https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/would-we-do-better-hubris-and-validation-in-ukraine/ — RogueAI

Yep, the numbers alone matter and Russia has them.
Similarly, Russia has an additional degree of freedom, being the attacker; the Ukrainians are already home.
We're talking fairly large populations here; I can see attrition leading to a lot of hate in the Ukrainian population.
Where things were supposed to improve, less corruption, less hate, more freedom, more opportunities for anyone, ..., Putin has instead ensured some regression.

to now pour them into the largest concentration of Nazis in Europe? My God its horrifying. — Streetlight

And the largest trader in black market weapons in Europe too. It's a fucking powder keg.

...but hey, we have to reign in that relentless Russian imperialism which, since the end of the Soviet Union has seen them occupy almost an entire country.

The US president and an Ukrainian anarchist have something in common: they both see Putin's Russia against Ukraine as totalitarianism/autocracy against democracy. I imagine they disagree on a few other things, though.

What I said, originally, is that it is neither naïve nor immoral nor unphilosophical to support a democracy that is being attacked by a dictatorship. On the contrary, it is the natural, logical, and moral thing to do. — Olivier5

Yep. And then your sole support for that assertion was the people you've met in some African nations prefer democracy. Which completely ignores the question of whether such support is the "moral thing to do".

If one cannot be sure any specific democracy is morally superior to any specific dictatorship, then on what ground is supporting a war of the former against the latter the "moral thing to do", given the tragic consequences of such a war?

Yes. I'm aware of the agreement Bush Sr.(???) made after the fall of the Berlin wall to not expand NATO "one inch farther" to the east. Then, during the Clinton administration(I think???) that promise/agreement was broken. — creativesoul

Correct. On February 9, 1990, George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker said to Soviet leader Gorbachev that following the unification of Germany, "there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east". A few years later under Clinton NATO began to expand.

IMO, US statements of this kind often were (a) deliberately ambiguous and/or (b) not put into any legally binding agreement so that they could be reinterpreted or retracted at a later point.

But the real problem here seems to be people like @ssu and @Olivier5 who insist that to even consider Russia’s case would be “unprincipled” or that Russia recognized Ukrainian independence and borders in eternity and it isn’t allowed to change its mind, etc.

Ain't that the truth? — Olivier5

It may be the "truth" according to Biden and his European cheerleaders. Not according to most of the world, though. You keep looking at it through the lens of America and its European client-states. And you call it "philosophy" ....

Their lies and excuses are not worthy of consideration — Olivier5

How do you know something isn't worthy of consideration when you haven't considered it???

Besides, to say that “to look at the other side’s evidence is unprincipled”, goes against the very principle of justice that you claim to be defending. Moreover, it amounts to saying that expanding your knowledge is “unprincipled” and “unphilosophical”!!!

And let’s not forget that France is a pro-American country. So, hardly “unbiased”. This explains why you and @ssu hold similar views. As they say, birds of a feather flock together.

Yes, and that's comforting. — Olivier5

So, that's what it's all about, your need to be "comforted"! Perhaps, you should get yourself a girlfriend or something? I hear there’re quite a few Ukrainians available in France these days …. :wink:

I think the US has been quite decent in it's response. And what is notable that it has been a quite unified response from the West. — ssu

By "unified" you probably mean "in lockstep with America". Not in the least surprising, given that the West is dominated by America! :rofl:

You’ve already admitted to being from Finland (probably from a small village) and to being born in the 70’s. And that’s exactly what your comments are reflecting. You’re trying to impose on others the views of someone who was brought up in fear of Communist Russia and is unable to see (a) that Russia (and the world) have changed and (b) that America may have contributed to the creation of the current conflict.

Your claims that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, that borders can’t be changed, that Russia recognized Ukraine’s independence in 1991, and Ukraine’s borders in 1994, etc., have been exposed as baseless.

Crimea has never had more than a small Ukrainian minority and has never been “Ukrainian”. When Khrushchev “gifted” Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, this was purely a matter of internal administration within the Soviet Union. When Ukraine became independent in 1991, Russia allowed it to keep Crimea but on the understanding that it could continue to use the military and naval bases there which Russia had used since 1783. This became impossible when Ukraine decided to join NATO. Very simple and easy to understand, IMO.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea is arguably legitimate (a) because it had been Russian from 1783 and (b) because a NATO-controlled Crimea would virtually turn the Black Sea, which Russia needs for transit to the Mediterranean, into a NATO lake. To claim that NATO, i.e., AMERICA, has more rights over Crimea than Russia is simply absurd.

As I explained to you already, Ukrainian independence wasn’t a problem at the time. It became a problem after 1994 when Ukraine decided to get closer and closer to NATO and NATO became increasingly hostile toward Russia.

Moreover, declassified minutes of a March 6, 1991 Quadripartite Meeting Of Political Directors in Bonn, Germany (between political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany) show that the West did actually agree that NATO will not expand to the east.

This was confirmed by British and German diplomats:

A British representative also mentions the existence of a “general agreement” that membership of NATO for eastern European countries is “unacceptable.” West German diplomat Juergen Hrobog said of the 1991 agreement: “We made it clear to the Soviet Union, in the 2+4 talks, as well as in other negotiations that we do not intend to benefit from the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe. NATO should not expand to the east, either officially or unofficially.” Hrobog further noted that West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher had agreed with this position as well.

Has NATO reneged on a 1991 agreement with Russia - Euro Weekly News

For more details see:

Michel Disdero, Quadripartite Meeting – Academia Edu

Original doc (PREM19/3326) available at the UK National Archives:

EUROPEAN POLICY. European security and defence: part 1 - The National Archives

And, as already stated, the 1994 “Budapest Memorandum” is NOT a legally binding guarantee.

US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt said in May 2014 that "the Budapest Memorandum was not an agreement on security guarantees" and the official US position has always been that the memorandum is a “political commitment that is not legally binding" ("Belarus: Budapest Memorandum". U.S. Department of State. 12 April 2013).

Obviously, for the memorandum to qualify as a guarantee, it would need to specify measures to be taken by the signatories in the event any of them violate the agreement. That’s precisely why it is called “Memorandum on Security Assurances” and not “Memorandum on Security Guarantees”. The term “guarantee” does not occur anywhere in the memorandum.

Anyway, Russia has a right to recognize or de-recognize anything according to its own national interests.

Borders are NOT eternal. They change. If Russia changed the borders by “gifting” Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, it can change them again by annexing Crimea 60 years later! :smile:

So, the way I see it, it all depends on how threatened by NATO Russia felt. If it had good reasons to feel threatened, and it thought its actions would eliminate or reduce that threat, then its actions are legitimate, period. It isn't for Finland to decide either way.

What I said, originally, is that it is neither naïve nor immoral nor unphilosophical to support a democracy that is being attacked by a dictatorship. On the contrary, it is the natural, logical, and moral thing to do. — Olivier5

And then your sole support for that assertion was the people you've met in some African nations prefer democracy. — Isaac

So far, the idea has not really been challenged much so I haven't provided additional arguments. But I can try to add a few arguments, if the topic is of interest.

Prior to any consideration of political regime, and the varied levels of freedom and security they afford to their citizens, to me the first and most important point here is that of aggression vs defence. There is no moral symmetry between an aggressor and his victim. Since 1945 and probably before, the principle of self-defense as a right, and the prohibition of wanton aggression extend beyond the individual, and also apply to those nations who signed the UN charter, including of course Russia and Ukraine.

These principles (that a UN charter signatory should not wage war on another; and that an aggressed signatory nation has a right to defending herself) are the cornerstone of our present world order. The prohibition of aggression suffers one exception: a war or a military operation can be approved by the UN security council (another cornerstone of the present world order).

These principles were of course disrespected by many nations since 1945, but only gravely undermined by a permanent member of the UN Security Council twice (to my math): by the US in Iraq war 2, and by Russia in Crimea and now in Ukraine mainland.

So yes, the US started it. Rest assured that I was just as opposed to the wanton aggression of Iraq by the US and UK as I am opposed to the wanton agression of Ukraine by Russia. For the exact same reason: it gravely undermined international law and the credibility of the present UN system, which maintains some level of peace building capacity.

(and yet Iraq was a dictatorship and the UK/US are sorts of democracies, because to me the prohibition of aggression trumps other principles -- I don't believe in exporting democracy at gunpoint)

Now this UN system may be highly imperfect, but it is a system at least trying to contribute to world peace. Without it, untill someone proposes something else, in the post UN world now concocted by Xi and Putin and whose recipe Bush wrote, what will deter a new wave of wars of plunder?

Nothing. There will be no rules whatsoever in international relations. Not even a pretense of one. Not even a hope of one.

So as someone attached to diplomacy and peace, I say I oppose wanton aggression. This is a moral stance based on the search for the common good. For world peace. For my kids' sake too.

Now you can laugh.

I think Russia's goal may have been to lower their unemployment rate.

Q

How do you know something isn't worthy of consideration when you haven't considered it??? — Apollodorus

Oh I have considered them and refuted them, for the most part. I or someone else here. I'm just not ready to dignify what I see as little more than war crime apologies à la "NATO caca" with an endless debate during hundreds of pages, sorry.

3. The last clear example of aggression (that got condemned) was Iraq invading Kuwait with a much wider range of coalition partners than we see now. That could be political expediency, energy dependency, cynicism in light of the Western double standard or a more nuanced view than propagated in Western media about the underlying reasons why Russia attacked Ukraine. — Benkei

Don't forget that Saddam Hussein had even less rational thinking when he attacked Kuwait, his former ally, after a disastrous war against Iran. That the Soviet Union left Iraq on it's own and did OK the war against Iraq tells just how bad this idea was.

Getting Syria into an US lead alliance is a true show of total incompetence from that dictator. If I remember correctly, Hussein had to kill his military commander because he was so opposed to the idea of attacking Kuwait.

You misspelled "so that they can siphon tax money to arms dealers and turn Ukraine into a debt prison producing Nikes for the Western middle class while eliminating a competitor model of capitalism that does not play by the West's rules while letting Ukrainians drop dead for those goals, thanks to a war they precipitated and did everything to encourage and continue to prolong". — Streetlight

Lots of Western business doesn’t welcome this war, its continuation and related sanctions precisely because it interrupted their business with Russia and Ukraine. On the other side the competitor capitalist model opposing the West is supported by authoritarian regimes. Nobody can easily get rid of Western arms dealers as long as they are instrumental in addressing Western security concerns competing with non-Western security concerns and related non-Western arms dealers. The problem is not arms dealers business per se but the security threat perception between State powers, and to authoritarian regimes the fear of losing power is arguably greater than any national security threats b/c dictators literally risk their skin, if their power is compromised. Ukrainians could surrender to the Russians if they wanted, but they didn’t and they don’t seem to need encouragement from abroad, they just need weapons. Westerners legitimately helped them due their security concerns and international commitments more than economic concerns.

Anyone who thinks the US in particular has 'security concerns' half-way across the fucking planet is a clown. — Streetlight

That’s exactly why I talked about the Europeans. For the US, the “security concerns” must be understood wrt their hegemonic power, of course.

To the degree that the Ukraine is crawling with Nazis who decisively tipped the course of events into war, then sure, I agree that the "Ukrainians are more pro-Western than anti-Western". Nazis being a uniquely Western apogee of civilization. — Streetlight

Apparently Ukrainians prefer to be Nazi than Russian, go figure how shitty it feels like to experience Russian hegemony (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-20th-century-history-behind-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-180979672/), go figure!

Your claims that Crimea belongs to Ukraine, that borders can’t be changed, that Russia recognized Ukraine’s independence in 1991, and Ukraine’s borders in 1994, etc., have been exposed as baseless. — Apollodorus

When the sovereignty and independence of a state is recognized, you recognize it's borders. But that's of course baseless for you.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea is arguably legitimate — Apollodorus

Borders are NOT eternal. They change. If Russia changed the borders by “gifting” Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, it can change them again by annexing Crimea 60 years later! :smile: — Apollodorus

Again you clearly show that you are truly a delusional Putin troll. Or a crank. You even mix up Russia and Soviet Union, obviously.

The prohibition of aggression suffers one exception: a war or a military operation can be approved by the UN security council (another cornerstone of the present world order). — Olivier5

Sounds like what you're advocating world government there. :smile:

These principles (that a UN charter signatory should not wage war on another; and that an aggressed signatory nation has a right to defending herself) are the cornerstone of our present world order. — Olivier5

That depends on (1) how you define "aggressed signatory nation" (2) what happens when a nation has the "right" to defend itself but not the means to do so, and (3) what if that nation isn't even recognized as a nation.

Tibet was invaded and annexed by China in 1951. What has the UN done to enforce the Tibetan nation's "right to defend herself"?

Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus in 1974. What has the UN done to help its member nation?

The Kurdish nation amounts to about 40 million people, i.e., the size of Ukraine. It was promised a state in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres (that you ought to have heard about). But it never got one.

Even worse, NATO allows its member Turkey to invade Kurdish territories in Syria and to suppress Kurds in Turkey itself with impunity.

