the point I was making is that you and Russia don't consider it representative of the people who live there. — Paine

Firstly, it's not a matter of opinion, the Ukrainian government have banned opposition parties, censored opposition press, and have conducted neither referenda, nor elections. They are, by all common standards not currently a democratically representative government.

They are, however, the current incumbents and were voted in by a largely free and fair election, so are the best representatives the Ukrainians currently have.

Where have I said that they don't represent the Ukrainian people?

Notwithstanding that misrepresentation, it doesn't matter one jot for the question that @_db was asking. All that matters for that question is that a body exists which is capable of giving military or diplomatic instruction.

It wouldn't matter if they were a dictatorship, one could still ask if they ought cede territory, or how they ought instruct their military for the good of the population they have legislative power over.

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

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

I guess some don't want to get dragged along downhill, and some don't want to implicitly or explicitly assent to (reinforce/encourage/support) the regress.
Why would anyone jump onto a degenerative path/trend (toward an unknown future)? — jorndoe

So Russians, in your view, are powerless to prevent this inexorable slide?

The global economy is a highly evolved and finely tuned system with an immeasurable level of complexity necessary to provide a population of close to 8 billion the abundance and cheap essentials: from energy, commodities, to luxury items - we have come to expect.

With over 20% of the world's land mass. It is patently clear that the consequences of removing Russia from this highly tuned global economy - for any length of time - must inevitably cause the existing global economic systems to become unworkable.

This is not the 19th or 20th century. Countries all over the world have, now for several decades, restructured their economies to become specialists in select industries where they possess comparative advantages.

Russia may not be an advanced country but until we can 3D print commodities, the exclusion of Russia from the global economy means a significant reduction in living standards across the world.

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

Putin's Russia went regressive, downhill.
Not really the best; all those nukes and Kinzhal don't help either, and at the fingertips of a creepy autocrat?
Having gone down that trajectory matters — we take it into consideration when making assessments, important people use it when making decisions.
All the bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating really doesn't help.
I guess some don't want to get dragged along downhill, and some don't want to implicitly or explicitly assent to (reinforce/encourage/support) the regress.
Why would anyone jump onto a degenerative path/trend (toward an unknown future)? — jorndoe

The short answer is that Russia is a police state. There are more political prisoners now in Russia than in the later years of the Soviet Union. A ruinous path can be followed easily.

Putin punched a long time way above his weight limit: made huge gambles and they paid off. Yet those successes made him unable to stop and still keep on gambling. In hindsight it might seem that if Russia would have stopped at just annexing Crimea and not instilling an insurgency in the Donbas, he might have won easily. So why couldn't he stop?

The reason has some similarities to the hypothetical historical scenario if Hitler would have kept his promise to Neville Chamberlain and Chamberlain's declaration of "peace in our time" wouldn't be what it is now, but viewed as one of the greatest achievements of successful diplomacy in history. (Which of course in reality it wasn't, but quite the opposite.)



The simple fact was that the Third Reich and it's armament program was all bent for war. The deficit spending in pre-war Nazi Germany was simply reckless in the long run. Actually it had it's first cracks in 1938 as Schacht had to finance the Mefo-bills by dubious methods forcing banks to buy them. Such an armament program would simply be ruinous for the economy if it would just be in existence in peacetime. All the rhetoric wasn't made for peaceful coexistence. It all had been so easy until it came for Poland. So why stop there the grand project?

Even if Russia's monetary and financial policy is different, In Putin's case the kleptocratic system around him simply cannot create the economic growth that would hurl Russians to a level of prosperity as in the West. GDP per capita is a higher in the Baltic States than in Russia, which were earlier lower. And seeing that the East European countries that have joined the West are far more well off than those who have not is the reason why Ukrainians demonstrated against their government by waving EU flags.



The bad economy would simply be a reason to change the leadership in any democratic nation. And since Putin cannot give economic prosperity, Putin chose the other objective: to make Russia great again and rebuild the lost Empire. That empire building is done by Russia in a defensive manner: all what Russia is doing is defending itself by enlarging itself. As Catherine the Great said: "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”As we have seen from even this thread, some in the West even believe this line from Catherine the Great. That obviously Putin was somehow pushed to invade Ukraine, hence the culprit is the West. That we are critical towards our governments, as people in a democracy should and can be, has lead some to amazing self-flagellation and believe the Russian propaganda.

