It's for them Ukrainians to decide on that question. Nobody is forcing Ukraine to fight. — Olivier5

1) There's no mechanism in place by which they can make an informed decision, nor tell anyone what it is.

2) They literally are being forced to fight. The country has mandatory conscription and adult males are banned from leaving.

For Ukraine to defend itself from an Russian attack is different from NATO attacking Russia. — ssu

Well spotted. I've also noticed that making scrambled eggs is different from frying them.

Neither observations have the slightest relevance too the inanity of your suggestion that the risk of nuclear war "isn't all that bad" because we got away with it last time.

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 party collaborationists? — neomac

I've already said. 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.

For Zelensky, the desirable consequence of not having a coalition with Russian party collaborationists, 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. — neomac

Good for him. why would I judge the justification on the basis of his desirable outcomes? A bank robber might claim his actions were justified because he wanted the money. Does that make him justified?

“Up to the Ukrainians” means up to the governmental representatives of Ukraine that were democratically voted to act as such in peacetime and wartime? — neomac

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

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. — neomac

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

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. — neomac

I didn't mention anything about needing referenda. I'm talking about a lack of fully free opposition. Referenda wouldn't even solve that problem. You need a properly informed electorate for that.

there are other forms of legitimacy that can be measured — neomac

Yes, but a survey of pop stars is not one of them.

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 is playing fast and loose with the truth in saying that Ukraine banned opposition parties...one of the main opposition parties was banned — SophistiCat

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3434673-nsdc-bans-prorussian-parties-in-ukraine.htmlhtml

the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has decided that, given the full-scale war being waged by the Russian Federation and the ties that some political organizations have with that state, any activity of a number of political parties will be suspended pending martial law. Namely: Opposition Platform - For Life, Sharij’s Party, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Left Forces, Derzhava, "Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, the Socialists, and Volodymyr Saldo’s Bloc," said Zelensky.

Amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Political Parties in Ukraine”, banning “pro-Russian parties”, were passed by Parliament and signed into law in May 2022. The cases brought by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine against 16 opposition parties — https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/09/25/update-on-the-banning-of-opposition-political-parties-in-ukraine/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspends-11-political-parties-with-links-to-russia

If you're having trouble counting, we could go through the basics.

suppose a higher quality of sorcery is likelier to have an effect. — NOS4A2

Indeed, I prefer the 20th century English composers too, but I agree Mahler's use of brass is atmospheric.

It seems as if people have long forgotten that similar wars where on one Super Power's enemy was eagerly supported by the other Super Power were more of the norm in the Cold War. — ssu

Ah yes, happier times...

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-ussr-and-us-came-closer-to-nuclear-war-than-we-thought/276290/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/5-times-cold-war-almost-ended-nuclear-eruption-197443

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/nuclear-close-calls-cuban-missile-crisis

I'm off to jump to sixteen flaming buses on a motorbike because, after all, Evil Knieval got away with it, so it must be just fine. No need for any alarm.

In fact, hang it, why don't we just invade Russia? After all, what was the battle of Stalingrad really, but a lot of high jinx?

The dim view you have of the Ukrainian government has no immediate bearing on their stated purpose to restore their territory. — Paine

No, indeed. I really can't think why anyone would come to believe it might, but at least you've clarified the matter should any such benighted souls be reading along.

The issue is how far support from other nations will go to achieve this goal. — Paine

In what sense is that 'the issue'? I can see it being 'an issue', but why 'the issue'? We were talking about who is "calling the shots" as you put it. Are you saying that support from other nations is the sole determining factor here?

If so, then the opinion of those other nations' populations seems to take on a more substantive weight. I mentioned as much a little while back, but you must have missed it.

So, given that the support of other nations is critical, you'd agree that the course of events is now dictated largely by those other nations (and by proxy, their populace, to the extent public opinion matters to them)?

It’s nice to know my words have an effect on you. Yours as well. And such an effect they’ve had that we’ve adopted each other’s positions. — NOS4A2

Yes, the cat is looking a bit hungry, maybe I ought to feed it.

One is left wondering why @NOS4A2 takes such enthusiastic part in an entirely linguistic activity such as forum discussion knowing his words have no effect whatsoever on those to whom they are addressed.

