You should understand how nuclear deterrence works.

And just how lousy the weapon is, actually. — ssu

I'll take what I "understand" from experts in their field thanks, not some neo-liberal twat off the internet.

if Nato steps up its military involvement and Ukrainian forces push the Russians back militarily, then Putin may become increasingly desperate. Desperate leaders who believe the net is closing are the hardest to both deter and reassure, and if this dangerous cocktail of fear and insecurity is coupled with nuclear weapons, then all the ingredients are present for a dangerous escalation of the crisis.

The reluctant conclusion may be that reducing the risks of nuclear use depends on finding an “off-ramp” that simultaneously does not reward Putin nor leave him humiliated or desperate. Putin has core security interests at stake in this crisis and they will have to be acknowledged in any settlement. This is the lesson from the peaceful ending of the Cuban Missile Crisis. — Nicholas Wheeler professor of international relations at the University of Birmingham and senior fellow at British American Security Information Council

In case it's the scale you disagree with...

This from Princetown University Science and Global Security Unit

SGS developed a new simulation for a plausible escalating war between the United States and Russia using realistic nuclear force postures, targets and fatality estimates. It is estimated that there would be more than 90 million people dead and injured within the first few hours of the conflict.

This project is motivated by the need to highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of current US and Russian nuclear war plans. The risk of nuclear war has increased dramatically in the past two years as the United States and Russia have abandoned long-standing nuclear arms control treaties, started to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons and expanded the circumstances in which they might use nuclear weapons.

You're making progress. — Olivier5

And yet you, it seems are as incapable of basic comprehension as you were 300 pages ago.

Hence Russia should withdraw from the occupied territories. — ssu

And this is the issue: Russia has to withdraw from the occupied territories. Period — ssu

Neither of the quotes you cited say this, only that territorial integrity is a goal. As it should be. The less land in Russian control the better. The matter at hand right now is how much we ought be willing to pay for that boon.

It is your notion that considering the need to avoid escalation is "absurd" that the citations are aimed against.

if both central planning and corporation initiative are always a way to screw people, what's left for you to hope for? — neomac

As I've said before your lack of imagination is your problem. Unless you're fresh out of high school or you've been raised in cult of fundamentalist neo-liberals, you'll know full well that a wide range of solutions have been proposed which are neither government controlled nor corporate profit engines.

even if we shouldn't overestimate the immediate and direct economic impact of the Marshall Plan, there isn't enough to support the idea that the Marshall Plan was just a "corporate opportunity to screw everyone" either. — neomac

Indeed. But that wasn't the claim was it? Your claim was that the Marshall plan countered my position. To do that it would have to have been a) constituted of corporate reconstruction contracts, and b) an unquestioned success. It was neither.

Anyway, if that can be scratched off, then their interest in Donbas was another from the get-go, and that was/is among their demands. And, if they had ulterior plans, then it'd be helpful to understand what they were/are, especially for decision-makers. — jorndoe

Ulterior motives are important, but so's the gloss (often more so). There is a significant neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine, it did ought to be dealt with, and it did form part of Putin's public justification. That makes it an issue worth talking about, regardless of the fact that Putin himself clearly doesn't give a fuck.

But all this is hypothetical because corporate media has made it political suicide for politicians to pursue any route other than Putin's military defeat, they've dug their own grave. The progressives in America couldn't even suggest negotiations. What kind of shit hole country can even fucking discuss peace?

The neutrality deal was to accommodate Putin's demands, "NATO threatening us", "deNazification", "demilitarization", that stuff. Their tune has changed some, and might continue to change. — jorndoe

Yeah, I see what you mean. There's a line to walk with any deal between offering Putin a face-saving off-ramp and offering him a sweetener that he actually wants. The two might not be the same. I do think Putin genuinely wants trade access (oil) and he wants a seat at the 'big boys table', but I don't buy for a second that he's actually concerned about Nazis.

The problem with demilitarisation is that it's already in the Minsk agreements so a new agreement would says what?

Conjecture on my part: If they thought it feasible, they'd grab all of Ukraine, and start re-culturation immediately — jorndoe

Maybe, but the "if they thought it feasible" is doing lot of work there. Who would? Ukraine's enormous, they had trouble holding Chechnya and that's actually in their territory already. Talk of Putin's imperial ambitions is propaganda, it's absurd. He's barely been involved in more than a few border scuffles - compared to the US's wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq... If Putin had the slightest imperial ambitions he'd have attacked Ukraine decades ago, what was he waiting for?

