imperialism in driving the conflict 2. Similarly, arguments have been made that NATO’s purpose is defensive, and its expansion was aimed at stabilizing Europe rather than threatening Russia 1.

In conclusion, while numerous commentators emphasize NATO’s role in provoking Russia, their views remain contentious and are often countered by those who focus on Russia’s internal motivations and aggressive actions.

What are the counterarguments to the idea that NATO expansion provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

Who are the main scholars or commentators arguing against the idea that NATO provoked Russia’s actions?

How has NATO responded to accusations that its expansion led to increased tensions with Russia?

Compare the views of Jeffrey Sacks, John Mearsheimer, and Alexander Stubb for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and their views on how this invasion will or should end.

ChatGPT said:

The perspectives of Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer, and Alexander Stubb on the causes of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and their expectations for its resolution are informed by their distinct academic backgrounds and geopolitical experiences.

Jeffrey Sachs:

An economist with extensive experience in Eastern Europe, Sachs attributes the conflict to NATO’s eastward expansion and Western actions that he perceives as provocative towards Russia. He contends that the U.S. and NATO’s approach to Ukraine’s alignment with the West, including the 2014 events, played a significant role in escalating tensions. Sachs suggests that a peaceful resolution requires Ukraine to adopt a neutral stance, refrain from pursuing NATO membership, and make territorial concessions, such as recognizing Russian sovereignty over Crimea. He emphasizes diplomacy and negotiation, even if it necessitates difficult compromises.

persuasion.community

John Mearsheimer:

As a proponent of offensive realism in international relations, Mearsheimer argues that Russia’s invasion is a reaction to NATO’s expansion, which Russia perceives as a direct threat to its sphere of influence and national security. He believes that the West’s support for Ukraine’s NATO aspirations provoked Russia, leading to the invasion. Mearsheimer anticipates that the conflict may end with Ukraine agreeing to remain neutral, ceding territories like Crimea and parts of the Donbas region, and demilitarizing, effectively serving as a buffer state between NATO and Russia. He maintains that these outcomes are essential to address Russia’s security concerns.

newyorker.com

Alexander Stubb:

A Finnish politician and academic, Stubb rejects the notion that NATO’s expansion provoked Russia’s actions. He argues that attributing the invasion to NATO’s enlargement overlooks Russia’s imperial ambitions, drawing parallels between Putin’s actions and historical figures like Ivan the Terrible and Joseph Stalin. Stubb emphasizes that Russia’s invasion is driven by a desire for territorial expansion and regional dominance rather than a defensive response to NATO. He advocates for a firm stance against Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and cautions against making concessions that might embolden further aggression.

theaustralian.com.au

In summary, Sachs and Mearsheimer view NATO’s expansion and Western policies as significant factors provoking Russia’s invasion, advocating for Ukraine’s neutrality and territorial concessions as pathways to peace. In contrast, Stubb attributes the invasion to Russia’s imperial ambitions, supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and opposing concessions that might encourage further aggression.

Sources

Attach

Reason

Is John Mearsheimer wrong that NATO expansion was the primary reason for invading Ukraine?

ChatGPT said:

John Mearsheimer argues that NATO expansion was the primary reason for the war in Ukraine, asserting that Western efforts to integrate Ukraine into NATO and the EU provoked Russia. While his argument has merit in emphasizing the geopolitical context, it oversimplifies the situation and downplays other key factors. Here’s a detailed assessment of Mearsheimer’s position and why it is contested:

Mearsheimer’s Argument in Brief

NATO Expansion as Provocation:
- Mearsheimer claims that the West ignored Russia’s clear warnings that NATO’s eastward expansion, particularly involving Ukraine, was a red line.
- He argues that Western actions, such as NATO’s promise in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members, threatened Russia’s security and made conflict inevitable.
Ukraine’s Western Orientation:
- He asserts that Western support for Ukraine’s pivot to the EU and NATO (e.g., during the Maidan Revolution in 2014) directly challenged Russia’s sphere of influence and pushed Russia to act defensively.
Blame on the West:
- According to Mearsheimer, the West bears the primary responsibility for creating the conditions that led to the war, as it failed to respect Russia’s legitimate security concerns.

