I consider the development of Russia as a free and democratic state to be our main political and ideological goal — Putin

Interesting speech. I suppose they have not reached their goal yet, and it would be interesting to compare countries with a sort of democratic index:

United Kingdom Full Democracy 8.54

France Flawed Democracy 7.99

United States Flawed Democracy 7.92

Russia Authoritarian Regime 3.31

Ukraine Hybrid Regime 5.81

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-countries

> Wars cause enormous harms, including to people who have no say in the decisions (children, future generations), so only the plausible avoidance of greater harms justifies it. Having a different flag over your Parliament building is quite obviously not such a greater harm.

I 100% agree with you, if the independence war Ukraine is fighting against Russian military oppression, can be reasonably rendered as a fight over an ornament of a Parliament building. So is this the issue for you? Is this the Russian legitimate security concerns you were talking about: a flag decorating a parliament building? For me it’s matter of Ukrainian national security vs Russian oppressive expansionism. So nobody talked about fighting over a flag decorating a Parliament building in the first place, until you did. I thought you meant something much more serious when talking about Russian legitimate security concerns threatened by the West to the point of provoking this war. And concerning morality, I’m talking about the morality and related civic duty to fight against the Russian oppressors by the Ukrainians as long as it makes sense to them to fight for their own national identity and security.


> I think at all times there should be a good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from all parties. I can't see any reasonable argument favouring war over dialogue on principle.

I 100% agree on that principle too. I still don’t see how you would apply it to the present case to justify your accusation that the West “recklessly endangering millions of people by knowingly provoking a ruthless tyrant without any meaningful protection for those he might attack is immoral”. For example, if the West thinks that there is good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from them BUT NOT from the Russians, and Russians think that there is good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from them BUT NOT from the West, your principle doesn’t apply so how would you proceed with your moral analysis of the responsibility of the West wrt the Russian ones? Do you have any other moral principles that can help out?


> Then perhaps you could explain why so many experts in history and strategy have reached that exact conclusion.

I gave you my reasons to question your claims. And I don’t know who are the experts you are referring to (so it’s much harder to provide such an explanation, assumed I could), but what if I found experts that would disagree with the conclusions of your experts? Still we would need reasons to rely on the opinion of one expert instead of the other, when they disagree with their analysis or conclusions. Wouldn’t we? In other words, we would still need to have our own reasons to justify our own strategic and moral claims about this war. So I’m here to listen to your own reasons to justify your own strategic and moral claims about this war.

> You seriously can't think of any? Are you saying that the only two strategies you think are possible are Western neo liberalism and Russian anocracy?

The clarification I was looking for concerned your statement (“Only if you're weak-minded enough to see only two options”) in response to my claim (“If you are against advancing Western strategic interests and any logic of containment of its competitors that would risk a war, then you are indirectly supporting its competitors’ strategic interests, indeed of those competitors who are more aggressive in military terms, and therefore you may be rightly judged complicit in advancing them at the expenses of the West.”). I didn’t say nor implied anywhere that the only two strategies are Western neo-liberalism and Russian anocracy, if one can call them “strategies”. My claim is grounded on a simple & logic assumption: in a competitive game between N geopolitical actors with incompatible interests, if you act against (or more against) the strategy of only 1 of them, you are indirectly helping (or more helping) the remaining N-1 geopolitical actors. And this is the case, no matter if you do it knowingly/intentionally or not (yet I recon that it could be more problematic if you do it knowingly and intentionally).


> You're still assuming 'threats' can only come in the form of some military attack. Is there any plausible threat of military invasion to America? No Does America have legitimate security concerns? Yes. That should be all you need to know. There does not need to be an immediate threat of actual invasion for Russia to have legitimate security concerns.

You keep repeating that Russia has legitimate security concerns without explaining what they consist in. And actually I don’t even need to take as an assumption the idea of a military invasion of Russia by the Ukrainians as your misleading example once again suggests. It’s enough to consider the “threats” the Russian propaganda was trumpeting about: Ukrainian Neo-nazism, Russian genocide by Ukrainians, Ukrainian biochemical or nuclear weapons, and the like.

> You appear to be unfamiliar with multi-causal events, perhaps read up about the concept before pursuing this further.

Even if I read it, as you suggest, we could still disagree on how I and you would apply that concept to the case at hand. So if you really want to prove a point, you should actually argue for it.

> Why would they need to be provable? The illegality of Putin's attack is pretty much beyond doubt. We're talking about what was foreseeable, not what was provable.

And I’m talking about what one can foresee based on what can be proved. So if you claim that Ukraine did anything that was threatening Russian national security, I would like to hear what that is and what proofs you have for such accusations.

The US released details of it's National Defense Strategy this week.

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/28/2002964702/-1/-1/1/NDS-FACT-SHEET.PDF

To those like@ssu and @Christoffer arguing that Russia has no legitimate security concerns because "it's a nuclear superpower", I wonder if you can explain why the US feels so differently about its strategic interests.

Defending the homeland, paced to the growing multi-domain threat posed by the PRC
Deterring strategic attacks against the United States, Allies, and partners — NDS

Defending the homeland from what? I thought nobody attacked nuclear superpowers? What 'strategic attacks'? We are assured by the posters here that NATO posed no legitimate strategic 'threat' to Russia. Since China has no made any direct military overtures toward the US (in fact, the last war they fought was on the same side), I wonder how the US can now claim them as posing a 'threat'.

Does 'threat' mean something different in the US?

Is this the Russian legitimate security concerns you were talking about: a flag decorating a parliament building? — neomac

Yes, something like. Mostly 'security concerns' in terms of international politics come down to whose flag is over the parliament (even if sometimes only figuratively).

I’m talking about the morality and related civic duty to fight against the Russian oppressors by the Ukrainians as long as it makes sense to them to fight for their own national identity and security. — neomac

You'd just agreed that fighting over national identity was immoral, now you're saying it's a duty?

if the West thinks that there is good faith and active commitment to bringing about peace through dialogue from them BUT NOT from the Russians — neomac

...then that's not 'good faith', is it? Simply assuming your opposite number is going to lie (whilst scrubbing the blood off your own hands) and refusing negotiation on those grounds is about as good a definition of 'bad faith' in the context as it gets. All diplomats lie, it's part of the job. There's no justifiable ground for one side to pull out of negotiations on te grounds that the other side lie. It's rank hypocrisy.

what if I found experts that would disagree with the conclusions of your experts? Still we would need reasons to rely on the opinion of one expert instead of the other, when they disagree with their analysis or conclusions. — neomac

Exactly. And that's what high quality discussion consists of among amateurs. All we have is our reasons for believing one expert over another. assuming we ourselves know enough about the military or economic situation to actually make our own assessments is outrageous hubris, but when experts disagree, that task of choosing between them is not itself one that is amenable to further expertise, it is one that laymen such as ourselves can profitably discuss. Thus, you choose your expert and talk about why you find their arguments persuasive, and I choose mine and talk about why I find their arguments persuasive. That's how I'm used to conducting discussions involving matters of fact.

My claim is grounded on a simple & logic assumption: in a competitive game between N geopolitical actors with incompatible interests, if you act against (or more against) the strategy of only 1 of them, you are indirectly helping (or more helping) the remaining N-1 geopolitical actors. And this is the case, no matter if you do it knowingly/intentionally or not (yet I recon that it could be more problematic if you do it knowingly and intentionally). — neomac

Yes, I understood that. It's erroneous in this situation because there are clearly not only two strategies. It's clearly possible to devise strategies which oppose them both.

You keep repeating that Russia has legitimate security concerns without explaining what they consist in. — neomac

I didn't feel they needed explaining. Do you have trouble with the idea that the US has legitimate security concerns? if not, then you already have your answer. In fact, see my post above. The US considers it has a legitimate security concern from China. China has never attacked the US. It hasn't attacked anywhere at all for decades and the last war it fought in was on the same side as the US. So why has the US got security concerns? Because China could attack the US, or it's interests (in some capacity) and an increase in its ability to do so is a threat. Likewise for NATO and Russia.

Even if I read it, as you suggest, we could still disagree on how I and you would apply that concept to the case at hand. So if you really want to prove a point, you should actually argue for it. — neomac

It was rhetorical. Things have more than one cause, not all of them necessary causes. IF I form part of a mob encouraging a bully, it is immoral of me to do so on the grounds that I have become part of the causes of his bullying. Had I left that mob, the remaining agitators may still have been enough to lead to violence. Had we all left, the bully may well have committed some violent act anyway. Neither of these contingencies excuse me from being part of the mob encouraging violence.

if you claim that Ukraine did anything that was threatening Russian national security, I would like to hear what that is and what proofs you have for such accusations. — neomac

I made no such claim.

On the other hand, those who say that Putin wants to rebuild the USSR might mean only that he wants to re-create an empire, not that he's any kind of communist. But even this is doubtful, and pretty much dismissed as an impossibility by all sides within Russia, even the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, I think. A sphere of influence is not the same thing as an empire. — jamalrob

I also read Russian comments to the effect that return to empire isn't possible in the short term, but they seemed to have the impression that that's Putin's goal. Do you think they're wrong about that?

I am not complaining, for one, a real-world solution is an evolutionary solution where each sovereign nation, for example Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, the United States all have to work out their progression without foreign interference, for example, Russian meddling in elections. That was a bad idea, even if it was just an idea in someones head. We have to work with a world we may not like. — FreeEmotion

Of course all nations should evolve by without meddling of others. However, if the progression leads to dangerous risks of other nations they are the first to break that respect and should not be treated with that same respect. Russia has shown too much meddling in other nations to the extent of threats and actual war with killing civilians so they've lost their right to exist independently without the rest of the world meddling in their progression. This is perfectly logical. So far, no one is really interfering with North Korea, they do what they want, but if they were to attack others without defensive cause, then that right to make choices for themselves get revoked since it's a security risk for other nations.

But outside of that, this leads to a proper philosophical topic. What type of society should these nations progress towards?

If we can agree on Russia being an authoritarian nightmare, a proper fascist regime that kill or imprison state critics, silence free media and free speech, invade others and spread lies about their own nation while the rich elite is the corrupt top politicians with a dictator calling the shots and everyone looking at him wrong gets shut down in one way or another.

Then what should they progress towards? What type of society do we have that functions in a way such as to improve the lives of the Russian people from this authoritarian nightmare?

My argument is that we can look at societies with the highest index for quality of life, indexes showing what fundamental rights in society that enables the most well being for the citizens, and then that should inform what these nations should progress towards.

That they have the right as sovereign nations to evolve themselves without interference is correct. It's their right. But since we have numerous types of societies throughout history we should be able to reach a conclusion of the best course of action, the best type as a recommendation for these nations.

If we actually want Russia's people to be free of the authoritarian bullshit, then what is the "solution society" that they should progress towards?

My argument is that we can look at societies with the highest index for quality of life, indexes showing what fundamental rights in society that enables the most well being for the citizens, and then that should inform what these nations should progress towards. — Christoffer

What indices would you use?

https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/happiness-benevolence-and-trust-during-covid-19-and-beyond/#ranking-of-happiness-2019-2021

For example?


Russia ranked 80, Ukraine ranked 98. You should be cheering on the invasion.

Russia has violated other nations' airspaces on several occasions, and when their warplanes fly with transponders off they might jeopardize civilian traffic. Russia has accumulated up close to half the world's nuclear ☢ weaponry, and has postured readiness (threatened) to use them.

Why don't European nations start building up nuclear arsenals to match Russia's? Oh wait, that'd be provocation. :D

Some nations instead take an opportunity to exchange liquor.

:strong: Putin → :down:

Russia has violated other nations' airspaces on several occasions, and when their warplanes fly with transponders off they might jeopardize civilian traffic. — jorndoe

The recent violation of Swedish airspace was a deliberate act... and the planes had nuclear missiles on board. But let's talk about how bad the US is :shade:

I also read Russian comments to the effect that return to empire isn't possible in the short term, but they seemed to have the impression that that's Putin's goal. Do you think they're wrong about that? — frank

Yes and no. I think he wants a sphere of influence, and that to me can be described as imperialist, rather in the same sense as the USA has been accused of being imperialist despite their not having an empire as such. But bringing some kind of Russian empire back to formal existence is likely not a goal. Such geopolitical formations are an anachronism, too difficult to maintain in the modern world, and could not be tolerated internationally. As it happens I also suspect it's wrong to see the Soviet Union as merely another Russian empire, a continuation of the actual Russian Empire just with a different flag and ideology, even though the Soviet Union was obviously dominated by Russia. I'd probably have to do some reading to make that argument though.

I haven't come to a firm conclusion on the subject. Russian imperialism was always significantly defensive, due to geography (I feel I have to point out that this is a consensus among historians and not any kind of justification), and that is certainly a big factor in what is happening now. And then there's Putin's speeches denying the separate nationhood of the Ukrainians, which I think express his actual beliefs. So you could certainly see this war as a continuation of Russian imperialism.

To those like@ssu and Christoffer arguing that Russia has no legitimate security concerns because "it's a nuclear superpower", I wonder if you can explain why the US feels so differently about its strategic interests. — Isaac

Russia has no legitimate security reasons to invade a country that wasn't planning to attack it, didn't represented any threat to it and even it's hypothetical possibility of it joining NATO was extremely remote. Which btw wouldn't justify an all out war. Just as there was no legitimation for the US to attack Iraq, neither was there any legitimation to attack Ukraine in 2014 and continue the war with a full scale invasion this year.

So you can shove those legitimate security concerns up your ass, thank you.

But let's talk about how bad the US is — Christoffer

OK.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/russia-says-alarmed-by-us-deployment-of-low-yield-nuclear-missiles/

The appearance on strategic carriers of low-power warheads means arguments previously voiced by the American side about the possible use of such a device are now being realized in metal form, as products.

This reflects the fact that the United States is actually lowering the nuclear threshold and that they are conceding the possibility of them waging a limited nuclear war and winning this war. This is extremely alarming.

Russia has no legitimate security reasons to invade a country that wasn't planning to attack it, — ssu

True. Now what's that got to do with the point being argued? Need I remind you of it?

If you're looking for a reason why this thread descends so readily, you need look no further than this. One cannot even mention the topic of Russia's security concerns without it being immediately assumed (without the slightest reason) that the argument is to legitimise the Russian invasion.

Where have I written anything to the effect that having legitimate security concerns justifies invasion?

OK. — Isaac

Did they deliberately violate borders with these nukes? Did the president threaten by heightening nuclear readiness without anyone threatening them with the same?

The comment I made that you quoted was sarcasm of the inability to grasp things in context, and you followed accordingly.

Stop quoting my posts please, I'm not talking to you so keep to yourself ok?

Did they deliberately violate borders with these nukes? Did the president threaten by heightening nuclear readiness without anyone threatening them with the same? — Christoffer

The method used is immaterial, they heightened nuclear tension.

I'm not talking to you so keep to yourself ok? — Christoffer

Something of a performative contradiction, no?

Stop quoting my posts please — Christoffer

No. If you say something which is erroneous, or egregious, I'll correct it, or point that out. If you want to have your posts go uncontested write a fucking blog, this is a discussion forum, expect to have your comments challenged.

True. Now what's that got to do with the point being argued? Need I remind you of it? — Isaac

Everything.

Why bring up the idea of Russia having legitimate security concerns when it didn't have them?

Think about those guys that years ago defended President Bush's decision to attack Iraq because of the threat that Saddam's then non-existent and fabricated by the White House WMD threat posed at the US? They too talked about legitimate security concerns being the justification for that war. Understanding the attacker.

And then they defended the decision that Bush just got "bad intel". As if the real culprits weren't in the White House with people like Dick Cheney.

Why bring up the idea of Russia having legitimate security concerns when it didn't have them? — ssu

They did have them. They didn't justify invasion. Why is that so hard to understand?

And as to why I brought them up (since you've clearly lost the thread), they were in connection to the accusation of provocation by NATO. IF Russia has legitimate security concerns (just as the US does with regards to China) then tensions can be diffused diplomatically by addressing those concerns. Failure to do so (in fact deliberate attempts to exacerbate them) are acts of reckless provocation, in the full knowledge that war is thereby made more likely. none of this either requires nor even mentions, whether such concerns justified Russia's invasion.

As it happens I also suspect it's wrong to see the Soviet Union as merely another Russian empire — jamalrob

There's a particular governmental style that has arisen three times now in Russia. It's like a wheel with powerful aristocrats, bureaucrats, or oligarchs as the spokes of the wheel and the czar, general secretary, or president as the center. Though the center is supposedly an absolute ruler, his or her role is actually as a kind of broker for the aristocrats. That's the continuity Russia now has with the USSR.

I think every time Russia has become imperialistic, it was because of European influence. Russia is actually really good at receding into itself and losing touch with the outside world.

It's a little counter to its basic nature to have to go out and conquer someone else, as you said, because of geography.

The method used is immaterial, they heightened nuclear tension. — Isaac

I wrote about Russia's threats right before deliberately violating Swedish airspace carrying nuclear weapons. Because it shows just how fucking dangerous Russia acts. And I remarked with sarcasm how such acts are being compared to something, in context, not even close to the same thing and you do just that kind of comparison.

I don't want to discuss anything with you because your post quality is so low and your way of discussing is just cherry-picking whataboutism with zero engagement into an argument outside of fallacy-ridden bias-fests.

So, I don't care about what you write, it's irrelevant, you've proven your voice irrelevant to me so I'm trying to ignore you, but it's hard when you keep quoting my posts when I'm discussing with others.

write a fucking blog — Isaac

This is what I mean, get lost.

I think every time Russia has become imperialistic, it was because of European influence. — frank

I don't know if this fits with my knowledge of Russian history. But then, my knowledge of Russian history isn't great. How do you mean? Peter the Great?

It's a little counter to its basic nature to have to go out and conquer someone else, as you said, because of geography. — frank

I would think it's precisely because of its geography that its imperialism, defensive though it might significantly have been, has very much been part of its basic nature. Having said that, I don't know if it's useful to talk of a basic nature.

Anyway, although it hasn't had to sail around the world to do its conquering, and hasn't done it as much as some other European countries, even so, in its region it's done plenty of it, otherwise it would still be the land- and ice-locked Grand Duchy of Moscow.

If you want to have your posts go uncontested write a fucking blog, this is a discussion forum, expect to have your comments challenged. — Isaac

This is what I mean, get lost. — Christoffer

Please either be civil to each other or ignore each other.

Please either be civil to each other or ignore each other. — jamalrob

That's why I asked him politely to ignore me and stop quoting me when I'm not engaged in discussing with him. I can ignore him, but he is spamming quotes by me all the time, it's extremely annoying.

don't know if this fits with my knowledge of Russian history. But then, my knowledge of Russian history isn't great. How do you mean? Peter the Great? — jamalrob

Peter and Catherine.

would think it's precisely because of its geography that its imperialism, defensive though it might significantly have been, has very much been part of its basic nature. Having said that, I don't know if it's useful to talk of a basic nature. — jamalrob

Russia was originally a mercantile based society, selling furs and timber to the south. When their trade routes to the south were cut off, they receded into feudalism, slavery appearing first as social welfare, then as an institution.

Russian history is kind of bizarre from a European perspective. Read about Ivan 4 and the crazy events that followed his death. Russia almost became the eastern part of Poland. It was saved by the church, which is another endlessly fascinating part of Russia.

You need to read some good histories. Some aspects of Russian literature, music, and visual art require understanding the smoldering identity crisis that plagues the Russian culture.

If we actually want Russia's people to be free of the authoritarian bullshit, then what is the "solution society" that they should progress towards? — Christoffer

Usually I would say: it's their country, their life and their responsibility, not ours. But now their midget of a fürher threatens us with nuclear holocaust every single time he has an anxiety crisis, which is often. This makes the rest of the world interested in getting rid of that insecure nuclear blackmailer ASAP.

You need to read some good histories. Some aspects of Russian literature, music, and visual art require understanding the smoldering identity crisis that plagues the Russian culture. — frank

Thanks, I have read some good histories and understand the popular concept of the Russian identity crisis. I just didn't know what you meant when you said that "every time Russia has become imperialistic, it was because of European influence". You made an obscure or ambiguous comment, and yet you go on to assume, because I asked you what you meant, that you know more than me about Russian history. My knowledge of it might not be great, but I'm guessing it's at least as good as yours.

I don't see how, for example, Ivan 4's establishment of a tsarist empire can be put down to "European influence" any more than it can be put down to the existence of the successor states of the Golden Horde. But if you just mean that Russian imperialism has always taken place partly against and in the context of the actions of countries and empires to the West of Russia, then yes, of course--and later, against European empires competing for control in Asia (the Great Game).

They did have them. — Isaac

And the Iraqi invasion had the neocons starting from Cheney who immediately after the 9/11 attack started (to the surprise of others) talking about Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq (as recalled by the Richard Clarke). Even if everybody else knew (perhaps with the exception of the President) that Hussein didn't have anything to do with Al Qaeda.

So yes, these people who start wars have their lies. There's nothing legitimate for a justification in made up lies.

Why is that so hard to understand? — Isaac

The following. If you agree with me, why then say:

IF Russia has legitimate security concerns (just as the US does with regards to China) then tensions can be diffused diplomatically by addressing those concerns. — Isaac

This doesn't make sense. It's like when you know the whole issue of Iraqi WMD's is just a fabricated thing, you think going along with the line then would have deterred Bush and the neocons at the height of their war fever not to invade Iraq?

It's very ironic, but the existence of actual WMD's contains warmongers from starting wars. This has been seen so many time with North Korea. Many US Presidents (Clinton, Bush, Trump) likely have thought of a possibility of some pre-emptive attack on North Korea only to realize just how many South Koreans and American soldiers would die thanks to the enormous conventional artillery that the dictatorship has on the border.

In this case, Ukraine looked an easy picking for Russia. Hence talking about Putin wanting to have a "sphere of influence" is far more realistic than to talk about Russia's security concerns. Russians always hide their imperialism in defending Russia. The US tries to hide it's imperialism into spreading democracy also...besides the talk of threats.

I just didn't know what you meant when you said that "every time Russia has become imperialistic, it was because of European influence". — jamalrob

Oh, sorry. Yes, you're right. I wasnt even counting Ivan's efforts as imperialism. That didn't seem to be his focus for most of his reign.

But if you just mean that Russian imperialism has always taken place partly against and in the context of the actions of countries and empires to the West of Russia, then yes, of course- — jamalrob

I meant that their greatest imperialistic efforts look more like an injection of western values than something home grown. Is that wrong?

Usually I would say: it's their country, their life and their responsibility, not ours. But now their midget of a fürher threatens us with nuclear holocaust every single time he has an anxiety crisis, which is often. This makes the rest of the world interested in getting rid of that insecure nuclear blackmailer. — Olivier5

Yes, a nation's act outwards internationally and the response that nation gets because of it, has nothing to do with their independence as a nation. It's like if someone murdered someone else and when getting caught, his defense is that he felt threatened and that everyone should just leave him alone because what he thinks on the inside is his own damn business... well, he just murdered another man so we couldn't give a fuck about his "internal feelings" when he's clearly dangerous, things need to be done to make sure he doesn't murder again.

But when we speak about Russia's freedom, we're talking about the freedom of its people, and in that context, the question is how we measure freedom or a society that is "better"? I'm measuring by the quality of life indexes, of societies in the world where as many as possible within those societies have basic individual and humanitarian protections so that basic human acts like having an opinion aren't shut down with violence or the ability to have a meaningful impact on the collective through politics isn't as well shut down with violence or censorship.

With basic human rights, a society becomes better and most importantly can improve. A society without a peaceful ability to change will not change peacefully.

That leads to the question if western society and culture can be detached from such basic human rights? or is a western society built upon such rights and are inseparate? Or is western culture and society not being examined with complexity in here? That saying that basic human rights aspects in western society should appear in Russia is the same as saying they need western capitalism?

How can basic human rights be put into the constitution of Russia while keeping western culture out? That is the question. What societies in the world are not western societies, but still has the same human rights as western culture takes for granted?

The question is basically, if Russia were to fix their problems of corruption, if they give their own people human rights, freedom of speech, free media, and the ability to choose their own path as a person, then what type of culture exists with all that, but at the same time isn't western in nature?

So yes, these people who start wars have their lies. There's nothing legitimate for a justification in made up lies. — ssu

Why are you still talking about justifications for war when I expressly said in my last post that this was not about justification for war?

I'm measuring by the quality of life indexes, of societies in the world where as many as possible within those societies have basic individual and humanitarian protections so that basic human acts like having an opinion aren't shut down with violence or the ability to have a meaningful impact on the collective through politics isn't as well shut down with violence or censorship. — Christoffer

I've just pointed out that the quality of life indices don't support your assertions so this seems an untenable position. If you were using quality of life indices you would not be able to support the argument that Russia's current negotiation position would be worse for Ukraine than continued fighting. By the very indices you claim to be using, Ukraine is either a worse place or roughly equal place to live than Russia, so it would matter very little for the objective you claim here to be pursuing which government they were under control of.

If you want to use a different measure of what sort of society we should be aiming for, one where Ukraine clearly beats Russia, then you should make that clear, otherwise you're just going to cause more confusion. You appear to be using electoral systems and methods of press control, but I've not read any justification for your choice here, it's not what most indices of human well-being limit themselves to.

@jamalrob ^ That better?