The demands have become increasingly fake-looking (almost ridiculous), but decision-making and such depend on understanding their aims, which may not have much to do with peace anyway. — jorndoe

Month's ago the demands were; neutral Ukraine, Independent Donbas, Russian Crimea. It was nothing short of criminal inhumanity that they were not considered as a starting point for a peace deal.

The neutrality thing addresses the demands, but if their aims are too different, then they wouldn't accept it, perhaps even as a starting point for talks. — jorndoe

I think neutrality, and Crimea might be lines in the sand for Russia, but we don't know. The reason we don't know being largely US warmongering.

Does this really look that sinister to you...? — jorndoe

Well they're not going to write down their real plan in the bloody press release are they!

What's sinister is a set of circumstances which have, in the past, turned out to be nothing but a way of transferring money from the poor to the rich. In this case, who knows. If we don't learn our lesson from every other such occasion, then I suppose we'll find out in a few years' time when Bayer are arranged on criminal charges again. My guess (for what it's worth) would be that the corn seed is a Bayer GMO patent which ties the Ukrainian's in to what can then be ever increasing profit margins. We've seen that before.

If your claim - more charitably understood - refers only to corporate contributions to reconstruction as such, then one must take into account the Marshall Plan after WW2. — neomac

The Marshall Plan was a US government loan instrument. It was not a corporate reconstruction contract, which is what I was referring to with Bayer.

More importantly, as economist Tyler Cowen shows, the countries that received the most Marshall Plan money (allies Britain, Sweden, and Greece) grew the slowest between 1947 and 1955, while those that received the least money (axis powers Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. So the extent to which Chomsky is right proves exactly the point I was making. The plan hindered growth in recipient countries to the benefit of American corporations.

Paul Hoffman, head of the committee for the distribution of Marshal aid admitted in his memoir, "the aid did not in fact help the economies of Europe. The primary benefit was psychological."


A congressional report on the plan later concluded that

It is, for example, difficult to demonstrate that ERP aid was directly responsible for the increase in production and other quantitative achievements ... assistance was never more than 5% of the GNP of recipient nations and therefore could have little effect.

It did, however, make American firms extremely rich by recycling tax dollars and forcing European countries to rely on American exports.

Hence: "It looks like a tautological claim. On a charitable reading" — neomac

What?

formal neutrality agreement, involving external parties like the UN — jorndoe

Yes, I think UN involvement will be essential to the success of any plan.

In a war zone. Not a neutral zone — jorndoe

I think Crimean neutrality might be a offer worth considering, but militarily, Ukraine don't have a hope in hell of re-taking Crimea without huge losses.

I think any deal which doesn't include territorial losses is just pie in the sky. The Russians know that any territorial regains now are going to be a massive slog for Ukraine, they're unlikely to settle, when they know Ukraine are bluffing (about how easily they might wage war on Crimea).

The point about any deal is that Ukraine has to offer something fairly substantial because the two sides are pretty equal right now at the current border. Both are exhausted, both have taken huge losses, both face economic collapse (though less so Russia), both face political upheaval if they achieve anything short of victory.

So if all's roughly equal at the current front line, I can't see why one side would see a massive loss of territory as a reasonable deal.

Germany, Italy, Japan after WW2 — neomac

Interesting. Which American corporations were significantly involved in those reconstructions?

Mykhailo Podolyak is skeptical... — jorndoe

I don't think at this stage that Ukraine are going to want any kind of realistic deal, but it's not their opinion that matters to us, we're concerned with the grounds on which we ought approve the funding of this war. I think the offer of a realistic peace deal (and Russia's rejection of that offer) ought be the bare minimum grounds on which we fund a foreign war. If no such offer is made, I don't see we have any moral grounds to be involved. Peace has to be our priority, not territory.

Isn't that a bit hyperbolic, ↪Isaac
? You wouldn't give them a chance to do some good, helping with Ukrainian foodstuff? — jorndoe

It's a pattern repeated over and over - War -> reconstruction requirements -> corporate opportunity to screw everyone.

