I'm not trying to falsify it. I'm not claiming Zelensky doesn't have popular support. I'm claiming we don't know for sure in any specific strategy. You're the one claiming we do know. — Isaac

My knowledge claim amounts to questioning your claim that we do not have “proper measure” to assess legitimacy through popular support. As I said there are formal and informal ways to express popular support for a government. Informal support exists in democracy and outside of it, and it can be measured through various indicators. In political theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#Forms_of_legitimate_government) there is no analytic or explanatory reason to restrain “legitimacy” and its measuring to what one can formally get from normally functioning democratic institutions. If you do it, it’s for propagandistic reasons, not to well-inform.

Twelfth time now...

I wasn't wondering why it was the case. I was pointing out one of the consequences of it being the case. — Isaac — Isaac

Thirteenth time the charm...

I wasn't wondering why it was the case. I was pointing out one of the consequences of it being the case. — Isaac — Isaac

That when we say that some decision about Ukraine is rightly "up to the Ukrainians" we currently have no legitimate method of asking them, we are talking about a (currently) autocratic government without opposition. As such we are mistaken if we legitimise Ukrainian strategic decisions on the grounds of a Ukrainian right to self-determination.
Zelensky's apparent recent decision to refuse negotiations until there's regime change in Russia, for example, is not a legitimate decision of the Ukrainian people. — Isaac

Since you keep playing dumb, here is what you get wrong on the consequences. The consequence is not that Ukrainians ended up having an “autocratic government”, the form of government didn’t change: in wartime democratic regimes do not function as in peacetime, that’s all. The consequence is not that Zelensky’s strategic decisions are illegitimate, but that they are legitimately taken by a democratically elected president to act as a representative of Ukrainian people in peacetime and wartime accordingly. The consequence is not that Ukrainian people didn’t decide as in peacetime, but that they (as people from any other democracy on the planet) do not get to decide about national security in wartime as much as they do not get to decide about fiscal policies in peacetime. Besides the consequence which you see so problematic is not even that Ukrainian people are not deciding, but that the government didn’t have a coalition to Russian collaborationist parties, but since this too is perfectly compatible with democracy, there is no reason to see this consequence as problematic from a democratic point of view.
Better now?

Propaganda works also through artists, pop stars, and other kinds of VIPs — neomac
So? Are you suggesting propaganda induced opinions are well-informed ones? — Isaac

The objective of propaganda is not to ensure that citizens are well-informed (according to what standard? How well-informed vs persuaded by propaganda are democratic citizens in peacetime really?), but that doesn’t necessarily imply misinformation, nor that propaganda is an illegitimate or ineffective way to earn political support, just because it doesn’t inform well enough. Unless you have in mind one single form of legitimacy for ideological reasons.

I questioned your and other Pollyannas' full grasp of Mearsheimers&co views wrt the subject "legitimate security concerns". — neomac
Yes, the question was - with what qualification? On what ground is your 'grasp' the 'full' one? Do you have any citations from experts to back up your interpretation. — Isaac

With the same qualification you pick Mearshaimer&co’s claims to support your views.
“On what grounds”?! “Citations from experts” (as if I didn’t do it already)?! “Interpretation”?! Have you ever fucking read Mearsheimer really?! Do you know his theory called “offensive realism”?! Did you read anything about geopolitical theories and in particular realist theory at all?! It’s like asking me grounds, citations, interpretation about aritmetics. Not to mention that you yourself couldn't cite any Mearsheimer's or Putin appeasement claims from geopolitical realists assessing this war in terms of Ukrainian casualties (even less in comparison to Yemeni casualties), or greedy military industries/banks&co wanting to suck blood from the rest of the world.
No, dude, I am not here to recover your ignorance on such basics. On the contrary, I’m satisfied at denouncing it and mocking it as it deserves.

democracy gains it's legitimacy from a well-informed, free electorate. we have a right to know what our government's are up to, a right to hold them account and a right to have institutions in place to do those tasks on our behalf. — Isaac

Sure, but again in wartime democracies do not work with electoral consultations of a well-informed, free electorate to take decisions of national security. Are you crazy?

Good for him. why would I judge the justification on the basis of his desirable outcomes? — Isaac

You wrote: 'justification', in this context is that for which some reason (or reasons) can be given that refer usually to either desirable consequences
Now the legitimately elected president of Ukraine has the reasons I explained referring to the desirable outcome that I pointed out. What else do you need?

It doesn't. It means up to the people who have citizenship of Ukraine. The meaning could not be simpler. — Isaac

It's not you who decides the meaning of the words. Political representatives are called representatives precisely because they are elected by the Ukrainians to take political decisions that best satisfy their preferences. So the Ukrainian government represents Ukrainians in international politics.

No it doesn't...

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2022/11/03/ukraine-risks-being-locked-into-endless-war-in-bid-for-perfect-peace/

Ordinary Ukrainians on the front lines are divided on a ceasefire and negotiations. My Ukrainian colleague Karina Korostelina and I surveyed the attitudes of both residents and displaced persons in three Ukrainian cities close to the southeast battlefields this summer. Almost half agreed it was imperative to seek a ceasefire to stop Russians killing Ukraine’s young men. Slightly more supported negotiations with Russia on a complete ceasefire, with a quarter totally against and a fifth declaring themselves neutral. Respondents were torn when considering whether saving lives or territorial unity were more important to them. Those most touched by the war, namely the internally displaced, were more likely to prioritise saving lives. Other research reveals that those farthest from the battlefields have the most hawkish attitudes — Isaac

Dude, your article starts with "Talking peace is not popular in Ukraine right now. "
But ok I noted down what the results of a survey on 3 cities on the front line is.
Yet it doesn't falsify the claim that Zelensky has still great support in Ukraine.

I didn't mention anything about needing referenda. I'm talking about a lack of fully free opposition. — Isaac

And I addressed that too. Banning parties collaborating with the enemies is perfectly compatible with any democracy at war.

there are other forms of legitimacy that can be measured — neomac
Yes, but a survey of pop stars is not one of them. — Isaac

Yes it is, for the reasons I explained. It's part of the informal support among other indicators I listed. Indeed, the president Zelensky was a popular actor before becoming the president, did you know that? Do you think it was just a coincidence? That his popularity didn't play any role in his elections?
In Italy the M5S is founded by a very popular comedian, Giuseppe Grillo, do you think that this is a mere coincidence?
Are you familiar with the concept of "influencer"? Propaganda works also through artists, pop stars, and other kinds of VIPs, do I really have to explain it to you?

there are some basics that you and other Pollyannas here do not seem to fully grasp when you so cheerfully cite Mearhsheimers&co — neomac

And your qualifications are...? — Isaac

Did you just stop reading where you stopped the quotation or are you just playing dumb as usual? I didn't question Mearsheimers&co qualifications, I questioned your and other Pollyannas' full grasp of Mearsheimers&co views wrt the subject "legitimate security concerns".

↪neomac
It will probably come as no surprise that Isaac is playing fast and loose with the truth in saying that Ukraine banned opposition parties — SophistiCat

No surprise, of course. But his sophisms are worse than just failing to get facts right.

Ah, so you'd agree that since we know there's majority Russian speaking minorities in the occupied territories, we can safely conclude they do indeed want to separate from Ukraine — boethius

Of course. Or at least I find it plausible.

even if we reject the legitimacy of the democratic tools in play? — boethius

I'm not rejecting anything. I'm just saying that in wartime democratic institutions do not work as in peacetime. But that doesn't mean that during wartime political representatives are not legitimate representatives in a democratic sense!

Certainly if Ukraine's right to self determination is just cause, so too is Crimea and Donbas and the other regions? — boethius

Right to self-determination can be handled through international law. Otherwise in the messy way it is handled now. (I didn't use the expression "just cause" on purpose because it requires further elaboration).

As long as there's "legitimacy through popular support" (or at least it's possible to just say so) then Russia is simply coming to the aid of people — boethius

Sure so Putin would claim.

completely justified in their right of self determination — boethius

For me a discussion of rights makes sense wrt a legal system, in this case international law and related international recognition. Beyond that self-determination is matter of national interest against other national interest.

Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO setting up shop on the other side of its 1,000-mile-plus border with Ukraine. — Isaac

A part from the fact that with Sweden and Finland joining NATO the NATO border to Russia would be twice as much (and Putin practically said it's not a big deal)


But there are some basics that you and other Pollyannas here do not seem to fully grasp when you so cheerfully cite Mearhsheimers&co who see NATO enlargement as a mistake and want to push Ukrainians to surrender as much as Putin can feel satisfied.

• Security concerns are legitimate reason to do war, invade countries, disrupt energy and food supply on word scale, threat to escalate to nuke (if they can) no matter what costs on people and corporations and other countries! This is true for Russia as for all countries: China, Iran and Nord Korea included! The US and the EU countries included! Ukraine included!
• Security concerns are national security concerns, so nationalism is in some form still there as a fully motivational force!
• American isolationists think that it’s not in the US national security interest to fight this war in Ukraine against Russia. And this could be a fucking serious problem for European national security concerns !

It’s these assumptions that one should keep in mind when citing these people. They do not calculate the endgame of this war in terms of saving Ukrainian lives nor in terms of selling less/more something (shale gas, weapons, hamburgers) to let some big corporations sniff more cocaine, fuck Filippino trans, in a golden villa, and making jokes about the billions of poor Yemeni kids that explode under American bombs AT ALL.

That which is 'right', in this context, is that which derives from rights in some way (either natural rights, or concepts of justice), as in the expression "I have a right to know why you said that", it's not claiming anything about the law. I have a right to keep my property, but it may not be justified to have excess. — Isaac

And what are exactly the natural rights or concepts of justice or rights-not-claiming-anything-about-law that Zelensky has violated in not having a coalition with Russian collaborationist parties?

That which has 'justification', in this context is that for which some reason (or reasons) can be given that refer usually to either desirable consequences or virtues which are causally related to the act in question. "blowing up that bridge was justified because it prevented greater harm in the future “ — Isaac

For Zelensky, the desirable consequence of not having a coalition with Russian collaborationist parties, is that the response to Russian invasion is going to be more resolute, military decisions are not going to be ratted on and therefore chances to regain control over occupied territories are greater.

That when we say that some decision about Ukraine is rightly "up to the Ukrainians" we currently have no legitimate method of asking them, we are talking about a (currently) autocratic government without opposition. As such we are mistaken if we legitimise Ukrainian strategic decisions on the grounds of a Ukrainian right to self-determination. — Isaac

“Up to the Ukrainians” means up to the governmental representatives of Ukraine that were democratically voted to act as such in peacetime and wartime? “Autocratic government without opposition” (where “opposition” = “Russian collaborationist parties") which in wartime is perfectly legitimate and perfectly compatible with democracy (Italian democratic governments are not supposed to make political coalitions with anti-state mafia representatives, you know). No we aren’t if the current Ukrainian government is fighting for national sovereignty and security against foreign invasions. One could claim that Ukrainians do not give a shit about Ukrainian self-determination. But Zelensky’s government has great support from Ukrainians, even despite the censorship that he rationally applied over press and opposition, even the losses they have suffered sofar. So what on earth are you talking about?

Zelensky's apparent recent decision to refuse negotiations until there's regime change in Russia, for example, is not a legitimate decision of the Ukrainian people. — Isaac

Political representatives do not delegate decisions to the people they represent, otherwise what the hell is their job supposed to be, people could literally decide everything by referendum. But it doesn’t work that way in normal times (there are no referendums on fiscal matters), go figure during wartime. I don’t know wars of national self-determination based on referenda, usually they are led by strong leaders with great popular support.

It means that, for the time being, dissent in Ukraine regarding the government's course of action is not being properly recorded or represented, which is extremely relevant to the kinds of arguments Paine and @Olivier5 were making about legitimacy derived from popular support. Currently, we have no proper measure of that. — Isaac

So my comments on legitimacy through popular support and how to measure it when democratic tools are not available was pertinent. And your constraining “legitimacy” to “democratic” legitimization is twice misleading: there are other forms of legitimacy (informal support) that can be measured, and Zelensky was democratically (formally) legitimized to be the chief leader of Ukraine in peacetime and wartime.

Playing the devil's advocate: what if the Americans want to slowly push Putin go tactical nuclear to turn his escalate to de-escalate strategy against him?

There might be 4 possible promising consequences in doing this:
- Heavy conventional retaliation: like destroying the Russian strategic infrastructures (e.g. Black Sea fleet), no fly zone in Ukraine, bombing Russian army in occupied (but not-annexed) territories.
- Possibly turn the Rest of the World and of Europe definitely against Russia.
- Possibly turn the trend of American domestic divisions (at least wrt Russia) in line with the current anti-Putin stance more favorable with the Biden at the next elections.
- And therefore also possibly turn Russian support for Putin (especially inside his own entourage) against Putin.

valid deduction is often expected to conserve justification and to conserve knowledge, just as it conserves truth. — Srap Tasmaner

This is the case only if the premises are known to be true by X or justifiably believed to be true. My point is how to better understand justification wrt deduction as a study case.

The awkward bit in the Gettier cases is the possibility of partial justification. — Ludwig V

What does partial justification of a belief mean ? In case of a deduction (which I'm talking about to clarify the notion of justification, not to equate the 2 concepts), it could be when we believe premises to be true (and they are true!) but we do not know them to be true:
P1: If doctor X diagnoses a cancer, then there is a cancer
P2: doctor X diagnoses a cancer
C: there is a cancer
One could believe P1 to be true (P1 being the case) and yet not know it to be true.
But in this case again, the term justification wouldn't apply to just valid deductions, they would still need to be sound deductions.

"right and justification" as your quote specifies. — Isaac

What do you mean by "right" and "justification" as distinguished from "lawful"?

A tenth time then...

I wasn't wondering why it was the case. I was pointing out one of the consequences of it being the case. — Isaac — Isaac

And? What's your point in highlighting the consequences? What lesson is there to learn in there?

On what grounds then? I argue someone doesn't have a legitimate mandate, you argue that they do because you use a different meaning of 'legitimate'. That's neither a critique nor a line of questioning. It's just a declaration. — Isaac

We have been through this already. Terminological issues can be settled through stipulation whenever terminology diverges from some standard usage or triggers misunderstanding. What is substantial however is conceptual consistency and explanatory power behind the given terminology.

Some people think that there is no knowledge in Gettier cases, but that there is justified true belief. Hence they conclude that the JTB definition is inadequate. Others, like me, think that the JTB is correct, (subject to some caveats). They think that if there is no knowledge, there cannot be justified true belief. The question comes down to whether the main character's belief is justified or not; the stories create situations in which it isn't possible to give a straight answer. Or that's my view. — Ludwig V

I think one way to see this issue more clearly is by considering the distinction between valid and sound deductions. A conclusion could be validly inferred from some premises and be true, yet the deduction could be unsound because at least one of the premises is false. Example:
[P1] All cats are plants
[P2] All plants are mammals
[C] All cats are mammals
Now let’s ask: if C is true, X believes that C and X is justified in believing that C by that deduction, then does X know that C? Well if a valid deduction is enough to be deductively justified, then we do not have a case of knowledge (i.e. knowledge can not equate to JTB). But if only sound deductions can qualify as deductive justification, then we do not have a case of justification (i.e. knowledge can still equate to JTB).

. It doesn't obviate the consequences of not having one. It would be preposterous to expect me to fly by jet to my next conference. The preposterousness doesn't have any impact on the consequence that I may be late as a result. — Isaac

So what? In your example the goal is to be at the conference on time (and you failed it). While Zelenesky’s goal is not to have a coalition with Russian collaborationist parties (and he succeeded it). The point is that that’s a rational goal, because when national sovereignty/security is in severe danger there must be enough convergence and commitment on matter of national sovereignty/security for a coalition between otherwise opposing parties to efficaciously deal with such an emergency.

Even a tyrant coming to power on a wave of popular support is illegitimate if they do not have means of being held to account. — Isaac

If that’s how you understand legitimacy, you better clarify it because: In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a regime. Whereas authority denotes a specific position in an established government, the term legitimacy denotes a system of government—wherein government denotes "sphere of influence". An authority viewed as legitimate often has the right and justification to exercise power. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular regimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential elite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)). And all that doesn’t necessarily require democratic ways of holding political leaders to account.
BTW is Putin a legitimate leader according to your way of understanding political legitimacy?

It's a basic tenet of democracy. — Isaac

So what? It’s rational to act in accordance to democratic rules under the assumption that there are sufficiently robust democratic institutions. While a central government which is still struggling for its sovereignty and territorial control, can’t operate under such assumption. Obviously.

Yes, that's true. I've been discussing the legitimacy of that mandate. — Isaac

Without clarifying what you mean by “legitimacy”. And if you do not clarify your own terms, then I feel encouraged to apply my understanding of them.

Besides we have a different notion of political legitimacy. — neomac

Then stop responding to my posts as if I shared your notions. — Isaac

I don’t see why: that’s how I can discover where our notions diverge, for example. And if we aren’t sharing same notions, I can still question your notions.

Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression, answer: yes. At any cost? No. — Benkei

That's your way of framing what is at stake, not mine. The geopolitical implications of this war go beyond the fate of the Ukrainians themselves. And its irrational to ignore them.

Roosevelt was elected in 1944. The UK ensured consensus by using a coalition of parties. Neither banned opposition. And that's the point here. A government's mandate requires a robust opposition to hold them to account, otherwise the mandate is meaningless because the public cannot be expected to simply find out how things stand of their own accord. — Isaac

I disagree with the examples and the main claims.
None of the above countries were invaded. Coalition parties in the UK and in the US made sense simply because they didn’t include any party collaborationist with hostile foreign powers. And even if one sees the Ukrainian war in terms of civil war (as often the war in Ukraine has been described), it’s preposterous to expect a coalition between opposing parties that see one another as the enemies: it’s like expecting the Federal government to form a coalition with confederates during the Civil War, or the coalition that fought against the fascists in Italy build the new state by including the fascist party.
In democracy, government's mandate would require a robust opposition to hold them to account as long as there is enough convergence on matters of national sovereignty/security. This point is particularly critical when the Ukrainian central government (unlike the US and the UK in WW2) is still in the process of state building against legacies from the Soviet era, interfering social-political-economic-criminal ties with Russia and therefore wide mistrust in democratic institutions and political parties.

"well if the people didn't support it, they'd demonstrate, so it's got a mandate” — Isaac

He got the mandate when he was elected as president for peacetime and wartime. Period. And if the capacity of parties to guarantee representativity can be problematic in Western countries with more robust democratic institutions (e.g. when the voter turnout is particularly low and parties do not collect enough votes), go figure in countries which still have weak democratic institutions. That’s one more reason to value the informal support for political leaders. Since there is large support for Zelensky it’s preposterous to question his legitimacy just because he didn’t build a coalition with Russian collaborationist parties.

Constitutions do not determine the legitimacy of mandates. If Putin wrote a constitution in which it was guaranteed that he was ruler for life, would you argue his mandate was legitimate? — Isaac

Zelensky didn’t change constitution as you suggest. And even Western democratic constitutions generally give extraordinary powers to the president in wartime. Besides we have a different notion of political legitimacy. I'm talking about political legitimacy in terms of actual formal and informal support. Formal support (through binding institutions: e.g. constitutions and laws) doesn’t need to be grounded on “democratic” institutions as Westerners understand them. Yet Westerners might be more interested in tracking informal support where formal support is not as representative as in full-fledged or functional democracies.
Your notion of “legitimacy” is more in the domain of what ought to be within the limits of your wild imagination, I guess.

A society which has banned opposition parties and press is one in which the government are not properly being held to account, and as such that government does not have a legitimate mandate. It's that simple (my edit.). — Isaac

Not simple, simplistic.

Are you net even the least bit suspicious about the messages you're regurgitating. — Isaac

Not as much as I am suspicious about your intellectual skills and honesty. I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand.

We have these almost consecutive arguments - on the one hand this a just war because it is fighting for the ideal of democracy and Western freedoms over the Russian tyranny, then without even pausing for breath, you're now arguing that democracy's not all that important after all and governments can run off a few opinion polls and some celebrity support without that causing any major issues. It's really quite a talent. — Isaac

If you see a contradiction, you have to blame your poor logic acumen and your attitude to caricature your opponents’ claims to make a point.That’s not talent though. Just embarrassing intellectual misery.

In a country where opposition media reporting has been banned. — Isaac

The country is as at war, so democracy can not function as normal: e.g. do you have any examples of countries invaded by a foreign power that run democratic presidential elections while at war? I don't.
Yet, if/when possible, we can still assess consensus/support for the government through other indicators.

I don't know how familiar you are with the general consensus on what constitutes a legitimate mandate, but it's rarely done by lack of pop star opposition. — Isaac

Can you quote me where I claimed otherwise? VIPs, artists, and pop stars can be influencers with followers and amplifiers of the people's voice so it's important for politics and politicians to have them on their side, supporting their propaganda. For example, for 43 years the people of Iran have been denied representation at the United Nations, recently, the pop star Nazanin Boniadi changed that. And that's of great importance for the Iranians who oppose the regime. So it's unreasonable to dismiss the "soft power" of such prominent people (Zelensky was a popular actor before becoming president, are you familiar with that?), especially after showing - as you did, even in your last post - so much concern for the impact of propaganda. In any case, that's just one indicator that adds up with others I listed, of course.

The point was about legitimate mandates. — Isaac

Zelensky is the president so he has the legitimate mandate to be the president also during wartime according to the Ukrainian constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ukraine#Duties_and_powers). What's so hard to understand, dude?

Yes, I assume it's a temporary measure, but we can't pretend it doesn't have any effect (they wouldn't have done it if it had no effect). It means that, for the time being, dissent in Ukraine regarding the government's course of action is not being properly recorded or represented, which is extremely relevant to the kinds of arguments Paine and @Olivier5 were making about legitimacy derived from popular support. Currently, we have no proper measure of that. — Isaac

Even in the absence of normally functioning representative institutions, and in the presence of censorship of domestic anti-government propaganda and fog of info, there is enough input to assess support/consensus for the Ukrainian government. For example, as far as I know:

- No Ukrainian street demonstrations have been organised against Zelensky as in Russia against Putin or his war:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/russia-protests-more-than-1300-arrested-at-anti-war-demonstrations-ukraine
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/24/1124939236/russia-protest-putin-mobilization-draft-ukraine-war

- Ukrainian polls are widely pro-Zelensky:
https://www.iri.org/news/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-confidence-in-victory-over-russia-overwhelming-approval-for-zelensky-little-desire-for-territorial-concessions-and-a-spike-for-nato-membership/

- Ukrainian social network is widely supportive of Zelensky and against-Russia:
https://democracy-reporting.org/en/office/ukraine/publications/personalities-of-public-opinion-the-influencers-dominating-ukraines-wartime-social-media
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/generation-ua-young-ukrainians-are-driving-the-resistance-to-russias-war/
https://www.prweek.com/article/1788344/ukraine-winning-propaganda-war

- Ukrainian expats are widely pro-Zelensky and oppose Russian invasion:
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/volodimir-zelenskij-zakordonni-ukrayinci-ce-myaka-sila-sho-t-72165
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60634736

- No Ukrainian VIPs and artists against Zelensky. Compare to Russia:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/19/russian-pop-star-alla-pugacheva-condemns-putins-war-in-ukraine
https://www.thedailybeast.com/putin-moves-to-crush-russian-artists-speaking-out-on-ukraine-war
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60814306
https://www.dw.com/en/russian-artists-speak-out-against-the-war-in-ukraine/a-60946690

- Ukrainians returning from abroad to fight Russian invasion (couldn't find evidence of the same reaction from Russian expats):
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-poland-migration-8de0893dfcf7db46e6a6acf9911104a4
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/over-66200-ukrainian-men-have-returned-abroad-fight-says-defence-minister-2022-03-05/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-19/ukrainians-return-home-by-the-millions-even-as-war-rages-on?leadSource=uverify%20wall

- Ukrainian fierce resistance against the Russian oppressor (consistent with the Ukrainian historical aversion against Russian oppression [1]):
https://theconversation.com/unexpected-ukrainian-resistance-continues-to-thwart-russias-initial-plans-for-quick-decisive-victories-189507
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-why-popular-resistance-is-a-big-problem-for-russia-184956

Not to mention the fact all the international investigators on the ground that could report all they see and hear from Ukrainians that could report about Ukrainian people’s lack of support for Zelensky if there was any (as much as they can report about Ukrainian politicians averse to Zelensky).
Indeed even Russians don't question the Ukrainian support for Zelensky: that's why Russians have moved from the rhetoric of liberating Ukrainians from a nazi regime to a more genocidal approach on the battlefield and national TV propaganda.
Finally, it's plausible to expect greater internal cohesion against external threats when the perceived threat is collective, the leadership is trusted, and convergence on how to deal with the threat is strong enough.

[1]
Polls for joining NATO is showing a trend averse to Russia since Russian annexation of Crimea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Popular_support_to_NATO_integration_of_Ukraine_in_Ukraine

The meaning of terms used to construct premises and deduce conclusions is irrelavent? I don't think I agree. — Benj96

Then you do not understand formal logic.

I already highlighted precisely what I meant by H, A and W — Benj96

In formal logic, what you mean by H, A and W is irrelevant.

If you believe otherwise, good luck.

My point is that if one wants to deduce conclusions from premises based on formal logic, then the meaning of the terms is irrelevant. Indeed if your deduction is something like:
P1: All H are A and all A are H
P2: some A are W
C: some H are W
It looks valid but that doesn't depend on what we know about the terms H, A, W, anyways.
In short, I find your example twice misleading because, it's equivocally formulated ("all humans are animals" in logic is understood as in "all H are A" and not as in "All H are A and all A are H", indeed that's the syllogistic rule of distribution in universal affirmative premises) and even after removing the equivocation the logic of a deduction should be assessed by its form not by the semantics of its terms so it doesn't look appropriate to use it to make a semantic point, if that's your goal.

Your form. P1 All H are A pertains to "All humans are animals." (but not all of them). — Benj96

Because you wrote "all humans are animals" as a premise one and you claimed it was logic to deduce from that premise and a second one a certain conclusion. This is wrong from a standard logic point of view.
"All X is P" in standard logic is never understood as "All X is P and all P is X" as you seem to claim now (indeed "all humans are all animals" sounds pretty weird as a sentence). Formal logic is about propositional forms not about the semantics of the terms occurring insides propositions.

Yes it's clearly not (based on the fact that we have external knowledge pertaining to the set of assumptions (the knowledge that "not all animals are humans".). — Benj96

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a formal fallacy, so it doesn't depend on the semantics of its terms (and related external knowledge).

Your syllogism
P1: all humans are animals
P2: some animals have wings
C: some humans have wings

corresponds to the following form (e.g. W = wing-equipped):
P1: All H are A
P2: some A are W
C: some H are W

This form is fallacious.

It's logical to conclude that if all humans are animals (assumption 1) and some animals have wings (assumption 2) that some humans have wings. — Benj96

it's not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle.

Add to that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal

One event preceding another would help. There being some plausible mechanism by which the former event brings about the latter would be good too. Some documents, speeches, photographs... — Isaac

Here is the problem: temporal correlation doesn't equate to causality (that's your initial objection, correlation is not causality), the concept of "mechanism" presupposes the notion of "causality" (so back to square one), some (how many?) documents, speeches, photographs can be considered causal factors only if one can prove that there is more than correlation between those factors and what ensued. So I'm asking you again: what would be the difference between causation and correlation in history and what would count as evidence of causality in history? Here is an example: NATO enlargement caused the war in Ukraine (you can choose any alternative example of historical causal explanation that you believe correct). Show me the evidence you have that there is causation and not just correlation. Until then for me you have no clue what you are talking about.

In your example, the Baltic States may have developed more open democracies because they joined NATO/EU, or they may have done because of their own internal political movements and joined NATO/EU as a consequence. — Isaac

In both cases they achieved that outside the sphere of Russian influence. Even in this scenario, it doesn't matter to me which is cause and which is consequence, the end status is still the same: those states estimated to benefit from joining the West more than from remaining under Russian influence.

Distinguishing correlation and causation is pretty basic stuff. — Isaac

I didn't talk about causation. But since we are at it, tell me what would be the difference between causation and correlation in history and what would count as evidence of causality in history.

When you're making up your own definition of racism to avoid the charge you should probably stop digging. — Isaac

No I'm not making up my own definition [1]. But the meaning of the word can be stretched depending on context and needs. So if you do not provide your definition (even if I asked), I'll use mine of course. That's why it's matter of intellectual honesty to clarify the terms used when needed.
Besides it doesn't really matter. You didn't prove that I'm racist according to your own definition. You didn't provide any evidence that I support the discrimination of Russians based on their nationality or the possession of the Russian passport.

Congratulations for your epic fail.

[1]
Racism

Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.[2][4] There have been attempts to legitimize racist beliefs through scientific means, such as scientific racism, which have been overwhelmingly shown to be unfounded. In terms of political systems (e.g. apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices or laws, racist ideology may include associated social aspects such as nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, and supremacism.

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race", the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the United Nations's Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. It further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust, and dangerous. The convention also declared that there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Again if you do not clarify the way you use words (as I did), despite you have been asked to, that's matter of your personal intellectual honesty. And you proved you have none.
Picking a definition from official source provides evidence of a certain usage, sure, but not a universal usage, and certainly I'm not committed to such usage which I find preposterous. For me racism has to do with race, a biological concept, (hence the word "racism") and has to do with discrimination which is morally if not legally questionable. Period.
If you want to extend it to nationality or ethnicity (as non-biological factors) fine but you have to clarify it, since nationality doesn't necessarily imply a correlation with a specific "race" (American is one nationality but not one race) and can be better rendered with the word "xenophobia".
But that's not all. The other key concept is discrimination. Your own source specifies how this is to be intended [1]. Where did I claim we should discriminate Russians in the sense specified by your own source exactly?
Besides your own source doesn't support the claim that nationality or ethnicity is nothing else than having the passport of a given nationality.


[1]

Different types of race discrimination

There are four main types of race discrimination.
Direct discrimination

This happens when someone treats you worse than another person in a similar situation because of your race. For example:

if a letting agency would not let a flat to you because of your race, this would be direct race discrimination

Indirect discrimination

This happens when an organisation has a particular policy or way of working that puts people of your racial group at a disadvantage. For example:

a hairdresser refuses to employ stylists that cover their own hair, this would put any Muslim women or Sikh men who cover their hair at a disadvantage when applying for a position as a stylist

Sometimes indirect race discrimination can be permitted if the organisation or employer is able to show to show that there is a good reason for the discrimination. This is known as objective justification. For example:

a Somalian asylum seeker tries to open a bank account but the bank states that in order to be eligible you need to have been resident in the UK for 12 months and have a permanent address. The Somalian man is not able to open a bank account. The bank would need to prove that its policy was necessary for business reasons (such as to prevent fraud) and that there was no practical alternative

Harassment

Harassment occurs when someone makes you feel humiliated, offended or degraded. For example:

a young British Asian man at work keeps being called a racist name by colleagues. His colleagues say it is just banter, but the employee is insulted and offended by it

Harassment can never be justified. However, if an organisation or employer can show it did everything it could to prevent people who work for it from behaving like that, you will not be able to make a claim for harassment against it, although you could make a claim against the harasser.
Victimisation

This is when you are treated badly because you have made a complaint of race related discrimination under the Equality Act. It can also occur if you are supporting someone who has made a complaint of race related discrimination. For example:

the young man in the example above wants to make a formal complaint about his treatment. His manager threatens to sack him unless he drops the complaint

I provided this already.

Right, so there's absolutely no justification behind neomac's claim about "generations" of abuse in future. Russian are perfectly capable and likely to change regime-type and approach to war. Other ex-soviet regimes have done so. There's therefore no reason whatsoever to assume that Donbas in Russian hands would yield "generations" of abuse. — Isaac

Capability depends on material and cultural factors that can be geopolitically at stake: ex-soviet regimes have done so, by joining NATO or EU (in around 15 years), not by remaining within the Russian sphere of influence (Russia itself after 30 years has grown more authoritarian and imperialistic).

It's absolutely racist to suggest there's any link whatsoever between past war crimes ("generations" ago) and a current or future propensity to commit war crimes on the basis of shared nationality.

That's exactly the claim that was being made. It's a racist claim. It's nothing whatsoever to do with merely "pointing out" war crimes. It's pointing out past war crimes and additionally saying that because they were committed by Russians they have some bearing on the likelihood of future Russians committing similar crimes. — Isaac

“Racism”, as I understand it, refers to beliefs (typically unproven) about biological traits (the “race”) which encourage a social discrimination (typically morally questionable). Since I never made claims about Russian “race” or presuppose beliefs about Russian “race”, my claims can not be considered racist. My point is that besides biological traits there are also socio-cultural traits/products/patterns that are shared across individuals and generations (e.g. language, habits, ideologies, historical tropes, administrative organizations, military doctrine, economic infrastructures, nuclear arsenals). Acknowledging their existence, studying them (as social scientists, historians and anthropologists do) and form expectations based on them doesn’t equate to, nor implies, nor suggests the belief that cultural traits/products/patterns are pre-determined by or strictly associated with biology or genetics or phenotypic traits, and therefore it has nothing to do with racism. Even acknowledging that not all socio-cultural traits are perceived as compatible (e.g. Russian authoritarianism as I understand it, is not compatible with Western democracy as I understand it) is racist. And even expressing a deep preference for the latter and rejection of the former can be considered “racist”.
So either you are making a preposterous usage of the word “racism” or you are being intellectually dishonest. Tertium non datur.

he doesn't care about human affairs, it's human affairs that ought to care about him !

