it should be looked just how likely this would be. — ssu

It has been looked at just how likely it is. By experts in their field (as cited previously) and by, for example, @boethius above.

They reach different conclusions to you.

This is the problem with centrists like you. To dodge the moral evaluation of your position you need to argue that alternatives are actually impossible ("I'm as cut up about it as you, but we've just got to avoid taxing the rich, it's economics, I'm afraid"). Your attempts to do so are sounding more and more messianic.

You've still not answered the very basic moral question. Why ought Ukraine have control over Crimea/Donbas? There's no god-given right to any piece of land, there's no racial-biological link to Ukraine, there's no harm-reduction principle... There's no grounds at all been offered as to why they ought have that land. Without such grounds there's no reason we ought take even a 0.000001% risk of nuclear war to help them get it back.

That is where nuclear weapons work: deterrence. If this would be a non-nuclear armed country attacking Ukraine, it is likely that a no-fly zone would have been enforced.

And it works both ways: Russia doesn't dare to attack the countries supplying arms to Ukraine or training Ukrainian troops. — ssu

So now Russia aren't a threat to the West, and Putin is a master strategist who doesn't make massive blunders? I wish you guys would get your story straight.

The idea Nuclear weapons have no military use is just insanely naive. — boethius

Nukes have their military use, which is to wipe out all mankind and give the earth a well-deserved break from us critters.

Why ought Ukraine have control over Crimea/Donbas? There's no god-given right to any piece of land, there's no racial-biological link to Ukraine, there's no harm-reduction principle... There's no grounds at all been offered as to why they ought have that land. — Isaac

Why ought Russia have the right to take it from a sovereign state, whose territories it has accepted on several occasions? Why ought violence, aggression and straightforward imperialism justified?

But for you it doesn't matter if Putin is control of Ukraine or the Ukrainians are in control of Ukraine, hence this conversation has utterly no meaning. You just reinforce the stereotype of a typical tankie, for whom US and the West is evil and nothing else matters.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/putinsgrip-regional-allies-loosen-again-after-armenia-snub-csto-summit

fun fact: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-planned-attack-japan-2021-fsb-letters-1762133

Why ought Russia have the right to take it from a sovereign state, whose territories it has accepted on several occasions? — ssu

It didn't ought. I don't think the question of who governs what territory is a moral one, any more than what hat I ought wear today is a moral question.

Why ought violence, aggression and straightforward imperialism justified? — ssu

I didn't. No one is justifying it.

for you it doesn't matter if Putin is control of Ukraine or the Ukrainians are in control of Ukraine, hence this conversation has utterly no meaning. — ssu

The question was meaningful enough. Your continual dodging of it is telling. Why ought Ukraine have control over that territory? It doesn't matter if I disagree, you should still be able to provide me with an answer.

But for you it doesn't matter if Putin is control of Ukraine or the Ukrainians are in control of Ukraine, hence this conversation has utterly no meaning. — ssu

The choice has been between Russia or the United States to control Ukraine.

Before the United States aimed for regime change in Ukraine, Ukraine was as independent as it can hope to be given its sensitive geopolitical position.

It's the United States who sought to change that in 2013.

There are some indications that much of what has happened in Ukraine since 2013 was premeditated by the United States.

The United States has profited immensely from the cut gas ties between Europe and Russia. It is likely the United States orchestrated the sabotage of Nord Stream.

Interestingly, Hunter Biden notoriously participated on the board of Burisma, Ukraine's largest private oil and gas producer.

There seems to be a red line in this story, and that is the United States' interest in European gas and its gas dependency.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-planned-attack-japan-2021-fsb-letters-1762133 — neomac

If nothing else, it fits the signature of Putin's Russia. Other than that, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

, you forgot the most important option: Kyiv.

If Moscow ^{(Nov 2, 2022)}, then (definitely) not Kyiv; industrial-strength re-culturation, Kremlin autocracy, possible threat to Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia instead, going by the modus operandi of Putin's Russia.

If Washington (London Warsaw Paris Bucharest Helsinki Prague UN ...), then (hopefully) Kyiv; :eyes: watching, hopefully democracy, self-governance; no, not a Nazi junta ^{(Nov 21, 2022)}.

... (↑ more?)

1991: Independence
2014: UN 68/262
2022: UN ES-11/4

Russia is simply upholding its right to exist and to develop freely. — Putin · Oct 27, 2022

That's what Ukraine was in the process of doing, when the invasion, destruction, dehumanization, etc, hijacked the agenda.

