If you've no intention of answering the question you can just say so. You don't have to waste your time writing another puff piece.

Trump was Putin's puppet. He wasn't legitimately elected. You can't compare him with Zelensky. — Olivier5

Still not out of 'odd' territory though. You're saying as long as the election was good, you don't question the decisions of elected leaders. That's a highly unusual position.

Because Putin cannot be trusted, for one. — Olivier5

So you can't even try to negotiate with someone you don't trust? The only option is to fight? Don't you think that creates a dangerously antagonist world. Every leader who doesn't trust another ought resort to war rather than settle disputes by talking?

And how do you see this whole 'trust' think playing out? If Putin surrenders and says he'll withdraw all his forces, should Zelensky continue shooting Russian soldiers - after all you can't trust Putin, it might just be a ruse, If Putin offers an Humanitarian corridor (finally), should Zelensky ignore it and take the opportunity to shell Russian positions anyway, after all you can't trust Putin. Are you literally going to ignore all diplomacy in this and just advocate killing as the only option?

Because the Ukrainian forces aren't broken yet, for two. — Olivier5

That seems self-defeating. If you'd only support talks once you've thoroughly exhausted the military option. Isn't the whole point of diplomacy to ensure disagreements are handled exactly the other way around?

So you disagree with Zelensky's policies. I don't. I think he does the right thing and he does it well. So what? Do we need to be at each other's throat for it? — Olivier5

I don't really care if we're at each other's throats or calmly disagreeing. I prefer the latter but I've little expectation of that from you. What I'm much more interested in is your reasons, which you seem frustratingly reluctant to provide.

First you say it's because you support Ukrainians - then when I point out Ukrainians are not an amorphous mass who all agree, you say it's because you always support whatever the legitimately elected leader thinks - then when I point out that would have applied to Trump you change the subject...

It should be a simple question. Why do you think the Ukrainians should keep fighting and not accept the deal?

It's not because "that's what the Ukrainians want", the Ukrainians are not an homogeneous entity all of one mind and you've no way of finding out what they want anyway...

It's not because you just always trust elected leaders to know best, you wouldn't be prepared to extended that principle to an idiot like Trump...

So why?

I'm not in the business of second-guessing commanders-in-chief. What ground do you have to say Zelensky is illegitimate? — Olivier5

Seriously? You just unquestionably accept whatever any commander in chief decides? When Trump was commander in chief of the United States did you adopt the same unquestioning policy toward his decisions?

ssu and I support what the government of the Ukrainians wants, not what all Ukrainians as a mass want. — Olivier5

Yes. I was asking why.

I respect the will of the Ukrainians themselves. — Olivier5

But you just said...

not what all Ukrainians as a mass want. — Olivier5

...which is it, the will of the Ukrainians as a mass or the will of the Ukrainian government? And if the former, how on earth did you find out, what with there having been no polls, referenda, or election manifestos on the matter?

Why then do you question ssu about why he's chosen their side? — Olivier5

You'll find if you want to know something about what I've written, a good start is to read what I've written. I've underlined it, to help your struggles with comprehension.

it's not about what 'Ukrainians' want - as if they were some amorphous mass (insulting in itself). It's about what some portion of the Ukrainians want - a portion you've chosen to support.

You've chosen a side and I'm talking to you about your reasons for choosing that side. I'm not asking about that side's reasons for being that side. — Isaac

Why then, not side with the aggressed? — Olivier5

Again, can't think of a single reason why not.

Why side with the aggressor? — Olivier5

I can't think of a single reason to side with the aggressor.

It's a natural human tendency to support the aggressed against the aggressor. — Olivier5

All of Ukraine are the aggressed. Do you think all 41 million of them think the same thing, have the same priorities, the same plans, the same ideas about where they want to be and how they want to get there? No. No matter how extensive your sources, you're only going to be sampling a very small and highly biased cohort of the entire population. We know opinions vary in Ukraine because some Ukrainians are actually fighting on Russia's side.

So it remains that sides are being picked. It's nothing to do with 'siding with the aggressed' that's just bullshit virtue signalling. If people naturally sided with the aggressed they wouldn't buy their fucking t-shirts sewn by 8 year old debt slaves would they? They wouldn't buy their mobile phones with cobalt mined by 5 year old kids. They wouldn't buy their cheap fucking crap from Amazon despite their factories treating workers so badly they actually have a measurable death rate. No, I think it's been tragically established that the world's current crop of humans don't give a fuck about the oppressed, they do, however, show a sickening concern for conforming to whatever Facebook say they should now pretend to care about. Yesterday it was covid victims, today it's Ukrainians. Maybe, if they wait patiently enough the 700 children who died from poverty just in the time you and I have been writing these posts might get a small corner of the front page, but I won't hold my breath.

The fact why Ukraine has desperately wanted to join the West has been explained again and again to you, — ssu

I have no interest in why (some of) the Ukrainians want to remain outside of Russian control. I'm not questioning a Ukrainian. I'm questioning you, why you want them to, why you think they should continue to fight and not accept the terms on the table. It's ludicrous to just say you want them to because they want to. Putin (and some Russians) want to occupy Ukraine, do you support them because they want to? And do you honestly think there's not a single Ukrainian who wants to accept the terms. Not a single Ukrainian who want to be part of Russia, even? So it's not about what 'Ukrainians' want - as if they were some amorphous mass (insulting in itself). It's about what some portion of the Ukrainians want - a portion you've chosen to support.

You've chosen a side and I'm talking to you about your reasons for choosing that side. I'm not asking about that side's reasons for being that side.

The question at the core of your argument is really if it's worth fighting for freedom or not. — Christoffer

Ukraine index of corruption ranks it 123. Russia is ranked 120. Russia is less corrupt than Ukraine 2021 figures, by an independent assessment agency https://risk-indexes.com/global-corruption-index/. — Isaac

You cannot just keep arguing ignoring reality. It is not 'freedom' that's the prize for winning and it's not totalitarian dystopia that's the result of losing.

You go on and on about verifying everything with facts but you've presented absolutely zero evidence to support your claim that a victorious Ukraine would be some kind of bastion of freedom, nor that an independent Donbass would be the authoritarian nightmare you describe... Not a shred of evidence.

I've provided evidence from independent agencies showing barely any difference between them as far as corruption is concerned and you given nothing at all to counter it.

And none of this even touches on how 'free' a Ukraine would be after being devastated by another year of war and crippling reconstruction loans.

Your hysterical 'visions' don't count as evidence.

Yet authoritarianism protects that corruption from the safety valves of a democracy... like people getting fed up with their corrupt leaders then voting somebody else to lead the country.

For example voting as a president a comedian that has played in a sitcom where an ordinary person accidentally becomes a president. :wink: — ssu

But you've yet to address the fact that people in Russia are all much happier than people in Ukraine.

... See what we can do when we just make shit up!

Ukraine index of corruption ranks it 123. Russia is ranked 120. Russia is less corrupt than Ukraine 2021 figures, by an independent assessment agency https://risk-indexes.com/global-corruption-index/.

It's pointless arguing unless you're actually going to address reality. The reality is that the Ukraine you're talking about fighting for is more corrupt by independent indices of corruption than Russia.

You're forgetting a little something...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-ukraine-war-numbers-casualties-refugees-aid

549 civilian deaths
between 2,000 and 4,000 Ukrainian armed forces, national guard and volunteer forces killed.
According to the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, the invasion has resulted in more than 2.5 million people fleeing Ukraine

It's not enough for you to simply say that life in Ukraine would be better than life under Russian puppet governance.

It has to be 500 civilian death's worth, 4000 soldiers death's worth, 2.5 million refugees displacement's worth. It's not like picking out a better colour of wallpaper.

Just give me a single metric of life in Belarus (for example) that you think is worth 4000 lives to pay for. But not just that, a metric which cannot be achieved by any other less deadly means.

It's whimsical you then start to defend the largest robber baron of our times. — ssu

Calling them both as bad as each other is not 'defending' one of them. Calling one worse than the other is not 'defending' one of them.

'Defending' someone consists of claiming their actions to be justified or the accusations against them untrue. If you can find a quote where I've said any such thing about Putin then crack on, otherwise fuck off.

One does what is right with the understanding that it will usually fail — unenlightened

I agree. One acts in a way that is virtuous regardless of consequences.

Ukraine fights and probably loses, because 'better dead than red'. Or perhaps, better to die in the gas chamber than to operate the gas chamber. — unenlightened

The problem is Ukraine is not a person. There is no virtuous course of action for a country because virtues are the sorts of things people have, not the sorts of thing countries have. The people in Ukraine, the political leader specifically, have to act as virtuous political leaders, they have to exhibit the virtues a political leader ought to have - protection of the vulnerable, willingness to take unpopular-but-right decisions, taking just account of future, as well as current citizens... those are the virtues of a politician. Playing to social media to heroise oneself at the expense of innocent lives is not a virtue.

As soon as you invoke 'freedom' as a goal you are moving into consequentialist ethics because you have to have made an assessment of which course of action will lead to it. Kill the enemy, or talk to the enemy. Both could potentially best maximise 'freedom'. Fighting and talking are both virtues depending on the context.

Fighting for freedom in of itself is clearly a virtue, but it requires one to pick which side is 'freedom' and which isn't. That's precisely the problem I've been trying to discuss. Ukraine/US/Europe are no white knights. They're not the forces of freedom fighting the forces of evil. They're mired in corruption, oppression, and deceit. The fact that they are less so mired than their enemy doesn't suddenly turn the situation into high contrast black-and-white and no simple 'fight to the death' narrative can properly fit the battle between Western economic tyranny and Russian political tyranny.

'Good luck with that.' he ironises. — unenlightened

Indeed. And then goes on to do exactly that...

Perhaps a free society is worth dying for, worth risking nuclear war for? — unenlightened

So Ukraine's win will result in a 'free society'? How has that in any way sidestepped the "balance of probabilities over some guesswork as to long-term consequences"?

As has already been shown, Ukraine's performance on the corruption index was on a par with both Russia and Belarus (Russian puppet). Reconstruction is already being linked to crippling IMF and EMF loans tied to restructuring away from social welfare toward freer markets. A NATO-friendly Ukraine would certainly destabilise the region and open it up to greater influence from America (whose track record on 'freedom' is shady at best).

I can see a very minor gain at best (poking Putin in the eye), for a tremendous loss of life and absolutely no guarantee the exact same gain couldn't be achieved the following year anyway by more effective sanctions and trade restrictions based on demands for greater democratic institutions in Russia.

I think it's very problematic invoking a kind of virtue ethics when it comes to the action of entire countries. Countries are artificial entities of law, they don't have moral interests, there's no moral component to Ukraine keeping its current territory. There is, however a moral element to the prevention and cessation of war.

If Ukraine fights on, it has some reasonable hope of regaining territory and forcing its will onto Putin — Olivier5

Yep. It also has a reasonable hope of losing hundreds more of its people and not getting anything more than it's already got. Again, simply presenting one of the two options doesn't constitute an argument for it.

I suppose that is why they keep it on. — Olivier5

I didn't ask you why they keep on fighting. I'm quite well aware of their motives. I might well feel the same way if I were in their shoes. I'm asking you why you encourage them and vehemently suppress any discussion of alternatives.

You said...

f Putin leaves this conflict with whatever territories he wants, it would give incentives for people to invade their neighbour the world over. — Olivier5

Let's look at this claim in the light of...

NATO is not willing to get involved — Olivier5

So . Your claim is that other countries, seeing that Ukraine fought back, will be deterred from invading in a way that they wouldn't be if Ukraine agreed to terms? Why would, say China, assume , say Taiwan, would copy whatever Ukraine choose to do here? Why would Ukraine's response give them any insight at all into what Taiwan - a completely different country - might do if invaded?

I could understand your suggestion if it were about the international response - that would apply to Taiwan as much as to Ukraine - but the international response seems not to be what you're talking about since you're clear NATO won't get involved, so we're talking purely about Ukraine. why on earth would the specific circumstances in Ukraine influence something like China's strategic decisions about Taiwan?

Do you imagine the intelligence agencies reporting all their highly specific details about Taiwan's military capabilities, political powers, economic buffers etc, deciding the time's not yet right to invade on the basis of this complex military and economic assessment... and then thinking "ah...but Ukraine lost it's war...maybe we'll have a crack after all"

Nope. I think that's a bad thing. — Olivier5

So what's it got to do with your argument?

So far we have.

You: Ukraine should keep fighting because a bad thing could happen if they agree to terms

Me: But a bad thing could happen if they don't agree to terms

You: Yes

A bad thing could happen if they agree to terms, a bad thing could happen if they don't. So your argument for why they shouldn't agree to terms can't just be because a bad thing might happen if they do, can it? You need to provide more than that. You're trying to justify continued war here. All the bloodshed and destruction that goes along with it. Such justification needs a little more than a balance of probabilities over some guesswork as to long-term consequences.

That he already sized by war, yes — Olivier5

All territory is seized by war.

If Putin won this war, it would have the same effect as the Soviet suppression of the 1956 revolution in Budapest, or the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968: quash democratic aspirations in this part of the world for a generation. — Olivier5

And you think that's a good thing?

if Putin leaves this conflict with whatever territories he want — Olivier5

Territories he already has. He's asking for Crimea which is de facto already part of Russia, and independence in Donbass which is already de facto the case under the Minsk agreement.

it would give incentives for people to invade their neighbour the world over. — Olivier5

And if Putin wins with NATO powerless to stop it? What message do you think that will send? We can all come up with contingencies which would be bad.

Putin will never compromise. You can’t negotiate with terrorism. — Wayfarer

So I guess the International Centre for Counterterrorism, Chatham House, and Professor of Defense studies at King's College don't know what they're talking about. If only they'd come to you first.

https://icct.nl/event/negotiating-with-terrorists/

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/01/we-do-not-negotiate-terrorists-why

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5177-faurenegotiating-w-terrorist--a-discrete-form-of

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2007-01-01/negotiating-terrorists

You going to fight him are you? Or are you going sit in your fucking armchair and agitate for more Ukrainians to die upholding your naïve principles?

No. Not likely at all. That's rather the point. If we were talking about what the deal ought to be then it'd be.

1. Russian military fucks off and leaves Ukraine alone.
2.... there is no 2

...but as this isn't a Hollywood film, Ukraine has to choose between the deal on the table or continued bloodshed.

Since the deal on the table represents what is de facto the case already, it's nothing short of warmongering for agents outside of Ukraine to be encouraging them continue their defence instead of taking it.

Your blind faith in capitalism is noted, but the charge involved impoverishment, not a failure to get richer.

The claim was about Putin fucking over his countrymen. Indices of overall poverty aren't relevant to that claim. If they're all poor then one sector aren't fucking over the other are they? The claim was not "there are some bad things about Russia" that I wouldn't have contested. The claim was that it is worse than the west for enriching one class at the expense of impoverishing another. For that you need indices of inequality, not mean wealth.

Russia's pretty good at shafting the poor, but not the best.

All of which is, of course, irrelevant to the point, which was about the gross display moral pearl-cluthing over the exact indiscriminate disregard for humanity that's gone on virtually uncommented on for decades.

for no reason — SophistiCat

How is 'avoiding openly lying on public record' not 'a reason'?

Putin has outdone his western counterparts in fucking over his countrymen financially. — frank

Seriously? You want to put some figures to that? Putin has impoverished more people to a greater extent than the US?

Let's start with the Gini coefficient...

Russia 37.5
US 48.9

US wining the 'fucking over the poor' competition so far.

There's not even a whole percentage point between them on percentage of the population below the poverty line, and the US is getting worse while Russia is slightly improving.

Shall we look at crippling terms of debt next, or unreasonable tariffs on developing countries' exports, or the impacts of American vs Russian-based TNCs. You choose.

Uhh... this is a thread about the Ukraine Crisis. — ssu

It was a piece of social commentary about today's mercurial, shallow emotional flag-waiving. It's relevance to this thread is the obsession with it demonstrated here.

This bioweapons story is Pizzagate-level insanity. — SophistiCat

Right so the New York Times article in 2001 describing how Project Clear Vision created biological weapons which they hid from the mandatory UN declarations, carried out with private bioweapons researchers Battelle, partly in their Lugar Center in Georgia must have slipped past the NYT's editorial guidelines - what with such a notion being "Pizzagate-level insanity" and all.

To think anyone would be insane enough to think the US would fund research involving biological weapons in Ukrainian labs when the only evidence we have of them doing anything even remotely similar is them funding research involving biological weapons in Georgian labs.

I see now I've been a fool, obviously if the US fund such programs in Georgia it's nothing but insanity to think they'd do so in Ukraine!

For any would be commentators concerned about the gross misfeasance indicated below...

forget to condemn the attackers, talk anything about the attrocities that happen and give any support for those that are fighting for their freedom and for their right to exist. — ssu

... I've gone to the trouble of preparing a guide.

..(1).. is a bad man and all the bad things are his fault. ...(2).. is a bad thing. I feel sorry for ..(3)...

Just copypaste the above and fill in the latest media villain de jour at (1), whatever crisis is in the headlines at (2) and the latest protagonist at (3). Then you can crack on with your original post unafraid of damnation from anyone who requires we all wear them like a fucking badge before they believe anyone has emotions.

Oh, but do be sure to keep up with the latest version. At the moment it's

1. Putin
2. Invading people
3. All Ukrainians and anyone helping them

Do not, under any circumstances accidentally use last month's entries (check Facebook for details), and avoid at all costs generalities like...

1. The obscenely rich and powerful
2. Fucking over the poor
3. The poor

And the argument has been put forward that "lab" doesn't mean anything ... but then why would a top US official just "scat" meaningless scat cat derribidoos da da's in a senatorial hearing in the context of potential nuclear escalation? — boethius

Yep. What's not on the recording apparently, is later when questioned about whether Ukraine has sufficient supplies of fuel to hold out she goes into a long monologue about the influence of Ukrainian cinema, before one of the other witnesses gives a lecture on wild flowers of the Donbass region, it was quite enlightening - I'm all for this new trend for what can sometimes be overly serious senate hearings about active wars to be interspersed with snippets of unrelated tourist information.

when Russian MOD claims that American biolabs in Ukraine have been developing bioweapons capable of selectively targeting Slavic ethnic groups, and that they have been studying bats, tics and birds as possible vectors of transmission of lethal diseases across the border, such claims ought to be taken very seriously indeed, and at the highest level. — SophistiCat

I mean it literally says the exact opposite of this in the post you quoted...

That Putin has some crackpot idea about what they're for and how they work is completely immaterial. — Isaac

...but please, don't let what I've actually written get in the way of your little RPG you've got going on. Tell you what, you ping me over the scripts for what my character ought to say next and I'll do my best to stick to the plot

Diplomatic pressure?

After all the sanctions what the EU has imposed? After sending weapons to Ukraine? Then apply diplomatic pressure? Of what? What kind of pressure are we talking about here now? — ssu

It's like you don't understand how negotiation works. Here's a primer for you

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/what-is-negotiation/

Spoiler: it doesn't say "just keep threatening each other until one of you gives in"

Why would Nuland mention a secret bioweapons program in an open hearing? Why would she know about a secret bioweapons program? Sounds like the type of thing to keep under wraps, no? Why would the US government publicly announce a secret bioweapons program in public documents for years? — Count Timothy von Icarus

The rest of your analysis is really interesting, but this seems out of place. The Russians are claiming to be about to bring evidence of biological weapons research to the UN. If it's true, you seriously can't think of a reason why Nuland might want to avoid giving a straight "No" to the question, when literally later that week she might have some backtracking to do? How about 'avoiding perjury' as a reason?

How does Putin's belief about the mooted biological weapons have any bearing whatsoever on their existence? Putin might believe the vase on his shelf is just a container for flowers, or he might believe it's a sophisticated spying device installed by aliens from mars. Whatever mad belief he may or may not have about the nature of that vase has no bearing whatsoever on whether it exists or not.

Likewise, Nuland's deeply suspicious comments, together with the US's atrocious history of deception and subterfuge give reasonable cause to believe that Ukraine has US backed biological weapons. That Putin has some crackpot idea about what they're for and how they work is completely immaterial.

I just don't understand how something as simple as...

I'm not cheering on Ukrainians to die for no achievable military objective, that is not the same as supporting Russia; it is political realism and, for me, common sense ethics about the responsibilities of civilian and military leadership. — boethius

...keeps getting twisted into 'You're supporting Russia'. It's analysis at the level of the school-yard.

Biological laboratories do not mean bioweapon research. Biological laboratories exist in almost every country, acknowledge of its existence does not mean acknowledging the existence of biological weapon research. High-tier biological laboratories can possess great danger if compromised, even without being a bioweapon research facility. High-tier biological laboratories are usually secret because their location is a safety risk for any malicious agent, like terrorists etc. — Christoffer

All true. But she wasn't asked "Does Ukraine have Chemical or Biological research facilities", nor was the context such that she might have been confused into thinking she had.

To be clear, the Senator didn't even mention labs, nor pathogens, nor research. He asked about weapons. So she had no reason at all to tell the Senator about innocent biological research labs.

She was asked "Does Ukraine have Chemical or Biological weapons". The answer to which should have been "No", if they didn't. It's that simple. Victoria Nuland is not some intern fresh out of college, she's a seasoned politician. If she was in the position to give an unequivocal "No" to a question as important as that she would, without a shadow of a doubt, have done so. So why didn't she?

If the police ask "Are you carrying a bomb", you don't answer "well, I am carrying some electrical devices and a watch, and some fertiliser bags" and then later clarify that none of these ingredients had been put together into a bomb. You answer an emphatic "No!"

Not to mention you've yet to explain why there'd be any concern about these innocent biological research preparations falling into the hands of Russian forces. Russia already have samples of all the ordinary pathogens which can be used as weapons. We know this because they've bloody well used them. So why on earth would it be a problem finding them also in Ukraine, they have plenty already?

Im afraid I have no idea what any of that was supposed to mean but...

...how very drole/apposite/insightful/admonishing [delete as appropriate]

Interesting article in the Jacobin on the exact argument being made here - the misguided, dangerous promotion of continued war.

Perversely, it’s the people most eager to consign the people of Ukraine to years, possibly decades, of this hell who will most loudly tell you how much their hearts bleed for them. — https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/03/ukraine-afghanistan-quagmire-far-right-global-economy-climate-disaster

The whole article is well worth a read

But nothing has been proven otherwise — Christoffer

Of course. The question is why we should take your default position and have to prove otherwise rather than take our preferred default position and ask you to prove otherwise.

you're just doing circular reasoning based on your predetermined contempt of the west and the US. — Christoffer

Well, it's not circular but yes, it's based on my predetermined contempt of the west and the US, I've made no secret about that. What I'm disputing is your ludicrous claim that your position is somehow devoid of such political bias. My default position in issues of uncertainty is to assume malicious intent in terms of financial gain for powerful (mostly US based) interests. Are you suggesting that's an unreasonable default position, that there hasn't been an unbroken history of such institutions doing exactly that?

It can also be as simple as these people actually wanting to fight against Russia since they are killing civilians and breaking international law. — Christoffer

It can be, but you'd need some precedent to justify assuming that as your default position. Where can you point to in past US foreign affairs where the goal has been clearly humanitarian with no financial or political gain? Because without a strong history of such actions your 'could be' is just wishful thinking.

This is called a straw man

[url=http://]having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[/url]
— Christoffer

No, its called a joke...

joke (jōk)
n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank:

Russia also has the capacity to build the Death Star and also maybe sharks with lazers so be careful. — StreetlightX

Yep. And to think they'd be so aggressive after the US promised to conduct it's future proxy wars using nothing but a strongly worded leafleting campaign.

Russia claims independence for regions of Ukraine. The west releases intel of false flag operation. Russia releases "cry for help" from the independent regions, i.e false flag operation started. This validates the leaked intel of false flag operation. — Christoffer

Let's see how my own personal intel plays out shall we? My network of sources tell me that Russia is likely to use weapons to attack Ukrainian positions. Let's just see over the next few hours if my intel leak proved true. Remember you heard it here first.