Why Mearsheimer’s Argument is Contested

1. NATO Expansion as a Pretext, Not a Cause

NATO Membership Was Unlikely for Ukraine:
As mentioned earlier, Ukraine’s NATO membership was not imminent or even realistic in the short term due to unresolved territorial disputes and lack of consensus within NATO.
- The idea that NATO expansion posed an immediate threat to Russia’s security doesn’t align with the fact that NATO had no plans to deploy offensive weaponry in Ukraine.
- Moreover, NATO is a defensive alliance, and Russia faced no genuine military threat from it.
Putin’s Broader Ambitions:
Putin’s rhetoric and actions suggest that his motivations go beyond NATO. His 2021 essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” frames Ukraine as an inseparable part of Russian history and culture. This ideological drive for domination over Ukraine challenges the idea that NATO was the primary factor.
- Putin’s actions in Crimea (2014) and eastern Ukraine began long before NATO membership was seriously on the table.

2. Russia’s Agency and Geopolitical Strategy

Mearsheimer’s analysis underestimates Russia’s agency and ambition:

Russia has a long history of seeking dominance over Ukraine, independent of NATO expansion. The idea of Ukraine drifting toward the West (economically, politically, or culturally) is itself intolerable to Putin, regardless of NATO.
Even if NATO expansion is cited as a cause, it’s hard to explain why Russia chose war in 2022, a period when NATO’s presence in Ukraine was minimal and no membership progress had been made since 2008.

3. Evidence Suggests Other Motivations

Mearsheimer’s argument overlooks several other factors driving Russia’s invasion:

Domestic Factors: Putin may have sought to shore up domestic support by rallying nationalist sentiment, particularly as his approval ratings were declining and the Russian economy was stagnating.
Ukraine’s Independence: Ukraine’s increasing democratic and Western orientation poses an ideological challenge to Putin’s authoritarian regime. A successful, independent Ukraine aligned with the EU could inspire democratic movements within Russia itself, threatening Putin’s grip on power.

4. Overstating NATO’s Role

While NATO’s eastward expansion is indeed a sore point for Russia, Mearsheimer tends to overstate its centrality:

NATO enlargement after the Cold War was primarily driven by Eastern European countries seeking protection from Russia, not by an aggressive Western agenda. Russia’s actions in places like Georgia (2008), Crimea (2014), and eastern Ukraine (2014 onward) have only reinforced these fears.
Mearsheimer portrays Russia as primarily reactive, but Russia’s actions since 2008 suggest a proactive effort to reassert control over its neighbors, with NATO serving more as a convenient pretext than a genuine trigger.

Criticism of Mearsheimer’s Approach

Overly Realist Framework:
Mearsheimer’s analysis is rooted in offensive realism, which sees great powers as primarily motivated by security concerns in an anarchic international system. This framework downplays the role of ideology, nationalism, and domestic politics in shaping decisions.
Ignores Putin’s Ideological Vision:
Putin’s vision for a “Russian World” and his denial of Ukrainian sovereignty go beyond realist security concerns. This suggests that the invasion was not just about NATO but about reestablishing Russia’s imperial influence.
Lack of Historical Context:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine fits a historical pattern of Russian aggression toward its neighbors, predating NATO and the Cold War. This undermines the claim that NATO expansion is the primary driver.

Is Mearsheimer Wrong?

Mearsheimer isn’t entirely wrong in pointing out that NATO expansion contributed to tensions between Russia and the West. However, the claim that NATO expansion was the primary reason for the war oversimplifies the issue:

NATO was a factor, but not the decisive one. Other motivations, such as Putin’s imperial ambitions, ideological worldview, and desire to control Ukraine’s future, played a larger role.
By focusing narrowly on NATO, Mearsheimer downplays Russia’s broader pattern of behavior and ignores Putin’s agency and ideological goals.

In summary, Mearsheimer’s argument captures one piece of the puzzle but overemphasizes it at the expense of a more nuanced understanding of the invasion.

Bullshit Scientific Research

Norman Finkelstein: Knowledgeable and Wise about Palestine; Ignorant and Foolish about Ukraine

Why Ukraine was invaded by Russia

There seems to be a dominant view among those public intellectuals whom I admire that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was due to the United States’ project of trying to install Ukraine into NATO. This view is spearheaded on Youtube by John Mearsheimer, but it has as supporters such prominent intellectual as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Chris Hedges, and Stephen Kinzer — to name a few.

Why this proclivity to blame the U.S.? I think it is due to their acute awareness of U.S. imperialism — in its invasions and coups, which all of them have written about. It seems, therefore, reasonable to look for the U.S. involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian affair as well. These intellectuals also think that the flight of Yanukovych was a U.S. orchestrated coup!