If nothing else, it fits the signature of Putin's Russia. Other than that, I'd take it with a grain of salt. — jorndoe

Agreed. But it's interesting to keep an eye on, since not only Russia is reluctant to return the occupied Kuril Islands to Japan but it also started militarizing them: https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-are-russia-and-japan-gridlocked-on-the-question-of-the-kuril-islands-58074

Without such grounds there's no reason we ought take even a 0.000001% risk of nuclear war to help them get it back. — Isaac

The war in Ukraine perhaps represents the most significant offensive use of nuclear weapons since WW2. Not in their hot use, but in the terroristic threat of their use, in support of an unprovoked war of aggression. This is the world we now live in. Russia may have blundered themselves into a position where their terrorist threats of nuclear war is the only reason they should get to keep Crimea and the Donbass. How to put that genie back in the bottle? There are no easy answers, but submitting to the threat would set a deadly precedent.

Moreover, no state can afford to let the seizure of their territory go uncontested. Unless one side is defeated decisively, the war might continue indefinitely.

interesting to keep an eye on, since not only Russia is reluctant to return the occupied Kuril Islands to Japan but it also started militarizing them: https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-are-russia-and-japan-gridlocked-on-the-question-of-the-kuril-islands-58074 — neomac

Not their only move either

• The (melting) Arctic? Aug 25, 2022 and some more recent moves
• Africa? Nov 16, 2022 (perhaps a bit on the clandestine side)

NATO allies wake up to Russian supremacy in the Arctic ^{(via Yahoo)
— Jacob Grønholt-Pedersen, Gwladys Fouche · Reuters · Nov 16, 2022}
Putin touts Russia's 'Arctic power' with launch of nuclear icebreakers ^{(via CTV News, The Telegraph)
— Reuters · Nov 22, 2022}
Russian military back to harassing the Canadian Arctic
^{— Tristin Hopper · National Post · Nov 25, 2022}

:up:

The choice has been between Russia or the United States to control Ukraine. — Tzeentch

What about Ukraine being under the control of Ukrainians? Is that totally out of question?

Don't get me wrong, that would be the best outcome, however it is simply not going to happen.

A neutral Ukraine can only happen if both Russia and the US agree to reinstating Ukraine as a neutral buffer as it was before 2013.

The United States will never agree to that, since the whole point of this crisis was to expand the US sphere of influence into Ukraine. A neutral Ukraine would be a defeat for the US and a nullification of billions of dollars spent over the course of at least a decade.

Further, after 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine the US will not trust Russia to respect Ukrainian neutrality. LIkewise, after 2013 Russia can no longer trust the US to respect Ukrainian neutrality.

What about Ukraine being under the control of Ukrainians? Is that totally out of question? — Olivier5

Doesn't make any sense. Since 'Ukrainian' is not a natural kind, it's not a subspecies, or a genetic type, Ukrainians will always be controlled by Ukraine since the definition of 'Ukrainian' is 'person under the rule of the government of Ukraine'.

There's no difference between a citizen of Donetsk having to accept power sharing with a citizen of Lvov, than that same citizen having to accept power sharing with a citizen of Rostov, or New York, or Paris. They're all miles away. No magic connects Lvov and Donetsk more than New York and Donetsk that somehow magically renders the former a morally 'correct' unit of government, but the latter not.

The United States will never agree to that, since the whole point of this crisis was to expand the US sphere of influence into Ukraine. A neutral Ukraine would be a defeat for the US and a nullification of billions of dollars spent over the course of at least a decade. — Tzeentch

I wasn't thinking of a neutral Ukraine, but of a country going the way its citizens want to go. EU accession would be on the table. Maybe even NATO membership, though that may be a step too far, IDK.

Ok, but both of those would probably be unacceptable to Russia.

Whatever the solution is going to be, it's going to have to appease both big players in this game: the USA and Russia.

I don't know how else a future-proof solution could ever be reached. Even if one side manages to defeat the other and simply impose a new status quo, it's going to be a flashpoint for decades in the future.

What about Ukraine being under the control of Ukrainians? Is that totally out of question? — Olivier5


Doesn’t make any sense. Since’Ukrainian' is not a natural kind, it's not a subspecies, or a genetic type, Ukrainians will always be controlled by Ukraine since the definition of ’Ukrainian' is 'person under the rule of the government of Ukraine’.

