I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia. — jorndoe

The term "existential threat" in geopolitics means that a country feels one of their core strategic interests is being threatened. In the case of Russia, what is being threatened are Crimea and Sevastopol and the central position of power they grant in the Black Sea.

The importance of this position cannot be stressed enough, since it is the only western port that isn't at the mercy of NATO to grant access. The Baltic Sea is completely encapsulated by NATO, and the White Sea is bottle-necked at the GIUK gap.

With Turkey as a more or less neutral player, through the Black Sea Russia gains access to the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Gulf, etc - places that connect Russia to its strategic allies.


This is almost certainly the reason the United States made a bid for Ukraine, since countries like Iran and Syria are adversaries to the United States and have probably played a large role in its failure to control the Middle-East.


In 2008 NATO blatantly stated they wished to incorporate Ukraine, which would have included Crimea, which once again would have put Russia at the mercy of NATO. In 2013 the U.S. overtly supported, likely covertly orchestrated, regime-change in Ukraine. The 2014 invasion of Crimea was a direct reaction to that.

The 2014 invasion was only a temporary solution for Russia however, since Crimea was in a precarious strategic position, being pretty much undefendable in a future conflict.

My view is that the main strategic objective of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the establishment of land access to Crimea, which seems a very logical conclusion based on the areas Russia now occupies.

Whatever that may be (if any) would be put in context with the observed bombing killing destroying shamming threats re-culturation efforts. — jorndoe

That's war, unfortunately. When countries wage war, and especially when vital interests are at stake, all semblance of humanity goes out of the window. Threatening, intimidation, destruction, nothing new under the sun - for the record, the United States never shied away from any of these practices either.

Re-culturation (or "westernization", if you want the American equivalent) is essentially the modern "solution" to insurgency threats, which are always on the mind of any nation seeking to occupy others.

It also serves as a method to make the Russian annexation of parts of Ukraine a foregone conclusion. When the primary culture of the people living there is Ukrainian, a future war over it could be framed as a liberation. When the primary culture is Russian, it can only be framed as a reconquest.

How exactly do you propose we identify a 'Ukrainian' in a way that isn't racist? — Isaac

Simple. One could use nationality, or self-identification. Eg anyone with the legal papers, or anyone self identifying as Ukrainian, gets to be seen as Ukrainian.

The nation called Ukraine does exist. It's not a bizarre idea or a fancy or something impossible to delimit.

why "more than a little distasteful"? Happens all the time, just check periodical condemnation of Israel. — jorndoe

I don't know of much condemnation of Israel that isn't about methods, not borders. But sure, it happens all the time. So does racism. Doesn't make either any less distasteful.

The point I'm making here is that the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine is utterly irrelevant, an administrative matter. It has zero moral weight. Yet maintaining it is adopted as a moral crusade by those for whom its location is meaningless, those who probably don't even know where it is right now.

Such affectation would be nothing more than pretentious were it not for the fact that these people are vociferously advocating the continuance of a bloody and devastating war to keep this arbitrary line where is currently is.

The idea that there's two immutable 'nations' and that it matters whose flag is over which bit of land is the cause of this war, not the solution to it.

Russia's problems aren't solved by reducing their territory at enormous human cost. They're solved by changing the government. Same goes for Ukraine, same goes for the US. How much land each one has is largely irrelevant. The quality of their governance over that land is what matters. It's insane to think that the best strategy for improving the lives of any given population of people is to engage them in a bloody war so that a slightly less awful government might govern the land they happen to be on, it's crazily inefficient, not to mention barbarous.

Simple. One could use nationality, or self-identification. Eg anyone with the legal papers, or anyone self identifying as Ukrainian, gets to be seen as Ukrainian. — Olivier5

One could use headwear too. Anyone with a green trilby is a 'Ukrainian'.

Or we could use length of index finger, over 9cm and you're in.

Was that an attempt at humouring me?

I don't know of much condemnation of Israel that isn't about methods, not borders. — Isaac

Much of the Isreal-Palestinian conflict for the past half century has been about borders, those of 67 vs those orior 67. I.e. the status of the "occupied territories".

Was that an attempt at humouring me? — Olivier5

It was an attempt to show the stupidity of your response. We could identity Ukrainians by any means we like. The point was to justify that choice.

Why does having the right piece of paper, or worse still, the right 'feelings' confer on a citizen of Lvov the right to have a say in the future of some land 600 miles away that they've never even seen, but denies that right to someone living and working within a stone's throw of its border?

If I declared I now 'self-identified' as a Ukrainian, do I get a say?