Contrary to their view, I believe that there was no coup; Yanukovich simply ran aways from everyone’s hostility. And this fact coincided with U.S. interests, but it was not caused by the U.S.

As to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, it is best descibed by an analogy used by Johnny Harris as the refusal of a boyfriend to let his ex-girlfriend go. Putin is the boyfriend and Ukraine is his ex-girlfriend.

I’ll let you decide which narrative is more suitable: the threat of NATO or the ex-girlfriend analogy after watching the following videos:

The first video is a debate beteen John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, for the NATO narrative, and Michael McFaul and Radislaw Sikorski, opposed.

The second video is a debate between John Mearsheimer and Carl Bildt.

The third video is a criticism of John Mearsheimer by Alexander Stubb.

The fourth is a series of videos by Johnny Harris. In the first video he comments on the pre-invasion plans of Russia. In the second and third videos he makes his comments after the invasion.

The Naive Views of Yuval Harari in Home Deus – Third Criticism

Harari writes that Humanistic Ethics consists of the principle: if it feels good — do it.

Contrast this with the following passage from C. D. Broad:

“The Factors on which the Rightness or Wrongness of an Action Depends. On my view the Net Value of an act depends jointly on three different factors. These are

(i) its Intrinsic Value or Disvalue. i.e. the value or disvalue which it has in virtue of its own intrinsic qualities, as distinct from its relations to other things and from its effects;

(ii) its Immediate Fittingness or Unfittingness to the situation in which it is performed; and

(iii) its Utility or Disutility, i.e. its tendency to produce good or bad consequences.” (C. D. Broad, “War Thoughts in Peace Time,”Religion, Philosophy and Psychical Research (1953). pp. 249.)

Harari’s principle is factor (i) in Broad’s list. It thus ignores (ii) such as the keeping of a promise despite how one feels about keeping it. And it ignores (iii) such as getting into a homosexual relation in Iran where the punishment is death.

The Naive Views of Yuval Harari in Home Deus – Second Criticism

In his book: Homo Deus (Chapter 7: The Humanist Revolution), Harari views Humanism as replacing the religious mythologies of the past with a humanist religion. I think that his view of humanism is both unscholarly and naive. It is unscholarly for ignoring the Humanist Manifesto of 1933, and it is naive by offering his own idiosyncretic version of a manifesto.

In order to better understand the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), the reader can read its history in The Genesis of a Humanist Manisfesto (1995) by Edwin H. Wilson. Briefly, it was the brainchild of Unitarian ministers who recruited the philosopher Roy Wood Sellars to compose the first draft. And to understand Sellars’ mind-set in characterizing humanism with the words “religious” and advocating “socialism”, it is advisable to consult his two earlier books: ”The Next Step in Democracy” (1916) and “The Next Step in Religion” (1918) [Both words were omitted in Humanist Manfesto II (1973) and III (2003)]

The word “religion” is ambiguous. Normally, it is used to refer to religions basesd on a belief in the supernatural. But given that Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism are included in studies of religions, the concept of a religion may be expanded to cover also what are called ideologies and world views, as is done , for example, when Communism is described as a religion. In this expanded sense of “religion”, both Sellars and Harari characterize “secular (i.e., non-supernatural) “humanism” as a religion.

As to the word “socialism,” it too is ambiguous. In contemporary usage, it means State control of industry and more. But what Sellars means by “socialism” is the ideal of amelioration of the living conditions of all human beings through liberty and justice. And he advocate doing this through an unspecified “democratic” process.

In dropping the words “religion” and “socialism”, Humanist Manifestoes II and III mean to be more generic is advocating a common good.

Harari, by contrast, is very specific in what he means by “humanism.” He means to contrast the pre-humanistic appeal to God and authority with the “humanistic” appeal to the umbrella term — “feeling.” And his characterization of humanism is in fact a characterization of capitalism and liberal democracy through the following misleading and inappropriate slogans.

Humanistic Politics: The voter knows best.
Humanistic Economics: The customer is always right.
Humanistic Aesthetics: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Humanistic Ethics: If it feels good – do it.
Humanistic Education: Think for yourself.

If the reader thinks I am presenting a caricature, below is a reproduction of pp. 234-5.