There's no difference between a citizen of Donetsk having to accept power sharing with a citizen of Lvov, than that same citizen having to accept power sharing with a citizen of Rostov, or New York, or Paris. They're all miles away. No magic connects Lvov and Donetsk more than New York and Donetsk that somehow magically renders the former a morally 'correct' unit of government, but the latter not. — Isaac

Your argument doesn’t make any sense: first, the premise “Since ‘Ukrainian' is not a natural kind, it's not a subspecies, or a genetic type” doesn't seem to play any other role than putatively supporting your definition of ’Ukrainian’ as 'person under the rule of the government of Ukraine’. Even if the premise is true, that doesn’t logically prove the definition. Indeed that premise is compatible with other arguably more plausible definitions like “Ukrainian is a person with Ukrainian passport”, incompatible with the definition you provided: indeed not all persons under the rule of the government of Ukraine are Ukrainians, likely the non-Ukrainian foreign professional, tourists or residents located in Ukraine.
Second, the claim “Ukrainians will always be controlled by Ukraine” doesn’t logically follow from your definition of “Ukrainian” unless “Ukraine” in your conclusion is understood NOT as a territorial entity but as the government of Ukraine. Yet, if @Olivier5’s claim has to do with control of territorial entity (Ukraine) by a group of people (the Ukrainians), as it seems to me, then your argument is irrelevant, because your argument deals with the control of a government (the government of Ukraine) over a group of people (the Ukrainians).
Third, nowhere is clarified what “morally 'correct' unit of government” is supposed to mean, nor why “mileage” would make no difference in identifying “morally 'correct' unit of government”, nor why these claims would be relevant for Olivier’s question to another interlocutor.

Russia may have blundered themselves into a position where their terrorist threats of nuclear war is the only reason they should get to keep Crimea and the Donbass. How to put that genie back in the bottle? There are no easy answers, but submitting to the threat would set a deadly precedent. — hypericin

I may, but only 'deadly' in the sense that further expansion may lead to more war. Since the ;deadly' we'd be avoiding by concession is also war, I can't see much in it either way. at least war later can be mitigated, war now is killing people right away.

no state can afford to let the seizure of their territory go uncontested. — hypericin

Why not?

if the premise is true, that doesn’t logically prove the definition. — neomac

Nope. Indeed it doesn't.

that premise is compatible with other arguably more plausible definitions like “Ukrainian is a person with Ukrainian passport”, incompatible with the definition you provided: indeed not all persons under the rule of the government of Ukraine are Ukrainians, likely the non-Ukrainian foreign professional, tourists or residents located in Ukraine. — neomac

It is, yes.

the claim “Ukrainians will always be controlled by Ukraine” doesn’t logically follow from your definition of “Ukrainian” unless “Ukraine” in your conclusion is understood NOT as a territorial entity but as the government of Ukraine. — neomac

That's right..

Other irrelevant facts about my post are that it contained 114 words and doesn't once use the letter 'j'... if you're starting a collection.

if Olivier5’s claim has to do with control of territorial entity (Ukraine) by a group of people (the Ukrainians), as it seems to me, then your argument is irrelevant, because your argument deals with the control of a government (the government of Ukraine) over a group of people (the Ukrainians). — neomac

The argument is that control over the people of Ukraine is in the hands of the Ukrainian government.

The idea of a group of people literally controlling a 'territory' is absurd (what are they going to to do control it's geography?). What is controlled is people not land, and the way people control people is primarily via a government making laws. So the only matter in consideration is what government controls which people, and by what means.

The argument is that there's no 'natural unit' of people who all have some single homogeneous set of needs so the grouping used has no bearing on the life of any given member.

Each individual ukrainian might be better off sharing their control over their government with other Ukrainians, or New Yorkers, or Parisians. There's nothing about the border of Ukraine which makes the people within it better off sharing control with each other than with people outside that border.

nowhere is clarified what “morally 'correct' unit of government” is supposed to mean — neomac

Your comment here makes no sense at all. Nowhere is the word 'clarified' clarified., nor what you mean by 'supposed to mean'. In fact your whole post is just garbage. What do you mean by "make any sense" in the first sentence. You've not provided any measure of what 'making sense' would constitute, nor a method for how we'd judge it. And "play any other role" is ambiguous. What is a 'role' here, how do we determine whether something is or is not 'playing a role', your argument is just nonsensical unless you can define these terms and how we'd measure them. Then there's "arguably more plausible". How are we going to judge if something is, in fact, arguable? Or plausible? Without these things defined first we can't possibly make any sense at all of what you've written. "Likely". How likley? You've got to be specific here otherwise we can't judge. Is 80% enough? Baysian or frequentist likelihood? How will we measure it?