Ought we assume some kind of madness has taken hold?

There is also the ideological premise that it is rational and honorable to defend one's country against a foreign invader. — _db

I think this is one of the confounding factors in any moral analysis. The idea that a worse country (in human rights terms) ought not take over a better one seems a simple enough metric, hence the "fighting for democracy" narrative, but in amongst that narrative we hear, like little Freudian slips, a far more distasteful nationalism. The sense that Ukrainians are fighting 'for Ukraine', that they fight because 'Ukraine' is under threat (not their lives, their homes and their well-being - 'Ukraine'). It's these little fur-balls of nationalism that choke many of the routes to peace. No territorial concessions (even if they would save lives, homes and well-being) because they would not save 'Ukraine'). No negotiations with Putin because, even though literally any concession at this stage might save lives, homes and well-being - it would humiliate 'Ukraine'.

The answer to who is calling the shots relates to how an end to the war can be negotiated. — Paine

So if we're going to consider 'The Ukrainians' as one of the options for shot-callers, then we'd better understand by what mechanism they might do so. How exactly do you see 'The Ukrainians' making an informed choice on this - with no elections, no referendums, no opposition parties, and an almost complete press blackout on any anti-government news agendas?

Not to mention the fact that the sub-set of Ukrainians that really matter here are those living in Crimea and Donbas. Even if 'The Ukrainians' in the wider sense could be informed and consulted, then how do we weigh the voices of those actually effected against those 600 miles away? We might as well consult 'The Eastern Bloc', or 'The Slavic Peoples', or 'The Black Sea Region', or 'Eastern Europe'...

And if we rule out 'The Ukrainians' on the grounds of there being no plausible mechanism by which they could possibly make a relevant, informed choice, then we're left with - Zelensky's Government, the US Government, The UN and Putin's Government as the potential shot-callers.

Does it then make a difference? None of them live in Donbas or Crimea. All of them are wealthy enough not to have to suffer the consequences of their actions either way. So what difference does it make now who calls the shots on this? Wealthy elite or wealthy elite? We get to choose accents.

Cheers.

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

That which is 'lawful' is that against which there is no law. Taking property from Jews was lawful in Nazi Germany, but it was neither right nor justified.

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.

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 ".

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

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. We have no moral reason to support it on grounds of self-determination alone.

As to...

These consequences are things seriously considered in every place where serious discussion about the war is happening, but in this thread, such dismissal is somehow approved to be a valid disagreement regardless of how weak any premisses is in support of such disagreements are. — Christoffer

This from Charles A. Kupchan, professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

Ukraine’s battlefield successes could go too far. If the defense of Ukraine is not worth U.S. boots on the ground, then the return of all of the Donbas and Crimea to Ukrainian control is not worth risking a new world war.

pushing for Russia’s total defeat is an unnecessary gamble.

A hypothetical deal between Russia and Ukraine would have two main components. First, Ukraine would back away from its intention to join NATO — an objective that has for years provoked strong Russian opposition. Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO setting up shop on the other side of its 1,000-mile-plus border with Ukraine.

Second — the harder part — Moscow and Kyiv would need to arrive at a territorial settlement. A reasonable starting point for negotiations would be to aim for a Russian withdrawal to the “line of contact” that existed before Russia’s invasion began in February. Diplomacy could then focus on the ultimate disposition of Crimea and the chunk of the Donbas that Russia occupied in 2014. Both sides would need to compromise: Moscow to abandon its recently announced intention to annex a major slice of eastern Ukraine, and Kyiv to settle for an outcome that could entail less than regaining all its land.

Remind us again what your qualifications are? Professor of what? Which university? Senior fellow where?

If you read the full article...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/opinion/russia-ukraine-negotiation.html

...you'll see how professor Kupchan is not ignoring the fact of Russia's war crimes. He is disagreeing with you about how best to avoid further incidents. How professor Kupchan is not ignoring the fact of China's interest in Taiwan. He is disagreeing with you about how best to deal with it. How professor Kupchan is not ignoring these other implications. He is disagreeing with you about how best to handle them.