Hence once on this road, it seems there is no other option for Putin to fight the war to the end or hope the West will get tired of supporting Ukraine. Likely outcome is that this will be ruinous for Russia (as it is for Ukraine). But perhaps Putin might hang in their like Syria's Assad.

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

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

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

Who cares? The Russian economy is rather small. You think the world economy will tank if we boycott Portugal? — Olivier5

Portugal btw. was the last Western country to hold on to it's African posessions by fighting colonial wars (in the 1970's) thanks to having a fascist regime. The regime was finally overthrown in the Carnation Revolution and finally Portugal ended it's wars in Africa. Before the revolution the colonial wars both in Angola and Mozambique were draining like 40% of the Portuguese governments budget. (The hasty and immediate retreat of the Portuguese from both countries created unfortunately a void that lead to civil wars in both countries)

Hopefully Russia would have a similar coup?

, don't know, except, in principle, no. And "inexorable"? Hope not.

In principle at least, if everyone would just oust the autocrat circle, then new paths would open up. Not likely, could turn wickedly chaotic too.

Better if the Russian justice system was to weigh in for real — here's more conjecture on my part — and charge them with fraud, abuse of power, corruption, (attempted) murder, threats (cause fear of harm), obstruction, shamming, covering things up, illegal money/other acquirements/handling, whatever, for all to see, giving leeway to moderate voices and a process of real and transparent democracy, then things would look up. Could that happen? Well, in principle, yes. How likely...?

But this is speculation, the earlier comment was more like observation.

Where have I said that they don't represent the Ukrainian people? — Isaac

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask. — Isaac

Russia claims Ukraine is being run by a dictatorship. They also say that Ukraine is an integral part of their nation. Any deal they make with the Ukraine government will have as much water under it that the previous ones have had.

If the Ukrainians are found to employ anything like the disinformation regime used by Russia on their citizens or conduct the war as barbarously as they have, that would make your method weighing of the cost of surrender against the cost of resistance more reasonable. Such circumstances would also reduce the support Ukraine receives from other nations and increase the number of those who view the Ukraine government as an equivalent of the Diem regime in the Vietnam war.

In this case, the existence of the state is directly tied to its legitimacy as an 'entity' of the Ukrainians.

Where have I said that they don't represent the Ukrainian people? — Isaac


There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask. — Isaac — Paine

Those don't say the same thing at all. If you don't understand something I've said, you can just ask. Don't just assume.

Russia claims ... that Ukraine is an integral part of their nation. — Paine

Where?

If the Ukrainians are found to employ anything like the disinformation regime used by Russia on their citizens or conduct the war as barbarously as they have, that would make your method weighing of the cost of surrender against the cost of resistance more reasonable. — Paine

No it wouldn't because neither case are postulating war. How each nation conducts itself in war is therefore irrelevant. It's how each nation conducts itself in peacetime that is being compared since the decision assumes peace would result. Otherwise the decision is pointless.

In this case, the existence of the state is directly tied to its legitimacy as an 'entity' of the Ukrainians. — Paine

How? You're not making any direct links, you're just reasserting your original claim.

How would it be a different decision if Ukraine were an autocratic dictatorship? They'd be in exactly the same position with regards to weighing territory loss against the cost of continued war.

don't know, except, in principle, no — jorndoe

Right, good.

So to avoid...

a degenerative path/trend (toward an unknown future)? — jorndoe

...one could either topple the regime responsible, or make sure one lives outside its borders.

I don't see how that gets us any closer as to which.

Might not ethnic Russians in Donbas want to become part of Russia to help...

oust the autocrat circle, then new paths would open up — jorndoe

...?

Might not the US just as easily help this latter goal as help keep Russia's borders static?

The question is over whether to support war to keep Russia small, or support revolution so that it doesn't matter where Russia's borders are.