Oh I have considered them and refuted them, for the most part. I or someone else here. I'm just not ready to dignify what I see as little more than "NATO caca" over and over again, during hundreds of pages, sorry. — Olivier5

I thought you might say that! Unfortunately, I don't recall anything that would qualify as "refutation". Perhaps you're talking about the pro-NATO propaganda peddled by people like @ssu .... :grin:

Incidentally, according to Ukraine’s ministry of defense, the Ukrainians killed nearly 30,000 Russian troops.

But US and UK intelligence says it’s more like 15,000.

If official Ukrainian claims are only 50% true, then the remaining 50% must be lies.

See also:

Former Navy officer reveals chaos of Ukrainian army – ITN

A former military British fighter gives Channel 4 News a first hand account of life on the frontline in Ukraine after travelling to join the fight against the Russian invasion. He says disorganisation has led to the death of several British fighters already …

Ukraine Faces Brutal Fight Against Russia in the East, Losing Men and Ground - The New York Times

Though much of the world’s focus in the war has been on Russia’s disorganized and flawed campaign, Ukraine, too, is struggling. Ukraine’s army has suffered heavy losses, shown signs of disarray and, step by step, fallen back from some long-held areas in Donbas, the eastern region that is now the war’s epicenter.
To fill gaps in the frontline, Ukraine has resorted to deploying minimally trained volunteers of the Territorial Defense Force, which mobilized quickly as the war started. Hints of morale lapses have surfaced. One unit recorded a video protesting dire conditions. In interviews, soldiers said their artillery guns sometimes go quiet for lack of ammunition ….

All this demonstrates that it isn’t just the Russians who are telling lies.

So, what exactly is it that makes Ukrainian lies “better”, “more true”, or “worthy of consideration”???

Logic, mathematics, scientific empirical methods — neomac


Weird. What scientific studies have you read about Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Or weirder still mathematical ones? Did someone derive a new solution to quadratic equations which proves there are no Nazis in Ukraine? Does the theory that the US provoked Russia defy the law of the excluded middle?

...journalistic methods... — neomac


Do you mean phone hacking...?

administrative/institutional methods — neomac


...put the Kafka down.

common sense — neomac


Ah! Just when I'd finished playing cliche bingo and all, damn. I could have got "I arrived at my conclusions by Common Sense… — Isaac

As if chopping your way out to some dumb remark you can smirk about, wasn’t even more weird.

Or not.

The point (the one you interjected about) is that your speculation here might work out, or it might not. You can't possibly say for sure. The empirical evidence is insufficient to choose between theories, there's been no scientific paper on it, no mathematician has compressed it into an irrefutable formula, it hasn't been rendered into truth tables... You just have to choose which to believe.

So why do you believe that one? — Isaac

Insufficient for what? to whom? Uncertainty doesn’t prevent us from making rational choices. The points I made for example are sufficient to rationally justify my perception of the Russian threat against the West, in other words mine is not paranoia or Russophobia: is this perception of mine fallaciously grounded on somebody’s repeating to me that Russia is a threat or the result of peers psychological pressure (through ostracism or insults)? No it’s based on those evidences I listed and more. Are those evidences false? no. Is there any inconsistency between those evidences? No, they support each other. Is there any inconsistency between those evidences and historical patterns of aggressive behavior by authoritarian regimes or in particular by Russia? No, the aggression of Ukraine by Russia has disturbing echoes of Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland (https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/russias-attack-ukraine-through-lens-history), and the annexation/Russification of Crimea is a leitmotif of Russian politics since the end of 18th century being key to Russian commercial and military projection in the mediterranean area (including Middle East and North Africa, and surrounding Europe). Add to that the historical deep scars Ukraine, Finland, Poland and all other ex-Soviet Union countries in east Europe had with Russian empire and/or Soviet Union.
So, since thinking strategically requires one to spot potential threats, possibly way before they become too big because then it will be too late, what other evidence would one ordinary risk-averse Western citizen valuing their country’s democracy and economy more than Russian’s exactly need to perceive Russian aggressive expansionism and geopolitical interference as a threat to the West ?

When the sovereignty of a state is recognized, you recognize it's borders. — ssu

"Recognizing borders" doesn't prevent a country from de-recognizing them or from invading the country whose borders it had recognized.

You even mix up Russia and Soviet Union, — ssu

How exactly do I "mix up Russia and Soviet Union"???