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. — neomac

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

If that’s how you understand legitimacy, you better clarify it because: — neomac

No, that's precisely how I'm using the term. It does not merely mean the same as 'lawful', it is about "right and justification" as your quote specifies.

BTW is Putin a legitimate leader according to your way of understanding political legitimacy? — neomac

No. He has neither the right nor the justification for wielding the power he does.

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. — neomac

An eleventh time maybe will make some in road...

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

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. — neomac

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.

How do you disregard the fact of Russia's war crimes? The fact of China's interest in Taiwan? The fact of North Korea's recent aggressions? The fact of how Russia treats its own people? The fact of people being killed when opposing Putin? — Christoffer

Are you having trouble reading?

People have not "disregarded" domino effects, they just disagree with you about what they are, how likely they are, and how to measure them. — Isaac

No one is disregarding those factors, they are disagreeing with you about the likelihoods, weights, and values.

These are facts and a solid foundation for any speculation that revolves around the possible consequences of just letting Russia get what they want. — Christoffer

Just look at the two bolded words and explain to me how they yield a single unequivocal answer. A probability, by definition, has two options.

These consequences are things seriously considered in every place where serious discussion about the war is happening — Christoffer

And they are seriously considered here too. Pages and pages have been written about them. People just disagree with you about the likelihoods, weights, and values.

Mods should rename this thread to "Strawman discussion about the Ukraine war", because that's basically what this thread is. — Christoffer

The irony...

the black-and-white point of view where everything is only about a life-and-death dichotomy — Christoffer

What I call naive is the black-and-white point of view where everything is only about a life-and-death dichotomy because that is, objectively, an extremely simplified way of looking at this conflict, disregarding any domino effect of short-term decisions just to save lives in the here and now. — Christoffer

Exactly. People have not "disregarded" domino effects, they just disagree with you about what they are, how likely they are, and how to measure them.

The fact that you see the world one way doesn't make people naive for seeing it differently. Your opinions are not facts. That is, there is a difference between you thinking that X will result from Y and it actually being the case that X will result from Y.

What "cost" is worth it when the consequence of giving in to Russia's demands may be much more severe than people seem to realize? — Christoffer

That other people disagree with you about those wider consequences doesn't mean they haven't considered them. They've been discussed at great length here. Often with you, even.

Just trying to frame disagreements over subjective speculation as the naivety of whichever party disagrees with your subjective judgment is disingenuous.

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

Yes, that's the plan, but I need to know what it is you don't understand. I'm not going to just blindly rephrase everything I've written in the hope of landing at random on the aspect you didn't get.

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. — neomac

As I've said maybe half a dozen times now, once in the very post you're responding to...

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

It may well be preposterous to expect such coalitions from Ukraine. 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.

He got the mandate when he was elected as president for peacetime and wartime. — neomac

Yes, that's true. I've been discussing the legitimacy of that mandate. The claim you're responding to was incorrect as written.

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. — neomac

Nonsense. 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. It's a basic tenet of democracy. Popular support is not the be all and end all - that support must be well-informed and that requires a free press and an opposition.

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

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

I think the discussion about legitimacy is irrelevant. — Benkei

I agree there are more straightforward, wider points. But the reason I'm pursuing the line of legitimate representation is that often the first counter to...

Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression — Benkei

...is very often "well, that's up to the Ukrainians". I disagree with that notion for the reasons I've been expanding on. I don't think there's any clear moral justification for a citizen of Lvov to have a say in what goes on in the Donbas region (600 miles away) than there is for a citizen of Rostov (less than 100 miles away). The reason they get a say is purely pragmatic, the way representative democracy happens to be subdivided into states. So the point about legitimacy is relevant only insofar as it's important to recognise that the actual details of the policies Ukraine are following have not travelled through any process which gives them legitimate mandate (they have not been subject to a system which can properly hold them to account and so advise a populace such that they can give well-informed consent.

But I agree the main issue can be addressed with a more simple metric.

I think so. — Olivier5

Well then you have a choice, you can either continue with your confrontational lack of charity in interpretation, in which case we've nothing more to say on the matter, or you can tell me which parts of my argument gave you that impression so I can correct your misunderstanding. Up to you.

if one feels the sacrifice is wrong, then they should discourage it. If one feels the price is worth paying, they ought not. — Down The Rabbit Hole

In that case, on what grounds are you judging the argument 'fair'? What would an unfair argument look like in this context?

It has been suggested on here before by pronatalists that because of their miserable lives, antinatalists are looking at the world through excrement-tinted glasses. I can't say this is true of all antinatalists, but I believe this accounts for a significant number. Of-course the opposite is also true - if you're living a pleasant life, the sacrifice is worth it - why would you throw all the wonders we experience away, just because some people suffer. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yeah, I think all that is true, but there's a third option which I think is more significant, which is those who see the world as a bad place and see children as means of fixing that - ie ensuring there's a next generation, better than the last, to help those who still remain to live more pleasant lives.

Contrary to the archetypal antinatalist, we're not all selfish sociopaths. It's not always about me, me, me sometimes people spare a thought for their community as a whole and consider themselves (and others) to have a duty toward it.

You are the one debasing democracy when you stupidly propose that an elected president has no mandate. — Olivier5

If you're confused about my arguments you can just ask. It's far more productive than simply assuming the worst possible interpretation you can think of. Look again at what I've written. Have I argued anywhere that the elected president doesn't have a mandate?

wasn't speaking generally of populations who support war. I was expanding on my comment that is germane in the present circumstances: — Paine

Since when has the size of a comment constituted an argument in favour of it's soundness?

Such circumstances would also reduce the support Ukraine receives from other nations and increase the number of those who view the Ukraine government as an equivalent of the Diem regime in the Vietnam war. — Paine

Again, this is false on the face of it. Brutal regimes have also had international support. Look at Saudi Arabia and Israel.

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. — neomac

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

That being said, yes. 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. There's bound to be popular support for a war, especially a defensive one, if any reporting of potentially opposing facts about it is banned.

You're essentially arguing in favour of an autocracy by saying "well if the people didn't support it, they'd demonstrate, so it's got a mandate". It hasn't.

And to be clear, none of this becomes no longer true just because they have a reason for doing all this. I might have a good reason for putting a hat on, it doesn't make the consequences of my putting a hat on go away.

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.

Are you net even the least bit suspicious about the messages you're regurgitating. Only a few years ago, Ukraine was barely talked about, but when it was, it was in reference to human rights abuses, illegal arms dealing, kleptocracy and corruption. You're now spitting out this storyline that they literally are doing nothing wrong. No government in the world is that good. No population in the world is that homogeneous. Does this narrative of the angelic government with virtually 100% popular support not even strike you as a little suspicious? In a country that has banned the reporting of opposing views? In a country which is now a cause celebre for the most sophisticated intelligence network in the world. In a country whose allies include one which has direct control mechanisms over the world's social media platforms? ... None of that raises the slightest suspicion about whether the presented narrative is entirely accurate...?

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? — neomac

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?

It fascinates me that you people can seemingly hold such contradictory beliefs at the same time. 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.

hasn't verbal fire mostly been directed at Russian politics and Putin + team? Rather than all Russians I mean? — jorndoe

Not recently, no.

So one poll and a lack of media report... In a country where opposition media reporting has been banned.

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.

No one is arguing about the extent of general support for Zelensky and continued war, I've no doubt it's substantial. The point was about legitimate mandates. But, as ever, any point that isn't bland regurgitation of Western propaganda is lost.

Those 'mil analysis' guys eh! What are they like. I was saying only the other day to some my soc psych homeboys just how cool those guys are.

Sure hope they release some more cutting edge data on Twitter soon, maybe one of them could do a spread in Vogue.

you think a chaotic Russian "Viva la revolución" is likely here? — jorndoe

Well, there's three ways it could go - no revolution (Putin remains), good revolution (democracy, or at least more enlightened dictator), or bad revolution (the region collapses into a half dozen little Putin-a-likes warring each other). The first seems likely if Putin wins, the second or third if he loses. The third option is the worst, so win or lose doesn't seem to matter much as far as long term stability is concerned.

My point really was that regime change is by far the better option here. Reversing border changes saves a few people from Putin's regime (at huge human cost), changing the regime saves millions. The latter is better, and the latter is independent of where the border is. In fact it's slightly more likely to happen the more anti-Putin people are actually part of Russia.

You really think that's realistic (or a game-changer)? There hasn't been much indication that the autocrat circle is going away. — jorndoe

No. I don't think it's very realistic right now. But we were comparing it to war. I don't think regaining the contested regions by military means is remotely realistic either. The former has the advantage of being unrealistic but relatively low human cost. The latter is equally unrealistic but destroys several thousand lives every day it's being tried.

Hmm I kind of like the other potential development, the Russian justice system pulling weight — jorndoe

Yes, me too. Could be a really positive move.

it's all conjecture and idle speculation. — jorndoe

Indeed. As is any speculated military progress, so we're comparing like with like here.

the Ukrainian government have banned opposition parties, censored opposition press — Isaac


For the time being, I'm guessing (conjecture on my part) that it's a (perhaps panicky) response to old news — jorndoe

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.

Russo-hate has grown in Ukraine, around here we don't particularly hate Russians. — jorndoe

Seriously? We've had calls for them to be killed so as to teach them a lesson. We've had racist comments about their 'tendencies' to oppress. I think hatred of Russians is growing pretty strongly outside of Ukraine too.

They would not have the same level of support that has allowed them to repulse the Russians as much as they have. — Paine

What evidence are you basing that assessment on? Brutal regimes have put up substantial armed resistance many times in the past, it's clearly not the case that brutal or dictatorial regimes are unable to muster a strong defense.

The people fighting would not view the change of government as significant if the leadership was as brutal as the Russians. — Paine

Again, on what evidence are you basing this? People in general defend attacks against their sovereignty for all sorts of reasons, it not always, in fact rarely is, an humanitarian metric regarding regime type. Most often it's simple nationalism. The German army was able to sweep through Europe, for example, based on nothing but racism and nationalism.

Both factors shape any kind of negotiated deal. — Paine

They do. But the shape of the deal wasn't the question.

don't know, except, in principle, no — jorndoe

Right, good.

So to avoid...

a degenerative path/trend (toward an unknown future)? — jorndoe

...one could either topple the regime responsible, or make sure one lives outside its borders.

I don't see how that gets us any closer as to which.

Might not ethnic Russians in Donbas want to become part of Russia to help...

oust the autocrat circle, then new paths would open up — jorndoe

...?

Might not the US just as easily help this latter goal as help keep Russia's borders static?

The question is over whether to support war to keep Russia small, or support revolution so that it doesn't matter where Russia's borders are.

Where have I said that they don't represent the Ukrainian people? — Isaac


There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask. — Isaac — Paine

Those don't say the same thing at all. If you don't understand something I've said, you can just ask. Don't just assume.

Russia claims ... that Ukraine is an integral part of their nation. — Paine

Where?

If the Ukrainians are found to employ anything like the disinformation regime used by Russia on their citizens or conduct the war as barbarously as they have, that would make your method weighing of the cost of surrender against the cost of resistance more reasonable. — Paine

No it wouldn't because neither case are postulating war. How each nation conducts itself in war is therefore irrelevant. It's how each nation conducts itself in peacetime that is being compared since the decision assumes peace would result. Otherwise the decision is pointless.

In this case, the existence of the state is directly tied to its legitimacy as an 'entity' of the Ukrainians. — Paine

How? You're not making any direct links, you're just reasserting your original claim.

How would it be a different decision if Ukraine were an autocratic dictatorship? They'd be in exactly the same position with regards to weighing territory loss against the cost of continued war.

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Go on...

Why ought we discourage that?

I guess some don't want to get dragged along downhill, and some don't want to implicitly or explicitly assent to (reinforce/encourage/support) the regress.
Why would anyone jump onto a degenerative path/trend (toward an unknown future)? — jorndoe

So Russians, in your view, are powerless to prevent this inexorable slide?

the point I was making is that you and Russia don't consider it representative of the people who live there. — Paine

Firstly, it's not a matter of opinion, the Ukrainian government have banned opposition parties, censored opposition press, and have conducted neither referenda, nor elections. They are, by all common standards not currently a democratically representative government.

They are, however, the current incumbents and were voted in by a largely free and fair election, so are the best representatives the Ukrainians currently have.

Where have I said that they don't represent the Ukrainian people?

Notwithstanding that misrepresentation, it doesn't matter one jot for the question that @_db was asking. All that matters for that question is that a body exists which is capable of giving military or diplomatic instruction.

It wouldn't matter if they were a dictatorship, one could still ask if they ought cede territory, or how they ought instruct their military for the good of the population they have legislative power over.

You do not regard that government to be legitimate agents of those people — Paine

Where have I said anything of that nature?

You say:

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask. — Paine

That's right. There's no entity which one could justifiably ask about the 'right' apportionment of territory. One might as well ask hat-wearers, or Arsenal fans, or redheads... All perfectly identifiable groupings of people, none of whom (like 'Ukrainians') have any naturally occurring claim to some particular territory.

Whatever agreements made by that government would have to be accompanied by an acceptance by Russia that such a state exists. That is going to take far more than the grudging acceptance of Minsk II — Paine

Yes, considerably more.

invading the entire country put an end on Ukraine having sovereignty. — Paine

So invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq, invading Kosovo...these actions all put an end to the sovereignty of those places?

It is absurd to think one could recognize a government but "fix" their leadership with "denazification." — Paine

Why?

Claiming this is the case is a form of denying the existence of the Ukranian state. — Paine

What? Claiming Russia isn't imperialist is denying the existence of Ukraine? What the fuck are you on about?

After adding up this subtraction of Ukranian identity to the views put forward by many here that the Ukranian state is merely a proxy for NATO powers, I resubmit the proposal that the thousands of comments on this thread mostly concern whether Ukraine is a nation represented by its present government. — Paine

You can resubmit it all you like, it isn't a substitute for an actual argument. A Ukrainian government exists which is capable of making unilateral decisions about Ukrainian military action and diplomatic agreements. If you want to deny that, or claim others deny that, you're going to have to do a lot more than vague hand-waiving at some "adding up".

Oh, I nearly forgot. Here's a random image


So that's that settled.

I'm just trying to show how ludicrous your ideas are. Of course that doesn't go through to you, but others might benefit. — ssu

So you're trying to show how ludicrous my ideas are by insisting I "understand" yours? How's that work exactly?

Let me give it a try...

You have to understand that basically Russia isn't really an imperialist nation trying to cling on to it's old colonies and conquered countries. Some countries, like Switzerland, can make it quite well as having ethnic minorities, and although Russia is basically a country that has conquered these lands and people, it's not particularly desperate to do that now.

Hope that's helped everyone.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the ...
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump (Wikipedia)
... has played a role, i.e. inflammatory bullshit, lying, or whatever. If so, then would there be an argument somewhere here against false agitational speech or abuse of free speech? — jorndoe

Why would we suppose such a thing? That seems like the first leap to justify.

The overall crime rate has increased in the UK. Suppose this is the result of my new hat purchase, would this be an argument to prevent me from buying any more hats?

You need to make the link first. Speculate on the solution second.

You have to understand that basically Russia is an imperialist nation trying to cling on to it's old colonies and conquered countries. Some countries, like Switzerland, can make it quite well as having ethnic minorities, but Russia is basically a country that has conquered these lands and people. And is desperately trying to do that now. — ssu

I don't "have to understand" your preferred interpretation at all. You may desperately need me to, but that's your problem, not mine.

The way things seem to you to be is not the same as the way things actually are. That's why discussion platforms like this exist.

I'm pointing out the flaws in your position (the one opposing mine). If you don't want to hear them, or refine your arguments in response to them, then don't post your opinion on a public discussion forum expressly designed for that purpose. Write a blog.

Are you now saying that this war is just and must be fought, but it'd be nice if someone ALSO tried a little diplomacy? — Olivier5

No. If you can't understand what I write, there's little point in explaining again.

Your bullet points of questions refer to a Ukrainian state. A generous portion of the 11,300 comments on this thread concern whether it exists or not. It is lost or found between the interests of Russian and other nations. — Paine

In all four cases @_db refers to 'the state' as the decision-making body. No one is denying the existence of a decision-making body in Russia and Ukraine which has the power to make the unilateral decisions that are mentioned in the questions, nor is the existence of such bodies under any genuine threat on either side. The Ukrainian government definitely exists, no one is denying it and there's no credible threat to their continued existence as a legislative body (despite the individuals therein being under personal threat) that would prevent them from making the decisions in question. Likewise with Russia. So I don't see any difficulty the contention about Ukrainian national integrity would present in answering the questions.



I think my answers have been given already, but since you asked openly and no one else has replied...

What would be (or have been) the consequences to the Ukrainian people if the Ukrainian state ceded (or had ceded) territory to the Russian state? — _db

I think this is best answered by the various indices of human development, backed up by reports from the likes of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. Political freedom would be substantially reduced, and most likely free elections would be curtailed. Relations with the EU obviously stopped (but it's unclear what meaningful effect this would have on the population). Belarus is close as example of a Russian puppet state. Other aspects of human rights - security, health, welfare - would have stayed much the same as the two countries are barely any different in those aspects (both pretty bad), and recent new EU members have seen their social welfare programs crushed by EU/ECB rules.

Additionally now, of course, you have to factor in reconstruction. Ceding territory, that's in the hands of the Russian states, not ceding, it's in the hands of the IMF and the US. The IMF hasn't a very good track record on social welfare in its vassal states, worse that Russia's (which is already bad). But Russia is now in a much worse economic situation, so less capable of splashing out on the kind of infrastructure improvements it put in place when, for example, annexing Crimea.

There's been talk of a Chechnya-like series of ethnic cleansings, but I think the likelihood of such atrocities would depend on the means by which the territory is ceded. If Russia win outright, it's possible (though I still think unlikely). If the territory were ceded as part of a negotiation with global parties involved (UN, US), then I think it's far less likely.

This uncertainty is measured against 1000 casualties every day the war continues and no realistic chance of that ending for at least a year or so, if it ever ends (there'll always be a border and Russia will always be the other side of it). Plus every additional day of war makes the decision about reconstruction costs even harder as Ukraine get into even more debt.

What would be (or have been) the consequences to the Russian people if the Russian state withdrew from occupied Ukrainian territory (or never invaded in the first place)? — _db

Very little in the latter case (never invaded), but in the former, I'm guessing there'll be fallout in political terms - possibly a loss in Putin's power, which might be a good thing (but we don't know who's waiting in the wings).

What would be (or have been) the long-term geopolitical consequences if the Ukrainian state ceded (or had ceded) territory to the Russian state? — _db

I think this depends entirely on the method by which the territory is ceded. Had there been a referendum in Donbas, a declaration of independence (even if later leveraged by Russia to gain some degree of political control) and Crimea officially handed over then geopolitically I think the effect would have been negligible. There's been virtually no noticeable effect of Belarus's submission to Russian influence. No effect of the Ossetia, Moldova, Chechnya border disputes. Even the various regime changes in Iraq and Afghanistan have made barely more than a dint in the general trend of global affairs.

If the territory were actually ceded directly to the Russian state I think there'd be more slightly more impact, especially if it were as a result of Ukrainian defeat (a more buoyant Russia might be a more dangerous one).

What would be (or have been) the long-term geopolitical consequences if the Russian state had withdrew from occupied Ukrainian territory (or never invaded in the first place)? — _db

Virtually nothing - status quo. Perhaps the defeat would topple Putin, but a leader toppled by humiliating defeat is unlikely to yield a more liberal, compromising one. If the only reason Putin goes is because he wasn't strong enough to carry off an invasion we don't even want to think about who's going to replace him.

---

By and large I think the answers all depend heavily on the manner by which the territory is ceded. Planned, negotiated settlement with preferably the involvement on the UN would be best, getting less promising the more we veer toward Russia simply winning it.

One issue of geopolitical impact is the result of either a win or a lose for Russia on destabilising a volatile region now flooded with weapons. Anyone concerned about things like Nuclear weapons in the hands of a dictator like Putin ought be tens times more concerned about the region breaking up Yugoslavia-style into a dozen, nuclear-armed warring regions.

The other thing I'd say that's probably more important, but is treated as a non-issue by the Hawks is the question of what happens next. War is not the only way to bring about regime change.