Much of the Isreal-Palestinian conflict for the past half century has been about borders, those of 67 vs those orior 67. I.e. the status of the "occupied territories". — Olivier5

I didn't question what the war was about though did I. Try reading first and responding second. It's in the fucking quote you took the time to highlight...

I don't know of much condemnation of Israel that isn't about methods, not borders. — Isaac

...do you see it now?

Why does having the right piece of paper, or worse still, the right 'feelings' confer on a citizen of Lvov the right to have a say in the future of some land 600 miles away that they've never even seen, but denies that right to someone living and working within a stone's throw of its border? — Isaac

The poll in question asked for their opinion and the sampled folks gave it, nothing more. I don;t see the problem.

I don;t see the problem. — Olivier5

Then you should be able to answer the question. It's not a complex one.

Why does having the right piece of paper, or worse still, the right 'feelings' confer on a citizen of Lvov the right to have a say in the future of some land 600 miles away that they've never even seen, but denies that right to someone living and working within a stone's throw of its border? — Isaac

Here's how this little subsection of the conversation started.

Should the Ukrainians be consulted over whether Russia is entitled to their lands? — Paine

So if your answer is, yes, anyone with the right piece of paper should be consulted, anyone without the right peice of paper doesn't get a say, then I'm asking why.

Why does having that piece of paper confer a say in global affairs denied to others?

My answer is that it's an administrative matter. We have (or struggle to have) representative democracies and to administer those we need, as a matter of pure pragmatism, to subdivide the population into administrative units.

But my answer fails to give any moral weight to the hierarchical arrangement of those units. So I'm asking, whence the moral weight being applied here?

The right of 'the Ukrainians' to be in charge of what goes on in Donbas seems to be being given moral weight, not just administrative pragmatism. I'm asking for the source of that moral weight.

Not "why do they have a say?"
"Why ought they?"

But my answer fails to give any moral weight to the hierarchical arrangement of those units — Isaac

How do you assign moral weight?

How do you assign moral weight? — neomac

Do I have to explain morality, is the notion unfamiliar to you?

Some classes of human activities are 'moral', they concern a loose affiliation of behavioral types we've grouped under that umbrella term for various reasons (although some consider there to be only one reason, but that argument's irrelevant here)

When someone asks "what is the moral weight behind that?" they are asking for reasons why the behaviour in question belongs in that group and not some other.

If someone claims that choosing which hat to wear has moral weight, I'd expect an explanation by way of pointing to how the choice of hat is similar in either consequence or virtue to other classes of behaviour we call 'moral'.

Define: "have a say".

Define: "have a say". — Olivier5

It wasn't my quote. I was paraphrasing @Paine's "...be consulted", so the question is better directed there lest this whole discussion be based on a mistranslation.

That said, the notion of 'Ukrainians' being the morally appropriate group to decide what course of action ought be followed with regards to the progress of this war is a common enough one. I take it to mean, fairly simply, that in a case of disagreement, 'having a say' means that your view takes precedent in some way over someone else who voices a contrary opinion. That might be by way of voting for authorisation, or it might be simply the moral weight given to an opinion. I don't think the practical method by which the 'say' is implemented matters here.

Why should they NOT be consulted?

Why should they NOT be consulted? — Olivier5

I didn't say they ought not be consulted (a moral proscription is very different to the mere opposite of a moral prescription), so I'm not sure why you're asking this question but...

We can only, pragmatically, consult a limited number of people (when using methods such as voting or polling, for example), so some people will have to be not consulted in that sense.

There are numerous reasonable candidates for what we might use as a threshold of elimination, but pieces of paper are pretty low down that list. I'd say geographic proximity, and economic and social connectivity might be near the top.

The question, however, was about the moral weight, not pragmatics. I don't see any moral argument for why anyone ought not be consulted. I suppose mental incapacity, possibly...

I don't see any moral argument for why anyone ought not be consulted. — Isaac

So you ought to agree that there is no moral issue in consulting them. In fact, that would be expected in a democracy.

So you ought to agree that there is no moral issue in consulting them. In fact, that would be expected in a democracy. — Olivier5

Yep, that's right.

Okay so there lies the answer to your question: in a democracy., citizens are expected to have a say.

Okay so there lies the answer to your question: in a democracy., citizens are expected to have a say. — Olivier5

What question do you think that's an answer to?

I asked what moral weight there was to consulting the citizen of Lvov and not the citizen of Rostov.

You've given me a reason why I might expect the citizen of Lvov to be consulted.

I didn't ask why I might expect them to be.

