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. — Isaac

It's an irrelevant question. It has no import on the issue at hand, which was:

how many Ukrainian dead are worthwhile to attain such an objective? — boethius

I answered that the Ukrainians would be best placed to answer that. You implied they were poorly informed but that is simply not true. Nobody has perfect information of course but 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.

You may want to argue otherwise but that amounts to the ivory tower syndrome: the belief that from your distant armchair you can tell what's happening on the ground better than the people who are actually on the ground. I find it ridiculous.

Beside, their lives are on the line, not ours. That too places them in a more legitimate position to decide "how many Ukrainian dead are worthwhile to attain [their] objective".

Deny it all you like, Ukrainians exist and they have collective agency.

I never said the Ukrainians were a mass, nor that Google translate did not exist. If you think that from you basement you know better what's happening in Ukraine than the people living in Ukraine, wank away.

And that helps the legitimacy how? — Isaac

Simple: it is legitimate for NATO to help Ukrainians fight this war but not to force them to do so.

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

How so? — Isaac

By virtue of being on site, having relatives and friends in Ukraine and Russia to whom they can talk, speaking the languages and following local news, etc. And the government has access to intell. ..

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

They are better informed than you and me though.

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

These are the orders of other Ukrainians, not NATO officials. So nobody (non Ukrainian) is forcing Ukraine to fight.

More than virtue, the defence of Ukraine sends a signal of strength. And it sends it to Putin, essentially.
— Olivier5

More bold statements without any evidence or argumentation and complete ignorance of the implications. — boethius

You should take the obvious truth a little more seriously than that.

War has little to do with virtue, usually, and much to do with strength. Nobody has ever done a war or supported a war for "virtue" or for "virtue signaling". That you would even consider it shows how detached from reality you are.

"Virtue signaling" is just your way to put the fact that Ukraine has just cause and Russia does not.

But this war and the western support to it does signal something: a newfound resolve to push back against Putin's plans even at a very high cost

then one must actually argue why it's moral to instrumentalise Ukrainian lives in that way simply to "send a signal". Are you really embracing the position that any amount of Ukrainian death and suffering is justified as long as it "sends a signal" from NATO to Putin? — boethius

Not at all, but it's indubitable that a signal of strength is being sent by NATO and Ukraine.

the entire entire idea that military support support to Ukraine (but not "too much") is a signal of strength is extremely debatable. — boethius

For one, all these weapons and munitions cost a lot of money, right? For two, distributing too many weapons to Ukraine raises the risk that some may find their way to the black market. For three, Russia can also seize NATO material, allowing them to study them up close to find weaknesses and hacks. Therefore, it stands to reason that NATO countries should provide whatever support is necessary for Ukraine to defeat Russia, but not more. This explains for instance why tanks haven't been provided: they cost too much, can't afford to lose them to the enemy, etc.

ven if it does happen, how many Ukrainian dead are worthwhile to attain such an objective? — boethius

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

the entire operation is simply a virtue signalling gesture.

But to who? The dead? — boethius

More than virtue, the defence of Ukraine sends a signal of strength. And it sends it to Putin, essentially.

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

Have I argued anywhere that the elected president doesn't have a mandate? — Isaac

I think so.

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

Over any significant period of time, demand for Western Products will fall causing a drop in standards of living in those countries. — yebiga

Over any significant period of time, there's a climate Armageddon coming and the globalised economy, which created the climate crisis, just dies with the rest of us.

In the meantime, there'll be ups and downs.

Russia (unlike Portugal) is an important source of energy and raw materials — SophistiCat

Point well taken. It's an important difference. For all I know, a recession could be coming our way in Europe. Inflation is already here. It'll be a hard winter for a lot of us, folks everywhere.

This said, I still think -- or hope -- that the global economic system can survive, that it is not so fragile as to crumble because of one war. If there's a virtue to capitalism, it's resilience. As you said, what does not get sold in Europe finds a buyer elsewhere, and world prices adjust the whole thing.

This of course is assuming no nuclear or otherwise escalation... Otherwise all bets are off and I might soon meet ya'all in hell.

Or heaven. Let's stay positive.