It seems you've got a ton of work to do before anyone can make any sense whatsoever of your post. Alternatively, we could act like reasonably intelligent adults and accept that although some terms have fuzzy definitions we need not clarify every single one in advance of making any point.

But then it seems absent of asking for definitions, you've nothing to say.

The Five Conspiracy Theories That Putin Has Weaponized
^{— Ilya Yablokov · The New York Times · Apr 25, 2022}

‘Weaponisation of everything’: Putin’s hybrid warfare exposed by hidden attacks on Europe
^{— Tara Fair · Express · Nov 28, 2022}

↑ Material for a Bond movie? (hmm Putin could use a scar or something)

According to Zakharova, it's like Russia against the world:

Russia denounces Pope Francis’ latest words as proof of his «Russophobia».
^{— Daniel Stewart · News360 · Nov 28, 2022}

Ironically perhaps, their efforts might turn that into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is likely the United States orchestrated the sabotage of Nord Stream — Tzeentch

As a matter of financial gain? (Russia and the UK blame each other)


Anyway, does this seem dis/agreeable to anyone?

• most want the invaders to leave, and to bring about a situation where the displaced can head on home, reunite with family/friends, ...
• most want to show that such land grab attempts won't go unnoticed/uncontested/unchallenged, and that such re-culturation attempts are disgusting/criminal, the less feasible the better
• most want to bring this stuff out to people as well, for all to see, show other ways
• few (but maybe some) want more haters, destruction, world war, autocrats, autocrats with nuclear weapons, oppression, ...
• (... and other things, please correct)

Whatever is un/wanted taken together (which complicates things) would then reflect in actions taken, yes?

The idea of a group of people literally controlling a 'territory' is absurd (what are they going to to do control it's geography?). — Isaac

Why yes, people do control geography to a degree, by building infrastructure or destroying them. Think of how a dam affects the landscape. BTW, humans share that property with many other species, like beavers. Something people can do but beavers can't do, though, is name places, which represents a form of symbolic control over them. Hence Kyiv rather than Kiev.

You seem to be against the idea of a modern nation state. Fine with me but what's the alternative?

both of those would probably be unacceptable to Russia. — Tzeentch

EU membership should be fine. There's no good reason to oppose it. "I'll nuke you if you join the wrong trading group" sounds rather absurd.

As a matter of financial gain? (Russia and the UK blame each other) — jorndoe

If the UK did it, they clearly didn't do so on their own initiative. They wouldn't take a dump on their own initiative. Likely the US orchestrated it, and the UK carried it out.

The case for Russia doing it themselves seems unlikely.

EU membership should be fine. — Olivier5

Maybe? I'm not sure what the Russian stance is on EU membership. Their gripe seems mostly with NATO membership.

"I'll nuke you if you join the wrong trading group" sounds rather absurd. — Olivier5

The EU is not just a trading group. Countries give up a lot of autonomy to Brussels.

Maybe? I'm not sure what the Russian stance is on EU membership. Their gripe seems mostly with NATO membership. — Tzeentch

Russia's efforts to weaken the EU takes many forms. One of the most visible is the vigorous support given to ultra-conservatives in individual states. This report points to how the realpolitik of such influence merges with the 'cultural' war aspect. Empowering divisive elements of any commonwealth is the purpose of the activities.

The Russian influence in Ukraine and Belarus, by contrast, is more directly connected to establishing puppet regimes.

people do control geography to a degree, by building infrastructure or destroying them. Think of how a dam affects the landscape. BTW, humans share that property with many other species, like beavers. — Olivier5

The subject was people acting as a mass (an electorate, or a nation) these make changes via instructing people. The government does not simply will a dam into being. They instruct people to make one.

You seem to be against the idea of a modern nation state. Fine with me but what's the alternative? — Olivier5

I have no objection to the modern nation state. I think it's an excellent, pragmatic way to organise governance. I object to the ludicrous notion that it has some moral value. It has none. If moving a border saves lives, move the border. Hell, if moving a border makes the trains run better, move the border. It's a nothing, a trivial bit of bureaucracy. It's absolute insanity to reify it to something worth dying in the thousands for.

The EU is not just a trading group. Countries give up a lot of autonomy to Brussels. — Tzeentch

Not really. It's all about having economic rules not too disparate so as to have a fair enough free trade areas.