How would it be a different decision if Ukraine were an autocratic dictatorship? They'd be in exactly the same position with regards to weighing territory loss against the cost of continued war. — Isaac

They would not have the same level of support that has allowed them to repulse the Russians as much as they have. The people fighting would not view the change of government as significant if the leadership was as brutal as the Russians. Both factors shape any kind of negotiated deal.

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

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

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

They would not have the same level of support that has allowed them to repulse the Russians as much as they have. — Paine

What evidence are you basing that assessment on? Brutal regimes have put up substantial armed resistance many times in the past, it's clearly not the case that brutal or dictatorial regimes are unable to muster a strong defense.

The people fighting would not view the change of government as significant if the leadership was as brutal as the Russians. — Paine

Again, on what evidence are you basing this? People in general defend attacks against their sovereignty for all sorts of reasons, it not always, in fact rarely is, an humanitarian metric regarding regime type. Most often it's simple nationalism. The German army was able to sweep through Europe, for example, based on nothing but racism and nationalism.

Both factors shape any kind of negotiated deal. — Paine

They do. But the shape of the deal wasn't the question.

, you think a chaotic Russian "Viva la revolución" is likely here? (☢ Kinzhal better not fall into the wrong hands)

Might not ethnic Russians in Donbas want to become part of Russia to help — Isaac

Don't know. You really think that's realistic (or a game-changer)? There hasn't been much indication that the autocrat circle is going away. (Hmm I kind of like the other potential development, the Russian justice system pulling weight, it could work wonders for trust too.) But it's all conjecture and idle speculation.

the Ukrainian government have banned opposition parties, censored opposition press — Isaac

For the time being, I'm guessing (conjecture on my part) that it's a (perhaps panicky) response to old news

Putin's Empire The Russian Federation has rolled their submission-machine out

All the bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating

Since 2014, Donetsk + Luhansk (≈ Donbas) have been an organized Russian staging area, and Crimea was grabbed

After all, Ukraine is facing a real, present threat, analogous to the more hypothetical threat where Putin victimizes his Russia ...

And for our country, this is ultimately a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a people. And this is not an exaggeration: it is true. This is a real threat not just to our interests, but to the very existence of our state, its sovereignty. — Putin · Feb 24, 2022

And in the end, if nothing at all can be done, the aim is the same: to destroy them, to wipe them off the political map.
[...]
Russia is simply upholding its right to exist and to develop freely. — Putin · Oct 27, 2022

And that real, present threat is at Putin's hands, at that. Anyway, Ukraine + supporters have now become a bigger problem for Russia(ns). By the way, Russo-hate has grown in Ukraine, around here we don't particularly hate Russians.

you think a chaotic Russian "Viva la revolución" is likely here? — jorndoe

Well, there's three ways it could go - no revolution (Putin remains), good revolution (democracy, or at least more enlightened dictator), or bad revolution (the region collapses into a half dozen little Putin-a-likes warring each other). The first seems likely if Putin wins, the second or third if he loses. The third option is the worst, so win or lose doesn't seem to matter much as far as long term stability is concerned.

My point really was that regime change is by far the better option here. Reversing border changes saves a few people from Putin's regime (at huge human cost), changing the regime saves millions. The latter is better, and the latter is independent of where the border is. In fact it's slightly more likely to happen the more anti-Putin people are actually part of Russia.

You really think that's realistic (or a game-changer)? There hasn't been much indication that the autocrat circle is going away. — jorndoe

No. I don't think it's very realistic right now. But we were comparing it to war. I don't think regaining the contested regions by military means is remotely realistic either. The former has the advantage of being unrealistic but relatively low human cost. The latter is equally unrealistic but destroys several thousand lives every day it's being tried.

Hmm I kind of like the other potential development, the Russian justice system pulling weight — jorndoe

Yes, me too. Could be a really positive move.

it's all conjecture and idle speculation. — jorndoe

Indeed. As is any speculated military progress, so we're comparing like with like here.

the Ukrainian government have banned opposition parties, censored opposition press — Isaac


For the time being, I'm guessing (conjecture on my part) that it's a (perhaps panicky) response to old news — jorndoe

Yes, I assume it's a temporary measure, but we can't pretend it doesn't have any effect (they wouldn't have done it if it had no effect). It means that, for the time being, dissent in Ukraine regarding the government's course of action is not being properly recorded or represented, which is extremely relevant to the kinds of arguments @Paine and @Olivier5 were making about legitimacy derived from popular support. Currently, we have no proper measure of that.