Portugal btw. was the last Western country to hold on to it's African posessions by fighting colonial wars (in the 1970's) — ssu

I only mentioned Portugal as a random example of a small economy, but you are correct , at least formally speaking. Note however that South Africa was still a de facto colonial state untill the end of the apartheid, and that Rhodesia until the 80's was in the same situation: not quite a colony anymore, but not yet a true African country.

Indeed, the only advantage Ukraine has got over Russia is its democratic nature.

What are the odds that pampered westerners will stoically endure this looming impoverishment? — yebiga

Who cares? The Russian economy is rather small. You think the world economy will tank if we boycott Portugal?

Anyway, on the long term, chances are that the pampered westerners will cry just as loud as the pampered easterners when they suffer and die from climate change-induced famine.

interesting to find out what history will say about this. — ssu

History will say that he was a Putin lapdog. Because he was.

Trump didn't get away with everything he wanted, let's put it this way. He was still a Putin lapdog.

Very interesting article in the NYT, linking Putin's support to Trump's fraudulous election ('Russiagate') to his goals in Ukraine.

... Putin’s assault on Ukraine and his attack on American democracy have until now been treated largely as two distinct story lines. Across the intervening years, Russia’s election meddling has been viewed essentially as a closed chapter in America’s political history — a perilous moment in which a foreign leader sought to set the United States against itself by exploiting and exacerbating its political divides.

Yet those two narratives came together that summer night at the Grand Havana Room. And the lesson of that meeting is that Putin’s American adventure might be best understood as advance payment for a geopolitical grail closer to home: a vassal Ukrainian state. ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/magazine/russiagate-paul-manafort-ukraine-war.html

So Trump was just another tool, another Putinista.

I hope Bolsenaro concedes his defeat, and Brazil gets a break from post-truth, COVID-denying, environmemt-destroying assholes. Lula is a good man, and Brazil needs good people at the top.

If you cannot state your own opinion clearly, maybe it's because you have none.

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?

Well then, we agree.

.

The Minsk agreements are proof that diplomacy was tried. The rest is similarly obvious.

If one war was just, others can be. Including this one. That's an argument.

They're not the same, and they don't relate to the 2022 invasion. — Isaac

So did any diplomacy preceding WW2.

The rest of your post is similar. Just saying no no no without any argument.

If one war was just, then other wars can be just too. Including this one.

2. We'd tried a peaceful resolution to the border disagreements, it hadn't worked. — Isaac

So have we with the 2 Minsk agreements

3. We'd previously promised to defend Poland (again, in an attempt to avoid war), we then did. — Isaac

We are helping Ukraine protect itself, and ourselves by the same occasion.

4 England at the time was a fully fledged democracy and had been for decades. Germany was an open dictatorship with openly racist agendas. — Isaac

Funny that you'd call it "England", an ethnic term, rather than the UK. In any case, at the time what was at war with Germany was not a democracy by any measure, but an empire, the British Empire, which had its fair share of concentration camps and racially-based apartheid.

Moreover, Russia today is a dictatorship with an obviously racist agenda.

5 Hitler's invasion of Poland wasn't a stage in a protracted civil war with Pro-Nazi insurgents in Poland. — Isaac

So Hitler was less prone than Putin to entice civil wars in neighbouring countries. So what?

6 We now know that some of Hitler's intent (and practice) with regards to concentration camps was known to the allies. Concentration camps (and the like) — Isaac

The death camps became known only much after and were never a motive for the war.

It seems that according to you, some nations (the English, the Russians) exist and have a right to self-defense, while some others (the Ukrainians) do not.

We've already talked about that. — Isaac

We have, but you haven't. Why was the UK resistance to Nazi Germany not an "absolute fucking insanity"?

I think sending thousands of men, women, and children to their bloody deaths over where those lines are is absolute fucking insanity — Isaac

And yet you can understand the UK resistance to Nazi Germany. So what gives?

My point is that, in spite of all your facile rambling about flags and borders, you can come up with no actual alternative on how to govern human affairs.

Nationalism is not the mere acknowledgement that nations exist. Do I have to explain nationalism too? — Isaac

Why not? Do you have interesting lies to share about it?

To my mind, it's hard to have nations without borders, and hence without getting occasional wars over these borders.

"Russians have Russian passports" - fine. — Isaac

But then it follows that there is a set as "all the Russians". Like, a nation of Russians.

But if such a nation exists, and legitimately so, what's wrong with nations, exactly?

I could ask for a minimum level of truthfulness and conceptual clarity, but that'd be asking too much.

If a group exists, called the Russians, and defined by their nationality, is that a bad thing because hey, nationalism is caca?

I never claimed there's no such group. My claims are of the form "there's no such group as "the Russians", which...". It's about the properties of any such group. The group 'the Russians' shares the property of having Russian passports. No other. — Isaac

So do Russians exist or not?

The discussion started with a comment about how 'Ukrainians' deserved a say in the control of Donbas. I disputed that such a group existed with that right. If you just want to spout off more virtue signalling about how much you dislike what the Russian forces are doing, do it in someone else's discussion, don't respond to me to do it. — Isaac

"Virtue signaling" is just another name for ethics.

If there is no such group as "the Russians", then how is it even possible to speak of anti-Russian racism?

Not what I asked. — Isaac

You ask disingenuous questions. You know perfectly well that I meant Russians forces in Ukraine and their allies, not the population of Vladivostok, Moscow or St Petersburg.

And Chechen troops? Syrian troops? — Isaac

They too are welcome to surrender, if they don't want to die.

calling on people to "kill some more Russians" — Isaac

To kill a mass murderer who is on a murdering spree is morally justified.

If they keep on murdering Ukrainians, Russian troops ought to die. If they don't want to die, they are welcome to lay down arms and surrender at any time.

You thought we were talking of a garden party, perhaps?

Better just to erect a massive fence to keep the bloodthirsty Orcs Russians in their place. — Isaac

Humble them, scare them into a more respectful attitude. Impress on them the idea that others matter and can fight back when attacked. If they fail to understand the message, kill some more Russian until the message is understood. Like done with Germany and Japan.

we agreed that a government at war needs the support of its people in the rear
— Olivier5

We agreed no such thing. You argued that the US populace had no influence on government policy, then argued the exact opposite for the Ukrainian populace. I just pointed out the incoherence. — Isaac

This is going nowhere, as usual with you.

A country at war cannot go on long without popular support for the war. That is true of democracies such as Ukraine, and valid for dictatorships too. If the Russian populace turns anti-war in its majority, Putin will jave to vie for peace.

The government of Ukraine are, unilaterally — Isaac

Well, you argued otherwise upthread, saying that the soldiers were the primary actors, the governments only second to them, because soldiers can disobey, run away or surrender. And then we agreed that a government at war needs the support of its people in the rear, otherwise it will crumble sooner or later. Note that the people does the fighting too.

In addition to my response above, Ukraine is not currently a democracy. — Isaac

These are exceptional circumstances calling for extreme measures. Ukraine is still supposed to be a democracy and hence is supposed to lift those measures in peace time.

If you want to argue that their democracy is suboptimal, I agree.

I would definitely argue that the average citizen of the US has more of a say (via lobbying their politicians, who lobby the US government, who lobby/fund the Ukrainian government), than the average citizen of, say, Lvov. — Isaac

I would argue otherwise, on the ground that US citizens have currently limited say on anything their federal government does, least of all in foreign policy. I guess you might say their democracy is suboptimal.

How is the UK fairing there, BTW? Would you qualify your current governance system as 'optimal'?

Directly, it's up to the actual soldiers, diplomats and support staff doing the fighting/negotiating (they could refuse). — Isaac

That is true, and leads to the issue of troop morale.

Less directly, the government of Ukraine — Isaac

Yes, they have a very big role right now.

Less directly still, the government's funders, supporters, lobbyists and pollsters — Isaac

Yes yes yes. But pollsters poll people. Supporters are people and so are funders. You are saying that the government needs the support of the people,and all that is true.

Absent a referendum or election I don't see how the Ukrainians en masse are going to get a say, — Isaac

Via polls, via their financial support, their discipline or lack thereof, and their physical engagement as soldiers.