I asked why they ought to be - what gives their view greater moral weight than mine, or yours, or the nearby Russian's

I asked what moral weight there was to consulting the citizen of Lvov and not the citizen of Rostov. [...]

I asked why they ought to be - what gives their view greater moral weight than mine, or yours, or the nearby Russian's — Isaac

A priori, nothing. A poll is just not a moral statement.

I suppose one should also consult the opinion of the nearby Russians, the pro-Russian folks in occupied territories, etc. But there's a technicality there: this 15 years jail sentence for criticizing the war in Russia.

A priori, nothing. A poll is just not a moral statement.

I suppose one should also consult the opinion of the nearby Russians, the pro-Russian folks in occupied territories, etc. — Olivier5

Right. Then we're in agreement. There's no moral weight whatsoever to the opinion of the 'Ukrainians' over the opinion of anyone else with a stake.

So we can finally ditch all this bullshit about how it ought to be "up to the Ukrainians" whenever someone brings up some view as to what course of action is best.

The discussion here was originally, though, about territory. About who has a legitimate say over which government governs which territory. My point being that if one were to consult anyone other than the people directly living there, then those neighbouring the territory (on both sides of the border) would be the next most important people to consult - not people 600 miles away who just happen to share the same passport.

All of this is directed at the argument that there's no moral weight behind the location of any given border. The struggle to keep it in its current location is not a moral struggle, it's nationalistic, not noble.

So we can finally ditch all this bullshit about how it ought to be "up to the Ukrainians" whenever someone brings up some view as to what course of action is best. — Isaac

I don't think it's that simple. It is definitely up to the Ukrainians what course of action Ukraine follows.

I don't think it's that simple. It is definitely up to the Ukrainians what course of action Ukraine follows. — Olivier5

In what way?

Some classes of human activities are 'moral', they concern a loose affiliation of behavioral types we've grouped under that umbrella term for various reasons (although some consider there to be only one reason, but that argument's irrelevant here)

When someone asks "what is the moral weight behind that?" they are asking for reasons why the behaviour in question belongs in that group and not some other. — Isaac

I didn't ask "How does one assign moral weight? " I asked "How do you assign moral weight?".
And the reason why I'm asking is because you claimed:

The point I'm making here is that the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine is utterly irrelevant, an administrative matter. It has zero moral weight. — Isaac

How do you decide that the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine is irrelevant, merely an administrative matter? On factual terms, there are people who see borders and national identity not as irrelevant nor as merely an administrative point.
So your claim "the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine is utterly irrelevant, an administrative matter" is a moral claim, right? something like : "the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine ought to be considered irrelevant, and bearing zero moral weight", right?
And since you claim "When someone asks "what is the moral weight behind that?" they are asking for reasons why the behaviour in question belongs in that group and not some other".
Then I'm asking you, what reasons you have to hold such a moral prescription: "the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine ought to be considered irrelevant, and bearing zero moral weight".

Because Ukraine is supposed to be a democracy.

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

Less directly, the government of Ukraine will instruct those soldiers, diplomats and support staff and so strongly influence their actions.

Less directly still, the government's funders, supporters, lobbyists and pollsters will influence the government's decisions.

Absent a referendum or election I don't see how the Ukrainians en masse are going to get a say, certainly not above that third group of government influencers which, without doubt, includes the US and most major EU countries.

I'm asking you, what reasons you have to hold such a moral prescription: "the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine ought to be considered irrelevant, and bearing zero moral weight". — neomac

Matters that have moral weight tend to relate to issues of humanitarian needs or virtues. Either the behaviour in question can be shown to lead to some material harm to human welfare, or it is non-virtuous in some way. Moving a border (in general) is neither.

I don't have a unique personal opinion on the matter. 'Moral' is a word in the English language, I don't have a private definition of it.

You might as well ask why the action of propelling oneself through water is 'swimming'. That's just what the word means it refers to a particular type of behaviour. If we were to disagree over whether treading water constituted swimming, we might have a profitable discussion. If you suggested that doing the tango constituted 'swimming' you'd just be wrong.

Because Ukraine is supposed to be a democracy. — Olivier5

In addition to my response above, Ukraine is not currently a democracy. Opposition parties have been banned, severe restrictions on free press are in place, and no timetable for elections exists.


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. The Ukrainian government aren't currently listening to lobbying from citizens and have suspended normal democratic processes.

But maybe you have some other mechanism in mind. By what mechanism do you propose the average citizen of Lvov is going to take part in the decision as to what course Ukraine now follows?

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.