Customer Download

The Naive Views of Yuval Harari in Home Deus – First Criticism

The most egregious naive view of Harari is his view of ethics as a prescription to do whatever feels good. But I will put off a criticism of this for later. Here I want to say something about the title of his book: Homo Deus.

I realize that he is using this title for its – let us say – shock value. But though his intent is to argue for the possibility or even probability of enhancing human characteristics, such as physical and mental powers, and even the creation of human-like machines, the title is literally a contradiction in terms. Why? Because of our conception of God and gods. [See C. D. Broad, “The Validity of Belief in a Personal God”] Simply put, the ancient Greeks imagined the gods to be immortal, while humans are not. [See Robert Graves,The Greek Myths]

So, the title of Harari’s book conveys the view that a mortal can become an immortal, which is impossible for the following reason. Anything with parts can be destroyed. God, as conceived in the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian traditions has no parts, while humans do. Only two things can be said to be indestructible: ultimate parts – if there are such – as studied by quantum mechanics. And the universe, if the conservation of energy is true. And this is why for Spinoza the universe is identified with God. Consequently, neither man nor any artificial intelligence can be a Deus.

Review of “The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity” by David Graeber and David Wengrow

I have written six previous commentaries on the book [see below]. And, though I have further commentaries to make, here I want to focus on their claim of being a “new” history.

In which respect is it new?
1. It is new in the sense that it is the most recently published.
2. It is new in the sense that it takes into account the archeological discoveries of the past 50 years or so.
3. It is also new in that it tries to take into account all the anthropological findings.
4. But it also claims to be new in discarding the so-called “dominant view” and the “received wisdom.”

It is this last claim which appears to me to be something like a “straw man.”

Let me explain. A straw man argument is one which targets a fictitious position — a position invented simply for the purpose of refutation. And if one alleges to attribute such a position to a real person, then one is in reality attributing it to a fictitious person — a straw man.

In claiming that some position is the “dominant position” or the “received wisdom”, one is making a sociological claim, a claim which can be supported by a survey or a poll. [I did such a survey in 1998, trying to find out which philosopher was most influential. See: Philosophical Influence — Statistically Determined]

But the authors have not conducted any kind of survey, or named any book or authors; so their claim is simply a dogmatic assertion.

Let us now turn to the formulation of this so-called “dominant view,” “conventiona narrative,” and “received wisdom.”

As far as I can formulate it, it is the the claim that historically there was a series of linear discrete changes from foraging to farming to cities and states. If we use a time line, this historical situation is to be represented by several non-overlapping progressive historical lines. And the authors’ allegedly new position is that the situation should be represented by several overlapping historical lines. Let us call the former the Discrete View; the latter the Overlapping View.

And one of the overlapping lines, according to the authors, should be called by the neologism “play farming.” This is the claim that there was an experimental part-time farming before full-time farming. The claim was made in Chapter 6: Gardents of Adonis.

To be fair to the authors, perhaps they think that although parts of the Overlapping View were widely believed, it was the Discrete View which had to be expressed in a caricaturish manner because of the absence of evidence. [Or, perhaps such a view represents a historical bird’s eye view!] If their view about the lack of evidence is true, then, according to them, the discovery of Catalhoyuk, gives us the first evidence for part of the Overlapping View, i.e., the view that cities and farming existed simultaneously with foraging.

Let me comment on this particular claim. The claim that Catalhoyuk is the first evidence for part of the Overlapping View is not true. Yuval Harari in Sapience (p.85) writes:

The Natufians were hunter-gatherers who subsisted on dozens of wild species, but they lived in permanent villages and devoted much of their time to the intensive gathering and processing of wild cereals. They built stone houses and granaries. They stored grain for times of need. They invented new tools such as stone scythes for harvesting wild wheat, and stone pestles and mortars to grind them.

Being only a bystander in anthropology, I went to Wikipedia to find something more about the Natufian culture. The Natufian culture was named and discovered by Dorothy Garrod in the 1930s. [Incidentally, the only reference to Natufians by Graeber and Wengrow is on p. 246 where they attribute to them only the practice of “curating human crania.”]

Below is a video about the Natufian culture:

Catalhoyuk is dated to c. 9,000 BC; whereas Natufian culture is dated to c. 13,000 BC.

My conclusion is that the dominant belief was and is the Overlapping View, and that the evidence for the Overlapping View preceded the discovery of Catalhoyuk. So, it is puzzling as to what else is “new” in their “new history.”

Previous commentaries: