wasn't speaking generally of populations who support war. I was expanding on my comment that is germane in the present circumstances: — Paine
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
Over any significant period of time, demand for Western Products will fall causing a drop in standards of living in those countries. — yebiga
You are the one debasing democracy when you stupidly propose that an elected president has no mandate. — Olivier5
I think so. — Olivier5
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. — Isaac
"well if the people didn't support it, they'd demonstrate, so it's got a mandate” — Isaac
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? — Isaac
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 thatsimple(my edit.). — Isaac
Are you net even the least bit suspicious about the messages you're regurgitating. — Isaac
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. — Isaac
it’s preposterous to expect a coalition between opposing parties that see one another as the enemies: it’s like expecting the Federal government to form a coalition with confederates during the Civil War, or the coalition that fought against the fascists in Italy build the new state by including the fascist party. — neomac
I wasn't wondering why it was the case. I was pointing out one of the consequences of it being the case. — Isaac
He got the mandate when he was elected as president for peacetime and wartime. — neomac
Since there is large support for Zelensky it’s preposterous to question his legitimacy just because he didn’t build a coalition with Russian collaborationist parties. — neomac
Besides we have a different notion of political legitimacy. — neomac
I think the discussion about legitimacy is irrelevant. — Benkei
Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression — Benkei
Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression, answer: yes. At any cost? No. — Benkei
What "cost" is worth it when the consequence of giving in to Russia's demands may be much more severe than people seem to realize? — Christoffer
Just trying to frame disagreements over subjective speculation as the naivety of whichever party disagrees with your subjective judgment is disingenuous. — Isaac
What I call naive is the black-and-white point of view where everything is only about a life-and-death dichotomy because that is, objectively, an extremely simplified way of looking at this conflict, disregarding any domino effect of short-term decisions just to save lives in the here and now. — Christoffer
Mods should rename this thread to "Strawman discussion about the Ukraine war", because that's basically what this thread is. — Christoffer
the black-and-white point of view where everything is only about a life-and-death dichotomy — Christoffer
. It doesn't obviate the consequences of not having one. It would be preposterous to expect me to fly by jet to my next conference. The preposterousness doesn't have any impact on the consequence that I may be late as a result. — Isaac
Even a tyrant coming to power on a wave of popular support is illegitimate if they do not have means of being held to account. — Isaac
It's a basic tenet of democracy. — Isaac
Yes, that's true. I've been discussing the legitimacy of that mandate. — Isaac
Besides we have a different notion of political legitimacy. — neomac
Then stop responding to my posts as if I shared your notions. — Isaac
Exactly. People have not "disregarded" domino effects, they just disagree with you about what they are, how likely they are, and how to measure them. — Isaac
The irony... — Isaac
How do you disregard the fact of Russia's war crimes? The fact of China's interest in Taiwan? The fact of North Korea's recent aggressions? The fact of how Russia treats its own people? The fact of people being killed when opposing Putin? — Christoffer
People have not "disregarded" domino effects, they just disagree with you about what they are, how likely they are, and how to measure them. — Isaac
These are facts and a solid foundation for any speculation that revolves around the possible consequences of just letting Russia get what they want. — Christoffer
These consequences are things seriously considered in every place where serious discussion about the war is happening — Christoffer
The point is that that’s a rational goal, because when national sovereignty/security is in severe danger there must be enough convergence and commitment on matter of national sovereignty/security for a coalition between otherwise opposing parties to efficaciously deal with such an emergency. — neomac
I wasn't wondering why it was the case. I was pointing out one of the consequences of it being the case. — Isaac
If that’s how you understand legitimacy, you better clarify it because: — neomac
BTW is Putin a legitimate leader according to your way of understanding political legitimacy? — neomac
It’s rational to act in accordance to democratic rules under the assumption that there are sufficiently robust democratic institutions. While a central government which is still struggling for its sovereignty and territorial control, can’t operate under such assumption. Obviously. — neomac
I wasn't wondering why it was the case. I was pointing out one of the consequences of it being the case. — Isaac
that’s how I can discover where our notions diverge, for example. And if we aren’t sharing same notions, I can still question your notions. — neomac
These consequences are things seriously considered in every place where serious discussion about the war is happening, but in this thread, such dismissal is somehow approved to be a valid disagreement regardless of how weak any premisses is in support of such disagreements are. — Christoffer
Ukraine’s battlefield successes could go too far. If the defense of Ukraine is not worth U.S. boots on the ground, then the return of all of the Donbas and Crimea to Ukrainian control is not worth risking a new world war.
pushing for Russia’s total defeat is an unnecessary gamble.
A hypothetical deal between Russia and Ukraine would have two main components. First, Ukraine would back away from its intention to join NATO — an objective that has for years provoked strong Russian opposition. Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO setting up shop on the other side of its 1,000-mile-plus border with Ukraine.
Second — the harder part — Moscow and Kyiv would need to arrive at a territorial settlement. A reasonable starting point for negotiations would be to aim for a Russian withdrawal to the “line of contact” that existed before Russia’s invasion began in February. Diplomacy could then focus on the ultimate disposition of Crimea and the chunk of the Donbas that Russia occupied in 2014. Both sides would need to compromise: Moscow to abandon its recently announced intention to annex a major slice of eastern Ukraine, and Kyiv to settle for an outcome that could entail less than regaining all its land.
"right and justification" as your quote specifies. — Isaac
A tenth time then...
I wasn't wondering why it was the case. I was pointing out one of the consequences of it being the case. — Isaac — Isaac
On what grounds then? I argue someone doesn't have a legitimate mandate, you argue that they do because you use a different meaning of 'legitimate'. That's neither a critique nor a line of questioning. It's just a declaration. — Isaac
What do you mean by "right" and "justification" as distinguished from "lawful"? — neomac
What's your point in highlighting the consequences? What lesson is there to learn in there? — neomac
Most people dislike wars and feel the world would be a better place without them. Yet contempt for cowardice seems to move them on a far deeper level. After all, desertion—the tendency of conscripts called up for their first experience of military glory to duck out of the line of march and hide in the nearest forest, gulch, or empty farmhouse and then, when the column has safely passed, figure out a way to return home—is probably the greatest threat to wars of conquest. Napoleon’s armies, for instance, lost far more troops to desertion than to combat. Conscript armies often have to deploy a significant percentage of their conscripts behind the lines with orders to shoot any of their fellow conscripts who try to run away. Yet even those who claim to hate war often feel uncomfortable celebrating desertion.
About the only real exception I know of is Germany, which has erected a series of monuments labeled “To the Unknown Deserter.” The first and most famous, in Potsdam, is inscribed: “TO A MAN WHO REFUSED TO KILL HIS FELLOW MAN.” Yet even here, when I tell friends about this monument, I often encounter a sort of instinctive wince. “I guess what people will ask is: Did they really desert because they didn’t want to kill others, or because they didn’t want to die themselves?” As if there’s something wrong with that.
[...]
as anyone familiar with the history of, say, Oceania, Amazonia, or Africa would be aware, a great many societies simply refused to organize themselves on military lines. Again and again, we encounter descriptions of relatively peaceful communities who just accepted that every few years, they’d have to take to the hills as some raiding party of local bad boys arrived to torch their villages, rape, pillage, and carry off trophy parts from hapless stragglers. The vast majority of human males have refused to spend their time training for war, even when it was in their immediate practical interest to do so. — David Graeber
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.