Russo-hate has grown in Ukraine, around here we don't particularly hate Russians. — jorndoe

Seriously? We've had calls for them to be killed so as to teach them a lesson. We've had racist comments about their 'tendencies' to oppress. I think hatred of Russians is growing pretty strongly outside of Ukraine too.

Michael Kofman, director of Russian studies at the Center for Naval Analyses, posted a thread on the current course of the war.

Who cares? The Russian economy is rather small. You think the world economy will tank if we boycott Portugal? — Olivier5

It is true though that Russia (unlike Portugal) is an important source of energy and raw materials for other countries, and cutting out that dependency will be difficult - for those who even wish to do that: unlike Europe and the US (which had a small exposure), the rest of the world, Asia in particular, is gladly lapping up the spoils.

Yes, I assume it's a temporary measure, but we can't pretend it doesn't have any effect (they wouldn't have done it if it had no effect). It means that, for the time being, dissent in Ukraine regarding the government's course of action is not being properly recorded or represented, which is extremely relevant to the kinds of arguments Paine and @Olivier5 were making about legitimacy derived from popular support. Currently, we have no proper measure of that. — Isaac

Even in the absence of normally functioning representative institutions, and in the presence of censorship of domestic anti-government propaganda and fog of info, there is enough input to assess support/consensus for the Ukrainian government. For example, as far as I know:

- No Ukrainian street demonstrations have been organised against Zelensky as in Russia against Putin or his war:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/russia-protests-more-than-1300-arrested-at-anti-war-demonstrations-ukraine
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/24/1124939236/russia-protest-putin-mobilization-draft-ukraine-war

- Ukrainian polls are widely pro-Zelensky:
https://www.iri.org/news/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-confidence-in-victory-over-russia-overwhelming-approval-for-zelensky-little-desire-for-territorial-concessions-and-a-spike-for-nato-membership/

- Ukrainian social network is widely supportive of Zelensky and against-Russia:
https://democracy-reporting.org/en/office/ukraine/publications/personalities-of-public-opinion-the-influencers-dominating-ukraines-wartime-social-media
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/generation-ua-young-ukrainians-are-driving-the-resistance-to-russias-war/
https://www.prweek.com/article/1788344/ukraine-winning-propaganda-war

- Ukrainian expats are widely pro-Zelensky and oppose Russian invasion:
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/volodimir-zelenskij-zakordonni-ukrayinci-ce-myaka-sila-sho-t-72165
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60634736

- No Ukrainian VIPs and artists against Zelensky. Compare to Russia:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/19/russian-pop-star-alla-pugacheva-condemns-putins-war-in-ukraine
https://www.thedailybeast.com/putin-moves-to-crush-russian-artists-speaking-out-on-ukraine-war
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60814306
https://www.dw.com/en/russian-artists-speak-out-against-the-war-in-ukraine/a-60946690

- Ukrainians returning from abroad to fight Russian invasion (couldn't find evidence of the same reaction from Russian expats):
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-poland-migration-8de0893dfcf7db46e6a6acf9911104a4
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/over-66200-ukrainian-men-have-returned-abroad-fight-says-defence-minister-2022-03-05/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-19/ukrainians-return-home-by-the-millions-even-as-war-rages-on?leadSource=uverify%20wall

- Ukrainian fierce resistance against the Russian oppressor (consistent with the Ukrainian historical aversion against Russian oppression [1]):
https://theconversation.com/unexpected-ukrainian-resistance-continues-to-thwart-russias-initial-plans-for-quick-decisive-victories-189507
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-why-popular-resistance-is-a-big-problem-for-russia-184956

Not to mention the fact all the international investigators on the ground that could report all they see and hear from Ukrainians that could report about Ukrainian people’s lack of support for Zelensky if there was any (as much as they can report about Ukrainian politicians averse to Zelensky).
Indeed even Russians don't question the Ukrainian support for Zelensky: that's why Russians have moved from the rhetoric of liberating Ukrainians from a nazi regime to a more genocidal approach on the battlefield and national TV propaganda.
Finally, it's plausible to expect greater internal cohesion against external threats when the perceived threat is collective, the leadership is trusted, and convergence on how to deal with the threat is strong enough.

[1]
Polls for joining NATO is showing a trend averse to Russia since Russian annexation of Crimea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Popular_support_to_NATO_integration_of_Ukraine_in_Ukraine

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

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

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

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

Or heaven. Let's stay positive.

Those 'mil analysis' guys eh! What are they like. I was saying only the other day to some my soc psych homeboys just how cool those guys are.

Sure hope they release some more cutting edge data on Twitter soon, maybe one of them could do a spread in Vogue.

If Putin is to be replaced, then preferably not by Medvedev or Volodin (or worse).

^{• ‘I hate them’: Dmitry Medvedev’s journey from liberal to anti-western hawk (The Guardian; Aug 1, 2022)
• Ex-president deletes post claiming Vladimir Putin will invade Georgia and Kazakhstan (Mirror; Aug 2, 2022)
• War in Ukraine Has Sparked a New Race to Succeed Putin (Carnegie; Aug 4, 2022)
• “Whoever resists will be destroyed” State Duma’s Volodin threatens Ukraine with “tougher response to terrorist attacks” (Euro Weekly; Oct 13, 2022)
• Russian lawmakers vet new bill against LGBTQ 'propaganda' (ABC; Oct 27, 2022)}

What to expect?

^{(Will they be sending homosexuals to "conversion therapy/camps"? Jail? ...?)}

, hasn't verbal fire mostly been directed at Russian politics and Putin + team? Rather than all Russians I mean?

Both parties in America are getting tired of the war. Ukraine is going to have to wrap it up in the next 6-12 months.

So one poll and a lack of media report... In a country where opposition media reporting has been banned.

I don't know how familiar you are with the general consensus on what constitutes a legitimate mandate, but it's rarely done by lack of pop star opposition.

No one is arguing about the extent of general support for Zelensky and continued war, I've no doubt it's substantial. The point was about legitimate mandates. But, as ever, any point that isn't bland regurgitation of Western propaganda is lost.

hasn't verbal fire mostly been directed at Russian politics and Putin + team? Rather than all Russians I mean? — jorndoe

Not recently, no.

In a country where opposition media reporting has been banned. — Isaac

The country is as at war, so democracy can not function as normal: e.g. do you have any examples of countries invaded by a foreign power that run democratic presidential elections while at war? I don't.
Yet, if/when possible, we can still assess consensus/support for the government through other indicators.

I don't know how familiar you are with the general consensus on what constitutes a legitimate mandate, but it's rarely done by lack of pop star opposition. — Isaac

Can you quote me where I claimed otherwise? VIPs, artists, and pop stars can be influencers with followers and amplifiers of the people's voice so it's important for politics and politicians to have them on their side, supporting their propaganda. For example, for 43 years the people of Iran have been denied representation at the United Nations, recently, the pop star Nazanin Boniadi changed that. And that's of great importance for the Iranians who oppose the regime. So it's unreasonable to dismiss the "soft power" of such prominent people (Zelensky was a popular actor before becoming president, are you familiar with that?), especially after showing - as you did, even in your last post - so much concern for the impact of propaganda. In any case, that's just one indicator that adds up with others I listed, of course.

The point was about legitimate mandates. — Isaac

Zelensky is the president so he has the legitimate mandate to be the president also during wartime according to the Ukrainian constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ukraine#Duties_and_powers). What's so hard to understand, dude?

If Portugal possessed over 20% of the World's commodities and an untold volume of unexplored resources, sanctions against Portugal would also prove difficult and cause devastation to the world economy.

What is apparent is that the presumption that the modern economy is driven by technological know how and financial instruments is at least partially wrong. The uninterrupted supply of cheap energy and commodities is at least as crucial if not more so, as no amount of technology can replace it.