I can't think of a single example from history where that's gone well for the inhabitants. Can you?

Peace terms that the other side are never going to accept are little more than a gloss on a continued war effort.

no NATO in Ukraine — jorndoe

...trouble is, Minsc II already had "Pullout of all foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine" - Yet according to Reuters "While Ukraine's armed forces of more than 200,000 servicemen are less than a quarter the size of Russia's, they have been significantly boosted since 2014 by Western military aid, including supplies of U.S. Javelin anti-tank missiles and Turkish drones.", and 102,000 (estimated) foreign paramilitaries.

It's going to take more than non-NATO membership on paper (if that's all that's on offer), it needs to be in practice.

no nukes in Ukraine — jorndoe

...already an agreement. You can't go to Russia and offer them something they already have.

stability + some observers helping to prevent atrocities against minorities — jorndoe

...seriously! Does it look like Russia gives a flying fuck about preventing atrocities? Possibly could play to a home audience as a win, but with the change in tone now in Russia, I don't think that will work as well as it might have a few months ago.

one less staging area, one less geo-worry — jorndoe

...as above, staging and revolutions are not prevented by paperwork. There needs to be more of an international commitment to stop interference.

their naval base on otherwise neutral grounds — jorndoe

...but their naval base is currently in their territory. I don't see how this constitutes an offer, it's a concession. Russia currently hold Crimea (have done since 2014, and most of Donbas. Ukraine aren't offering to pull out of those regions, their offering to not attack them. A peace deal doesn't start with "we won't attack you if..."

a chance to show bona fides goodwill + potential for gaining international trust + rekindle relations — jorndoe

This ship has sailed. The Western propaganda machine has been ramped up to such a volume no politician without a deathwish is going to be seen 'trusting' Russia. They've burnt their own bridges there.

saving war resources — jorndoe

Russia could save war resources any time, on the terms you suggest. It's expending war resources trying to hold its new territory, it's not an 'offer' to allow then to stop, they can just stop.

possible cancellation of Sweden's + Finland's NATO applications — jorndoe

I don't think Russia cares about Sweden and Finland in NATO, both countries are well 'Westernised' already, they're a lost cause as far as the 'Western' influence Putin fears. weapons-wise, there's already missile bases in Poland etc. It's not the strategic loss Ukraine would be. Might be worth something though...

ease up some domestic tensions — jorndoe

...go on...how do you see this working? Do you think there's a significant opposition in Russia that would be satisfied by such an agreement?

sanctions easing up — jorndoe

.., if the lifting of sanctions were actually part of the agreement (rather than assumed on trust) they'd be a boon, but not enough alone. sanctions aren't that bad, and Russia can hit back just as hard (look at the fuel crisis faced by Europe this winter).

demonstrate resilience against the radicals — jorndoe

I think Putin is one of the radicals.

...

These all seem like 'icing on the cake' type sweeteners, but there's no actual offer under them to sweeten. Ukraine will have to give something more substantial, some cake for the icing to sweeten.

Interesting development you highlight here...

People could get on with life. — jorndoe

Today, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), through the Agriculture Resilience Initiative - Ukraine (AGRI-Ukraine), announced a new partnership with Bayer to address the immediate and longer-term demand for corn seed among Ukrainian farmers and other countries that depend on seed from Ukraine.

Ahh Bayer to the rescue, phew...

This would be the same Bayer who plead guilty and pay a fine of $66 million to settle charges that it participated in an international scheme to fix prices of rubber chemicals. Who were fined $16.2 million for fixing the prices of aspirin and other over-the-counter meds in Germany. Who agreed to pay $18 million to settle claims it conspired with other manufacturers to inflate the price of certain plastics. Who paid more than $257 million in global settlement of the FCA and criminal allegations that it attempted to evade paying required rebates to state Medicaid programs for sales of Cipro and Adalat.

Sounds like it's not just Russia and Ukraine relying on convicted criminals to help resolve this crisis.

But I forget, literally everyone who isn't Russia are saints with nothing but the shining light of freedom guiding their pure hearts. I'm sure Bayer will save the day and not just fuck everyone over for as much profit as they can squeeze out of whatever emaciated husk they deign to leave behind, like they've done with every single other contract they've touched.

How about reinstating the Kharkiv Pact with a neutral intact, otherwise free sovereign, Ukraine (though it could frustrate the extremists)? — jorndoe

I'd be in favour of literally any agreement which ended the fighting. The less territory in Russian control the better though, so if they'd go for your intact, sovereign Ukraine, then great.

But why on earth would the Russians just give up donbas and Crimea? They de facto owned Crimea before the recent invasion, and donbas was wavering. What do you think Ukraine could offer that would persuade the Russians to give up Crimea?

This can happen because of the absurd appeasing manner of fearing "escalation". — ssu

George Beebe, the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute, said the reports are a stark reminder that the war “could rapidly escalate into a direct U.S.-Russian confrontation.”

The risks of escalation in the Ukraine war are rising fast

The Underappreciated Risks of Catastrophic Escalation

The risk that the war in Ukraine escalates past the nuclear threshold

Putin’s Risk SpiralThe Logic of Escalation in an Unraveling War

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129792 - talk of possible nuclear weapons use could lead to a “dangerous spiral”.

Ukraine has path to victory, but prospect of defeat risks dangerous escalation from Russia

...but of course, everyone who disagrees with you simply must be absurd because you are Way, the Truth and the Light.

Next time try and understand what I say rather than shoot first and think later. — Olivier5

...

Or you could try and explain what you mean a bit better. — Olivier5

LOL. They do do guess, not totally randomly of course. — Olivier5

So what you mean to say is "Yes, that's right, they don't just randomly guess", but it seems you're allergic to agreeing with anyone not on your team.

My point, instead, is that the belligerents are the ones deciding when to stop the war, and how and when to negotiate to that end. — Olivier5

Ah right, so you've come on just to make a blindingly obvious point that my 10 year-old nephew has no trouble with. Good effort. What's next on your agenda? Telling everyone that the Pope's catholic?

The cost is not actually measured. — Olivier5

Of course it's measured, don't be stupid. Governments, NGOs, corporations, don't just make random guesses as to the impact of their interventions. The measurements might not be accurate, they might be open to interpretation, but they're not absent.

Nor are they so wide that 'anything goes'. We may not know exactly what factors lead to the famine in the Horn of Africa, but we know damn well it wasn't an excess of funding. We know stopping food supplies won't help. Your appeal to relativism only gets you so far. There's limited 'alternative facts' you can spin on this.

Their lack of political and legal rights lays at the root of the problem. Poverty is powerlessness. — Olivier5

Absolutely. Corrupt autocracies are to be avoided. As are foreign powers like the IMF dictating government policy by poverty exploitation.

Losing territory to an autocrat is a sure fire way to lose autonomy. So is getting into odious debt trying to avoid the former.

I never ever professed such an opinion. — Olivier5

Yeah, right.

think we ought, but I think we ought to do so carefully, with respect for differing opinions. — unenlightened

To a point. I don't have any truck with racism, or nationalism. I'm not going to act as if militarism is an OK opinion to have, or that war crimes, and human rights abuses are OK if you happen to be this month's media darlings. It's not OK. Some opinions are not suitable for polite discussion.

in the case of a conflict between the interests of the world and the interests of the people it represents and governs, does a government have a right or a duty to do what is best for the world? — unenlightened

I think everyone does, km not sure how else our globalised society is going to work. It may be in Brazil's best interests to capitalise on their timber resource, but the rest of the world need to breathe. It may be in India's best interests to use cheap coal, but it's not in Hawaii's for them to. It may be in Ukraine's best interests to keep pushing on to recapture Crimea, but Somalia need them to get back to farming wheat.

Short of a global government I don't see any other way than national governments developing an international conscience.

One can never make the pragmatic calculations of such global events, because no one knows the future, and no one knows the alternative future brought about by making a different decision. — unenlightened

And yet someone has to, and we either participate in holding those decisions to account or we wash our hands of the whole dirty business and let others decide for us.

Currently, our governments have decided war is for the best (though anyone who thinks they have defeating fascism in mind has been living in a cave for the last few decades). We either hold that decision to account, or we give over our responsibility to them. Do you trust your government to make that choice well, without public scrutiny? I don't.

And to think the only way to fight fascism is with war...

So here we are. Discussing the courses of action our governments are taking so as to give, or withhold, our support. Holding them to account in the public fora.

...ought we not?

Worth what? — Olivier5

The damage. As I've explained above. The costs are measured in millions of lives.

The voices of Africa are heard in the UN General Assembly, among other places. Only half of them voted for the UN resolution condemning the Russian invasion in March. This sent a message. — Olivier5

Dodging the question again.

I didn't ask "At what point did the US consult the African Union about their plan to condemn Russia"

Regardless, this is about your claim that it is proper only to consider the opinion of Ukrainians when deciding whether to continue funding the war. Are you now going back on that position?

That's not having a say in whether the war is worth it, is it?

That's having a say in what to do about the consequences.

At what point did the US consult the African Union about the impact of their continued funding for the war?

So I'll ask again...

The war in Ukraine severely increases the risk of starvation for millions in Africa by

• increasing the cost of fuel
• reducing supplies of fertilisers
• limiting the supply of drugs
• risking further disruptions to food exports
• risking the loss of food supplies next year
• detracting donor attention from vital humanitarian aid

Simple question - do those millions at risk of starvation because of the continued war get a say in whether it's worth it or not?

this Unicef quote has nowt to do with Ukraine. — Olivier5

Bullshit. It's about the famine in Somalia which literally every expert in the world agrees is (and continues to be) exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine. That you'd seek to de-legitimise the starvation of millions just to score a cheap point for you pro-Ukrainian virtue signalling is a disgrace. You should be ashamed.

UNICEF’s Deputy Regional Director for Eastern and Southern Africa, Rania Dagash
07 June 2022

The war in Ukraine is fuelling the emergency across the region: exacerbating rising global food and fuel prices, stopping vital wheat imports from Ukraine and Russia, and driving up the cost of life-saving therapeutic treatment for children with severe malnutrition.

July 2022

Before the invasion, Ukraine and Russia were among the world’s top producers and exporters of grains, cooking oil and fertilizers, and together provided nearly all of Somalia’s wheat. The disruption of crude oil from Russia has led tosoaring costs for fuel, transportation and food production. ...
The crisis is worse now than anytime in my lifetime working in Somalia for the last 20 years, and it is because of the compounded effect of the war in Ukraine,” said Mohamud Mohamed Hassan, Somalia country director for the charity Save the Children

Ukraine has taken.. the attention of the international donor community almost totally. And the crisis in Somalia, as well as in the Horn, has been neglected. — Binyam Gebru, Save the Children in Somalia

Solving the 20-million-ton grain problem — and there remain serious questions as to whether it can be resolved — won’t be enough by itself. ... in the short term, while the shipment of Ukrainian grain will help, ultimately the war needs to end — or at least see a reduction in the level of hostilities — to ensure that there aren’t further problems down the road. A key focus here is the next harvest in Ukraine.

... the most recent crop-planting season in Ukraine unfolded in the shadow of war. That resulted in a significant reduction — about 20 to 30 percent — in the level of spring crops that could be sown in the country, according to U.N. estimates.

With the war continuing, it is not yet clear how much of that reduced crop will be harvested in the coming months. The government in Kyiv has taken steps to ensure that farm work can continue — among other measures, it has exempted agricultural workers from military service. But in some parts of the country, there are concerns as to whether farmworkers will be able to access their fields. One local estimate suggests that of the 7.6 million hectares of land planted with winter wheat, rye and barley in recent months, only about 5.5 million hectares will be accessible for harvesting.

In addition to concerns about safety, there is the war’s powerful economic impact. Transport costs, for example, have skyrocketed, making it harder for Ukrainian farmers to move what crop they can harvest via land routes to silos or nearby ports.

“Most of the farmers are running the risk of becoming bankrupt very soon,” Mykola Horbachov, the head of the Ukrainian Grain Association, an industry group, told the Associated Press earlier this month.

The upshot: Even if the grain deal frees up last year’s harvest, big questions remain about the future of Ukraine’s agricultural sector. The country’s agricultural minister warned recently that the fallout could result in Ukrainian farmers planting up to two-thirds less wheat later this year. “Farmers will reduce winter sowing [of] wheat and barley from 30 to 60 percent,” Mykola Solskyi told the Financial Times in a recent interview. — Nikhil Kumar

"Legitimate security concerns" is not fashionable anymore? — neomac

I have no idea what you're talking about. What has the pragmatic acknowledgement that Russia had legitimate security concerns (if you poke them, they'll bite), got to do with the ethics of supporting a war affecting millions according only to the objectives of those with a particular passport?

The only link I can see is moral culpability in both cases. We ought not have provoked Russia - knowing what would happen and we ought not continue to finance a war which risks the starvation of millions.

Do you see some conflict in those positions?

if you believe that "lots of global events cause that level of damage - from local warlords, oppressive police, environmental pollution, poverty" why are you specifically concerned about the Ukrainian crisis? — neomac

It's the title of the thread.

this war is not matter of Ukrainian losing territory to Russia or Russian national security concerns. It’s matter of power struggles and world order between authoritarian vs democratic regimes: — neomac

No it isn't, don't be naive. It's produced by conflicting national interests, not Steven Segal.

it’s about Putin wanting his threats against the Western-led world order to be taken as damn seriously as his threats against NATO enlargement, if not more. — neomac

More like it.

What do you say? Should we take him damn seriously? — neomac

Yes, very seriously. If you think 'war' and 'serious' are synonymous, then God help us.

fortunately, Ukrainian food went out since April. — jorndoe

Yeah. This from UNICEF in October. It's not enough.

James Elder, a spokesman for the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), told reporters in a video call from Somalia on Tuesday. “Without greater action and investment, we are facing the death of children on a scale not seen in half a century.”

The war needs to stop as quickly as possible, countries just aren't independent any more, the idea that all Ukrainians have to consider is what other Ukrainians want to sacrifice for their territory is ridiculous. The idea that it's all we have to consider is obscene.

it matters to the rest of Ukraine too because they might lose their territory, men and resources to fight a foreign power. — neomac

More nationalist bullshit.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1116152

The Ukraine crisis risks tipping up to 1.7 billion people — over one-fifth of humanity — into poverty, destitution and hunger.

“In Yemen 8 million children are already on the brink of famine. Families are exhausted. They’ve faced horror after horror through seven years of war. We fear they will not be able to endure another shock, especially to the main ingredient keeping their children alive.

8 million children. Did anyone ask them whether they want the war to continue so that Ukraine doesn't lose any territory? No. Because apparently they haven't got the right fucking passport.

Disgusting.

there is a difference in a survey that is designed to address the popularity of Zelensky in Ukraine and another designed to address the popularity of a strategy in 3 cities in south-east Ukraine. — neomac

There is, yes. The latter tells us a lot more about support for particular strategies in the areas where is actually matters, as opposed to an almost meaningless generic support among people who are no more affected by the issue than any other.

I would think that this is false. They live through this war, and have friends and brothers on the front. — Olivier5

It's bullshit. No one has so many "friends and brothers" on the front that they can personally accumulate a first hand overview of the strategic position.

So your question was unclear then, since what constitutes "the whole strategic situation" remains unclear. — Olivier5

Not in the least. That's why I mentioned thresholds. You could not possibly identity the point where purple becomes red, you couldn't say exactly how much violence is too much violence to allow a child to watch on TV. Nothing about these failures to clearly define something prevent us from knowing what is definitely outside of the definition. I couldn't clearly define exactly what 'music' is (how melodic does the noise have to be?) but I know that my hat isn't a piece of music.

I don't need to know, or define, exactly what having a strategic overview would entail. One bloke having 'a bit of a look' from his window isn't it.

the assumption that because Russia has nuclear weapons, it can invade other sovereign countries and we can't even give these countries aid to defend themselves is simply stupidity. Or insanity. — ssu

I'll be sure to add that to my collection of 'stuff ssu reckons'.

Any thoughts on an actual argument?

Only within the sample of Ukrainians that the survey was specified to be representative of — neomac

All surveys apply only to the sample. Whether the stratification is specified or not.

Your study, for example, was limited to Ukrainians outside of donbas, over 18, with access to a mobile phone and internet connection, and with sufficient free time and willingness to take part. That biases the results against the very people the survey I cited aimed to capture.

It was also funded by the US. It doesn't take too much imagination to think what might have become of any less flattering results the US funded.

aren't these Ukrainian intelligence units and command structure better informed than you and me? — Olivier5

Yep. But possibly no better informed than US intelligence. None of which has any bearing whatsoever on what the average Ukrainian knows. I can read the reports from such units no less easily than a Ukrainian can.