If, according to you, the Soviet Union can take Crimea from Russia and give it to Ukraine, Russia can take it back. Very simple and easy to understand. Though, obviously, not for confused and clueless NATO Nazis .... :rofl:

Sounds like what you're advocating world government there. — Apollodorus

You have a problem with diplomacy?

I don't recall anything that would qualify as "refutation". — Apollodorus

You wouldn't.

How exactly do I "mix up Russia and Soviet Union"??? — Apollodorus

Was Nikita Khrushchev the leader of Russia or the leader of the Soviet Union (or more correctly the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union)?

But that's not the end of it...

Things like your crazy idea that because the Budapest Memorandum isn't a security guarantee (as NATO or the CSTO membership is), that somehow the wording isn't then what it is:

That the countries by the principles of CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

You have a problem with diplomacy? — Olivier5

Diplomacy leading to world government? Yes. I believe in a multipolar world order.

Was Nikita Khrushchev the leader of Russia or the leader of the Soviet Union — ssu

As usual, you do no more than expose your ignorance.

1. The transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was approved by the Soviet government and signed by the legal head of state, Klim Voroshilov.

2. The Soviet Union was majority Russian and was usually referred to as “Russia”.

3. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia ‘a.k.a. the “Russian Federation” assumed the Soviet Union's rights and was recognized as its continued legal personality in international affairs.

4. It follows that Russia, as the continued legal personality of the Soviet Union, took back Crimea that it had earlier given to Ukraine.

But, as I said, its fun to see NATO Nazis trying to "think" .... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"World government" is an extreme right trope. The UN is very very very far from any such pretension.

"World government" is an extreme right trope. — Olivier5

Says WHO? The extreme left?

Victor Hugo, H G Wells, Roosevelt, Bertrand Russell, and many other advocates of world government, are “extreme right”?

The UN may or may not be far from being world government. That doesn't mean it isn't on the road to becoming one.

Plus, in the meantime, America and NATO seem to be playing the role of interim world government ... :grin:

1. The transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was approved by the Soviet government and signed by the legal head of state, Klim Voroshilov. — Apollodorus

You said it yourself. And the Soviet government isn't the Russian government.

2. The Soviet Union was majority Russian — Apollodorus

Interestingly just barely. In 1989 Russians indeed were the majority in the Soviet Union, but just with 50,8% being ethnically Russian. Likely afterwards ethnic Russians would have become the minority, if the Soviet Union had continued. Where you have population growth are in places like Uzbekistan, not in Russia.

But, as I said, its fun to see NATO Nazis trying to "think" .... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: — Apollodorus

General Guidelines:

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion.

The use of 'world government' to speak of the UN is an extreme right trope.

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. — ssu

Is that why you keep calling others "trolls" and "delusional"? :rofl:

50% Russian means Russians were the largest and dominant ethnic group and Russia was the largest political and territorial entity, that's why the country was called "Russia" as a general designation.

The Soviet Union was referred to as "Russia" in every-day language including in the press.

And Russia is the continued legal personality of the Soviet Union.

Even if the Soviet Union and Russia were totally distinct and unconnected, Crimea can still be taken back from Ukraine in the same way it was given to it.

It isn't my fault that you don't understand something as simple and easy to understand as that .... :smile:

Many, however, felt that the UN, essentially a forum for discussion and coordination between sovereign governments, was insufficiently empowered for the task. A number of prominent persons, such as Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell and Mahatma Gandhi, called on governments to proceed further by taking gradual steps towards forming an effectual federal world government ...

World government - Wikipedia

I won't do it now (@ him), but, Baden's contributions here seem to be level headed.

Maybe comes with his position here.

One would just want this war to be over with. For everybody's sake.

Well, it seems that not everyone is level headed. And some aren't even trying.

As for the war being over soon, that's unlikely if NATO keeps throwing more and more weapons into it ....

Westerners legitimately helped them due their security concerns and international commitments more than economic concerns. — neomac

Complete bullshit not worth entertaining.

That’s exactly why I talked about the Europeans. For the US, the “security concerns” must be understood wrt their hegemonic power, of course. — neomac

Europeans do what Americans tell them.

Apparently Ukrainians prefer to be Nazi than Russian, go figure how shitty it feels like to experience Russian hegemony — neomac

Oh well that makes it OK then.

the country was called "Russia" as a general designation.

The Soviet Union was referred to as "Russia" in every-day language including in the press. — Apollodorus

Only by ignorant outsiders.

I have been following this thread since it started, I must admit, and it is amazing how much I have learnt from Isaac, Streetlight, Benkei, Baden, Manuel boethius and Apollodorus, which is why I am asking these posters to continue to demolish arguments that dare paint the US and the West as saints, even though the US is factually the most dangerous terrorist State based on well-documented facts.
[url]
https://davidswanson.org/warlist//url]

[urlThere is a reason that most countries polled in December 2013 by Gallup called the United States the greatest threat to peace in the world, and why Pew found that viewpoint increased in 2017.

But it is a reason that eludes that strain of U.S. academia that first defines war as something that nations and groups other than the United States do, and then concludes that war has nearly vanished from the earth.

Since World War II, during a supposed golden age of peace, the United States military has killed or helped kill some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 85 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. The United States is responsible for the deaths of 5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, and over 1 million just since 2003 in Iraq.

Since 2001, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces in three-quarters of them.

See also How Many Millions Have Been Killed in America’s Post-9/11 Wars? Part 3: Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen by Nicolas Davies

The U.S. government provides weapons, military training, and/or military funding to almost every dictatorship and oppressive government on earth. See my 2020 book 20 Dictators Currently Supported by the U.S.[/url]

Prior to any consideration of political regime, and the varied levels of freedom and security they afford to their citizens, to me the first and most important point here is that of aggression vs defence. — Olivier5

Right. So as usual you're answering a question that wasn't even asked. @unenlightened's original question, which intrigued me, was about the moral difference between the Russian and Ukrainian governments, not the situation they currently happen to find themselves in (aggressor and defender).

No one is in favour of aggression, so arguing against it is just empty virtue signalling. The point about the moral worth of governments is one about what to do now that one of those governments has attacked the other. The point being made, as I understand it, was that since there's only hair's breadth between different governments (when not at war), then ceding territory as a means of ending war has little moral opposition other than your demand for 'punishment' (that Russia must not gain anything by its actions). In terms of people's well-being, it matters little if they're governed by Russia or Ukraine. It may well matter a lot to them, as a preference (they may be passionate about Ukrainian sovereignty), but as third parties, there's no moral weight at all to what some population of people just happen to prefer. This should be obvious; if Ukrainians happened to prefer a Nazi dictator, for example, we'd not support that. That Ukrainians happen to prefer a Ukrainian government over a Russian one is similarly morally neutral unless the Ukrainian government is significantly more worthy (in peacetime) than the Russian one.

I don't think there's a single person here who wants to see aggression rewarded, or side with the aggressor. But then I think you know that already, it just makes a useful distraction to avoid actually addressing the arguments to simply add your little 'Putinista' labels to anything you can't counter.

The travesty here is that we (the world in general) ought to be talking about how to end this war (and every other war) as quickly as possible, but instead we're talking about how to most effectively 'punish' Russia for its aggression. It has odd echos of the gun control debate ("it's the perpetrators we need to punish more, not the gun culture that needs to change"). If ceding territory ends the war (even has only a good chance of doing so) then that's a huge positive. To counter that there'd need to be a massive negative. All you've given thus far to weigh against it is the "punish Putin" argument and the "Ukraine is better than Russia" argument. @unenlightened's point about the lack of real distinction between governments undermines that second counter-argument. To revive it, you'd have to show that the prospective peacetime Ukrainian government (the one we're aiming for in defending against Russia) would be significantly morally better than the prospective peacetime Russian government (the one that would be in place in the ceded territories). Hence your arguments about aggressors and defenders are irrelevant.

As if chopping your way out to some dumb remark you can smirk about, wasn’t even more weird. — neomac

OK. I'll try to take you seriously. How do any of the 'methods' you list apply to the debate here? How do they lead to a decision on one theory over another?

The points I made for example are sufficient to rationally justify my perception of the Russian threat against the West — neomac

Yes, but other - perfectly intelligent - people disagree. Your epistemic peers disagree. So either you are the sole possessor of some magic ability to discern what is rational and what is not, or there is a legitimate difference of opinion about the two conflicting theories which cannot be resolved by appealing to rational support (since that forms part of the disagreement to be resolved). Hence the question why choose side A over side B?

You can list a dozen reasons why your choice of side A is reasonable, rational, and I'd probably agree with the vast majority of them, but we're not talking about why side A is one of the available options, we're talking about why you chose it over side B, which is also one of the available options (reasonable rational people have also reached that conclusion).

Either you're arguing that you're just much smarter than all of them, or you have to concede that their position too is reasonable and rational - ie, in Quinean terms, the facts underdetermine the theory.