Similarly, there is something fundamentally misleading citing per capita GDP as a measure of comparative economic strength: functionally, there is little difference between an apartment in London or an apartment in Moscow, yet the London apartment maybe valued at 2 million pounds whilst the Moscow equivalent is valued at 200k. Similar comparative price disparities occur across wages, services and assets.

Economic historians believe that specialisation and trade is the driving force of economic progress since the beginning of time, and that this specialisation on the global scale, that we enjoyed pre-2020, is precisely what has enabled a world of 8 billion to enjoy the high standards of living we became accustomed to.

Removing Russia from the global economy runs against this economic truism and means countries all over the world will need to either diversify their economies back to pre-1980s levels or other countries will need to step into the breach to fill the gap left by Russia's exclusion. All of which means, if not permanently then at least in the short to medium, increased costs, decreased efficiency and a reduction in competitiveness across the global economy.

But as It now appears baked in that China and India will continue to receive cheap Russian energy and cheap Russian commodities whilst western countries pay significantly more. Countries like China and India will possess a significant competitive advantage over the likes of Germany, France, Japan and South Korea. Over any significant period of time, demand for Western Products will fall causing a drop in standards of living in those countries.

Assuming of course - which is daily appearing more difficult - our political leaders don't render this whole discussion moot by triggering a nuclear exchange.

I wasn't speaking generally of populations who support war. I was expanding on my comment that is germane in the present circumstances:

If the Ukrainians are found to employ anything like the disinformation regime used by Russia on their citizens or conduct the war as barbarously as they have, that would make your method weighing of the cost of surrender against the cost of resistance more reasonable. Such circumstances would also reduce the support Ukraine receives from other nations and increase the number of those who view the Ukraine government as an equivalent of the Diem regime in the Vietnam war. — Paine

The country is as at war, so democracy can not function as normal: e.g. do you have any examples of countries invaded by a foreign power that run democratic presidential elections while at war? I don't. — neomac

I wasn't wondering why it was the case. I was pointing out one of the consequences of it being the case.

That being said, yes. Roosevelt was elected in 1944. The UK ensured consensus by using a coalition of parties. Neither banned opposition. And that's the point here. A government's mandate requires a robust opposition to hold them to account, otherwise the mandate is meaningless because the public cannot be expected to simply find out how things stand of their own accord. There's bound to be popular support for a war, especially a defensive one, if any reporting of potentially opposing facts about it is banned.

You're essentially arguing in favour of an autocracy by saying "well if the people didn't support it, they'd demonstrate, so it's got a mandate". It hasn't.

And to be clear, none of this becomes no longer true just because they have a reason for doing all this. I might have a good reason for putting a hat on, it doesn't make the consequences of my putting a hat on go away.

A society which has banned opposition parties and press is one in which the government are not properly being held to account, and as such that government does not have a legitimate mandate. It's that simple.

Are you net even the least bit suspicious about the messages you're regurgitating. Only a few years ago, Ukraine was barely talked about, but when it was, it was in reference to human rights abuses, illegal arms dealing, kleptocracy and corruption. You're now spitting out this storyline that they literally are doing nothing wrong. No government in the world is that good. No population in the world is that homogeneous. Does this narrative of the angelic government with virtually 100% popular support not even strike you as a little suspicious? In a country that has banned the reporting of opposing views? In a country which is now a cause celebre for the most sophisticated intelligence network in the world. In a country whose allies include one which has direct control mechanisms over the world's social media platforms? ... None of that raises the slightest suspicion about whether the presented narrative is entirely accurate...?

Zelensky is the president so he has the legitimate mandate to be the president also during wartime according to the Ukrainian constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ukraine#Duties_and_powers). What's so hard to understand, dude? — neomac

Constitutions do not determine the legitimacy of mandates. If Putin wrote a constitution in which it was guaranteed that he was ruler for life, would you argue his mandate was legitimate?

It fascinates me that you people can seemingly hold such contradictory beliefs at the same time. We have these almost consecutive arguments - on the one hand this a just war because it is fighting for the ideal of democracy and Western freedoms over the Russian tyranny, then without even pausing for breath, you're now arguing that democracy's not all that important after all and governments can run off a few opinion polls and some celebrity support without that causing any major issues. It's really quite a talent.