A capacity for direct, primary observation is generally held in higher regard epistemologically than the capacity to read secondary data in the newspaper. — Olivier5

Indeed, but it's a capacity that is extremely limited. Only a tiny handful if Ukrainians have a sufficiently large social circle to gain anything more than a tiny vignette of what's going on directly. The rest they obtain from media reports, same as us. Same as we do in our own country, by the way. I've no direct idea what's even going on in my nearest city. I read about it in the newspaper. I live about 20 miles out of the city. I know no one who lives there and I rarely visit (my university is in the next city along, and my work is in London). I've no idea (directly) of what's happening 20 miles away, let alone 600.

What would you call "the whole strategic situation" exactly? Where does it start and end? And who has got a good view of it? God? — Olivier5

I don't think that has a clear answer. What it does have, though, is thresholds. If I asked exactly what constituted a clear overview of a company, no one could specify, but we can all point to people unlikely to have such a view.

Quite a few Ukrainians of both sex are "visiting" the frontline. — Olivier5

So? There's 40 million Ukrainians. And the desperate, terrifying and bloody circumstances of the soldiers on the front line are hardly good conditions from which to get a good strategic overview. That's why armies have intelligence units and a command structure.

But all these sources like ISW are available to Ukrainians too — Olivier5

I didn't say they weren't. You're trying (and failing) to make the case that they're better informed. I'm not making the case that they're less well informed.

on top of their capacity for direct observation and interview. — Olivier5

Which is miniscule compared to the size of the population. Journalists have access to direct observation and interview too.

the citizens of Bakhmut know better about it. — Olivier5

They do. It doesn't give them any better an overview of the whole strategic situation.

the poll you provided is again an indicator to take into account, that however doesn't invalidate the claim that Zelensky has great support from Ukrainians. — neomac

We've been through this. It does literally indicate that. Zelensky is committed to a policy which this poll indicates does not have great popular support.

The poll doesn't survey the popularity of Zelensky among Ukrainians — neomac

So?

Zero problem with that in democracy. — neomac

I didn't ask if you had a problem with it. Your lack of concern for the proper functions of a free democracy is noted. I'm explaining the consequences.

It's enough to have read Mearsheimer's to realise how clumsy it's your attempt to making a point in favor of your views by citing him. — neomac

In your case, it clearly isn't.

i's no surprise that you do not understand what "legitimate security concerns" means in Mearsheimer's "offensive realism" theory. — neomac

You've yet to demonstrate that. Disagreeing with you (a layman) does not constitute "not understanding". Disagreeing with a consensus of experts constitutes "not understanding". Disagreeing with you is practically a badge of qualification in the field.

Here's an example...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63528183?at_medium=RSS&

It tells me about Zelensky's latest announcement. A journalist found out for me. 15 hours ago.

How do think the average Ukrainian found out? Did Zelensky go round their house? Did he shout it from the rooftop?

Here's a feed giving me information about the war...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/nov/06/russia-ukraine-war-live-besieged-bakhmut-harder-and-harder-to-survive-in-says-official

It tells me how hard the citizens of Bakhmut are finding it to survive.

How do think the average Ukrainian found out? I found out 4 hours ago via a Reuters reporter who actually spoke to people there. What would a citizen of Lvov have to get any different or more accurate report?

if you were visiting planet Kepler-186f, landing on it and exploring it, don't you think you'd have a better feel for it than from your average living room in Wigan or Trenton? — Olivier5

Yes. But your average Ukrainian is not visiting the front line, nor are they visiting the negotiation rooms in Parliament, so the analogy is irrelevant.

There are journalists, intelligence agents and amateur social media posters who all have a better grasp of the situation in those two areas than the average Ukrainian. They publish their information online for anyone to read.

Ukrainians learn about the situation on the front line and negotiation rooms from media. Same way we do. They don't all fucking go there in person, there's not a queue where all 40 million of them slowly file past to get a first-hand view.

Beside, their lives are on the line, not ours — Olivier5

Bullshit. Utter callous, nationalist bullshit.