Lazy racism — Isaac

Define "lazy racism", lazy boy.

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which becomes OK to extend the crimes of some people to all who happen to share a passport, — Isaac

Quote me where I claimed that. What is "extend the crimes" supposed to mean?

There's no "historical, military, cultural and political context" in which the oppression of some people who happened at the time to be Ukrainian by some people who happened at the time to be Russian has any justificatory weight whatsoever on decisions made today about the current group of people who happen to be Ukrainian and the current groups of people who happen to be Russian. They are completely different groups of people. — Isaac

People may be different. But culture and national identity may still be the same. You are just repeating your moral claims, not making them more rationally compelling.

https://www.spisok-putina.org/en/about-the-project/

The project aims to gather information related to persons of the following categories:

• The “POWER-HOLDERS” of Russia, who seized and unlawfully hold power in the country;
• The “EXECUTORS”, who, as public servants and MPs, directly implement the Kremlin’s policy of felonious retention of power in the country;
• The “TRANSGRESSORS”, from among the judges, prosecutors, investigators, lawyers, law enforcement officers and their agents responsible for the direct implementation of the repression and prosecution of the opposition;
• The “AGGRESSORS”, who are responsible for carrying out the policies of war, occupation and chaos against other countries, in violation of international law, in the political interests of the leadership of the country;
• The “BENEFICIARIES”, foreign partners of the Russian government who contribute to the implementation of its felonious plans to undermine international law and global peace, justice and democracy.
• The “OLIGARCHS AND CORRUPT OFFICIALS”, who are responsible for plundering Russia on a state-wide scale, by direct membership in the Russian government or proximity to it through relatives and other proxies;
• The “PROPAGANDISTS”, who are responsible for creating and disseminating state information, deliberately deceiving people in the interests of the political leadership and creating an atmosphere of widespread hatred and intolerance;
• The “ACCOMPLICES”, who reap personal profit from cooperation with government authorities, to the detriment of the interests of the country and its citizens;

https://www.spisok-putina.org/en/personas/

Even if some black people are criminals it's not OK to say "blacks are criminals" — Isaac

Generics can be used to convey or suggest racial stereotypes and incentivize forms of social discrimination, but the claims I (and others) made here about "Russians" (like "Russians oppressed Ukrainians" or "Russians are oppressing Ukrainians") are not meant to convey nor suggest such racial stereotypes, and related forms of social discrimination. Those generics must be understood in the historical, military, cultural and political context I (and others) have specified. If you are intellectually blind to such uses, that's your problem: "you have to meet a minimum standard of comprehension" to sound rationally compelling.

Your logical acumen is very poor.

"Russians oppress Chechens" doesn't have the logical form of "Black people are all criminals" or "Roma are all drug addicts" (notice the use of the quantifier "all").
"Russians oppress Chechens" (like “tigers are striped”, “ducks lay eggs”, and “ticks carry Lyme disease”) is a generic proposition which does not carry information about how many members of a given group have the alleged property, therefore it can not be reduced to a quantified (e.g. universal) proposition.

I'm not hand-holding you both through this, you have to meet a minimum standard of comprehension. — Isaac

What is there to comprehend? You have no clue what you are talking about.

I never claimed there's no such group. My claims are of the form "there's no such group as "the Russians", which..." — Isaac

So your claims are like "there's no such group as "the Russians", which..." share the property of having Russian passports.

But then you claim also:

The group 'the Russians' shares the property of having Russian passports. — Isaac

The solution is to correct that shitty exegesis, not demand proof of it. Thus isn't an exam, it's a discussion. If my exegesis is incorrect, just correct it. — Isaac

Yes that's how you shift the burden of proof on your interlocutor. It's always your opponent that must catch up to whatever bullshit you claim about them. This is your rhetoric trick. An intellectually miserable one.

A rhetorical device, ironically, that, despite being extremely common, people seem to think is very clever and conclusive. — Isaac

I have enough evidence of that. And don't expect the liar to admit his own lies.

Keep insulting people, dude, that's the best argument you can offer to support your humanitarian goals.

no you wrote "neomac's false claim that there was some contiguous entity called 'The Russians' which deservedly had the hatred of...". I never made such a claim.
A discussion is not my claim, and your exegesis of what I claimed in a discussion is not my claim. Period. And that's important to expressly acknowledge precisely because your exegesis might be pretty shitty. And that's not the first time I (and others) noticed it. You are prone to strawman your interlocutors.

If you dislike people selecting partial quotes to make a point you might want to set a better example. — Isaac

You didn't quote me. Neither selectively nor entirely. Besides what is the partial quote I made of you that you find so problematic wrt what I claim against you? And why?

What? — Isaac

You play dumb and argue in an intellectually uncooperative way. Your position is embarrassingly self-defeating at any level one wants to see it.