Millions are facing starvation because of this war, and thousands of rich Ukrainians will remain completely untouched by it, including many of those actually making decisions. Wars don't affect people on the basis of what fucking passport they carry. They affect, unsurprisingly, the poorest, the working class. And they affect whomever they touch, passport or no.

relatively, the Ukrainians are in a better position in terms of access to information on the war in Ukraine than foreigners, by virtue of being closer to it. — Olivier5

By what mechanism? If you're going to support your ridiculous claim you need a mechanism, you've failed to provide one.

By what mechanism do those within Ukraine get an overview of the strategic situation on the front line and diplomatic channels which is denied non-Ukrainians? Without such a mechanism your claim is just hot air.

I never said the Ukrainians were a mass, nor that Google translate did not exist. — Olivier5

Then you should be able to answer a very simple question. By what mechanism does a citizen of Lvov gain information about the strategic situation on the front line 600 miles away and the diplomatic situation in the Parliaments of Ukraine and Russia which are unavailable to a citizen of the UK or the US?

It's a really simple question. It just requires you to identify the data gathering and communication method Ukrainians use that other nationalities do not have access to.

My knowledge claim amounts to questioning your claim that we do not have “proper measure” to assess legitimacy through popular support. — neomac

I know. It's false. If we had proper measure (the ones you cited as showing support) I wouldn't so easily have been able to find a poll to the contrary. These are not proper measures of support. They are heavily biased, heavily flawed methods of obtaining a very general impression.

In addition, the lack of opposition parties and opposition press means that any support thus measured is unlikely to be well-informed and so even less useful as an indicator of genuine support.

Better now? — neomac

No. On account of being a bunch of un-evidenced, or occasionally blatantly false, assertions.

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. — neomac

Propaganda is OK. Autocracy is OK. Banning free press is OK. Conscription is OK. Denying human rights is OK.

Remind us again why you think Russia must be stopped.

With the same qualification you pick Mearsheimer&co’s claims to support your views. — neomac

I have no qualification to pick Mearsheimer. I don't need a qualification to pick a view, nor to interpret it. It's what we do when we take a position on affairs we're not personally expert in.

You, however, do need some qualification if you want to claim a view or interpretation is wrong, more than merely disagreeing.

Simple: it is legitimate for NATO to help Ukrainians fight this war — Olivier5

On what grounds?

By virtue of being on site... — Olivier5

Ukraine is nearly 800 miles wide. I know it's quite flat, but either Ukrainians have very good eyesight, or them being "on site" makes no difference at all. Virtually everyone not directly on the front line is getting their information from sources. Just like the rest of the world.

having relatives and friends in Ukraine and Russia to whom they can talk — Olivier5

And how do these friends and relatives obtain an over view of the strategic situation?

speaking the languages — Olivier5

Yeah, right, because apparently no one in the foreign press speaks Russian or Ukrainian. You've heard of Google translate?

following local news — Olivier5

The local news that's been banned?


Your narrative falls apart at the slightest analysis. Ukrainians are not an homogeneous mass, we don't even know if they all support Zelensky's current strategy, and even if we did all the measures usually in place to ensure well-informed mandates are missing. There's no reason at all to assume 'Ukrainians' are calling the shots here and even if they were, there's no moral incentive to act on their expressed preference.

I've had it with that idiotic nonsense — frank

amid the moral outrage and depth of animosity toward Putin, the risks of pouring arms into Ukraine should be considered carefully and dispassionately.

Providing Ukraine even more arms may well produce the results its proponents anticipate. It could, on the other hand, impel Russian commanders to subject Ukrainians to even greater pain. — Rajan Menon, director of the grand strategy program at Defense Priorities and senior research fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University

So what qualifies you to claim professor Menon's opinion is "idiotic nonsense"?

They are better informed than you and me though. — Olivier5

How so?

So nobody (non Ukrainian) is forcing Ukraine to fight. — Olivier5

And that helps the legitimacy how?

again in wartime democracies do not work with electoral consultations of a well-informed, free electorate to take decisions of national security. — neomac

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

What else do you need? — neomac

Good reasons.

it doesn't falsify the claim that Zelensky has still great support in Ukraine. — neomac

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. You're wrong.

Banning parties collaborating with the enemies is perfectly compatible with any democracy at war. — neomac

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

Propaganda works also through artists, pop stars, and other kinds of VIPs — neomac

So? Are you suggesting propaganda induced opinions are well-informed ones?

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.