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

Since when has the size of a comment constituted an argument in favour of it's soundness?

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

Again, this is false on the face of it. Brutal regimes have also had international support. Look at Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Over any significant period of time, demand for Western Products will fall causing a drop in standards of living in those countries. — yebiga

Over any significant period of time, there's a climate Armageddon coming and the globalised economy, which created the climate crisis, just dies with the rest of us.

In the meantime, there'll be ups and downs.

You are the one debasing democracy when you stupidly propose that an elected president has no mandate.

You are the one debasing democracy when you stupidly propose that an elected president has no mandate. — Olivier5

If you're confused about my arguments you can just ask. It's far more productive than simply assuming the worst possible interpretation you can think of. Look again at what I've written. Have I argued anywhere that the elected president doesn't have a mandate?

Have I argued anywhere that the elected president doesn't have a mandate? — Isaac

I think so.

I think so. — Olivier5

Well then you have a choice, you can either continue with your confrontational lack of charity in interpretation, in which case we've nothing more to say on the matter, or you can tell me which parts of my argument gave you that impression so I can correct your misunderstanding. Up to you.

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

I disagree with the examples and the main claims.
None of the above countries were invaded. Coalition parties in the UK and in the US made sense simply because they didn’t include any party collaborationist with hostile foreign powers. And even if one sees the Ukrainian war in terms of civil war (as often the war in Ukraine has been described), 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.
In democracy, government's mandate would require a robust opposition to hold them to account as long as there is enough convergence on matters of national sovereignty/security. This point is particularly critical when the Ukrainian central government (unlike the US and the UK in WW2) is still in the process of state building against legacies from the Soviet era, interfering social-political-economic-criminal ties with Russia and therefore wide mistrust in democratic institutions and political parties.

"well if the people didn't support it, they'd demonstrate, so it's got a mandate” — Isaac

He got the mandate when he was elected as president for peacetime and wartime. Period. And if the capacity of parties to guarantee representativity can be problematic in Western countries with more robust democratic institutions (e.g. when the voter turnout is particularly low and parties do not collect enough votes), go figure in countries which still have weak democratic institutions. That’s one more reason to value the informal support for political leaders. 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.

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

Zelensky didn’t change constitution as you suggest. And even Western democratic constitutions generally give extraordinary powers to the president in wartime. Besides we have a different notion of political legitimacy. I'm talking about political legitimacy in terms of actual formal and informal support. Formal support (through binding institutions: e.g. constitutions and laws) doesn’t need to be grounded on “democratic” institutions as Westerners understand them. Yet Westerners might be more interested in tracking informal support where formal support is not as representative as in full-fledged or functional democracies.
Your notion of “legitimacy” is more in the domain of what ought to be within the limits of your wild imagination, I guess.

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 (my edit.). — Isaac

Not simple, simplistic.

Are you net even the least bit suspicious about the messages you're regurgitating. — Isaac

Not as much as I am suspicious about your intellectual skills and honesty. I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand.

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

If you see a contradiction, you have to blame your poor logic acumen and your attitude to caricature your opponents’ claims to make a point.That’s not talent though. Just embarrassing intellectual misery.

I think the discussion about legitimacy is irrelevant. Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression, answer: yes. At any cost? No. The only difference of opinion on this thread is when that yes becomes a no. Avoid nuclear war is obvious, the evaluation of what actions increase that risk is not. Then there are knock-on effects like causing an energy crisis that hurts the poorest all across Europe. Is it worth that? There are plenty of people divided on that.

Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression, answer: yes. At any cost? No. — Benkei

That's your way of framing what is at stake, not mine. The geopolitical implications of this war go beyond the fate of the Ukrainians themselves. And its irrational to ignore them.

Still fits the frame. You're just more likely to argue it's worth the cost because you see benefits outside of the protection of human lives at the expense of human lives. Or the other way around, whatever. I don't know what side of the fence you sit and I don't care.

Or you could try and explain what you mean a bit better.

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

As I've said maybe half a dozen times now, once in the very post you're responding to...

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

It may well be preposterous to expect such coalitions from Ukraine. 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.

He got the mandate when he was elected as president for peacetime and wartime. — neomac

Yes, that's true. I've been discussing the legitimacy of that mandate. The claim you're responding to was incorrect as written.

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

Nonsense. 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. It's a basic tenet of democracy. Popular support is not the be all and end all - that support must be well-informed and that requires a free press and an opposition.

Besides we have a different notion of political legitimacy. — neomac

Then stop responding to my posts as if I shared your notions.

I think the discussion about legitimacy is irrelevant. — Benkei

I agree there are more straightforward, wider points. But the reason I'm pursuing the line of legitimate representation is that often the first counter to...

Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression — Benkei

...is very often "well, that's up to the Ukrainians". I disagree with that notion for the reasons I've been expanding on. I don't think there's any clear moral justification for a citizen of Lvov to have a say in what goes on in the Donbas region (600 miles away) than there is for a citizen of Rostov (less than 100 miles away). The reason they get a say is purely pragmatic, the way representative democracy happens to be subdivided into states. So the point about legitimacy is relevant only insofar as it's important to recognise that the actual details of the policies Ukraine are following have not travelled through any process which gives them legitimate mandate (they have not been subject to a system which can properly hold them to account and so advise a populace such that they can give well-informed consent.

But I agree the main issue can be addressed with a more simple metric.

Or you could try and explain what you mean a bit better. — Olivier5

Yes, that's the plan, but I need to know what it is you don't understand. I'm not going to just blindly rephrase everything I've written in the hope of landing at random on the aspect you didn't get.

Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression, answer: yes. At any cost? No. — Benkei

How would you define "at any cost"? However you turn things, there's gonna be suffering. The problem is when the evaluation of the best solution becomes a black-and-white dichotomy of life and death without ever evaluating if a life becomes worth living or if deaths further down the line are at a greater number than in the short term. When someone argues that it's good that Ukrainians are fighting back against Russian and reclaiming their land and people from the horrors of Russian war crimes, they get criticized for somehow not caring for the ones dying because of the fight or other consequences of the war ongoing. But then what about the people they have freed, the ones who survived the war crimes, who cry in the arms of the Ukrainian soldier who freed them, or the unseen consequences of pushing back Russia showing other nations with similar warmongering leaders that it's not worth it, like China and North Korea? Just putting down arms and sacrificing Ukraine to Russia just to end the war might show China and North Korea that they have the same power and that the rest of the world is powerless to do anything meaningful about it. So what suffering might that lead to if we don't stand up against the tyranny that Russia has shown the world?

The main question is, how do you evaluate "at any cost" when there's no answer that is objectively good? Do you just hold onto a strict "no-death" ideal or might that be too naive for the complexity of this conflict and beyond? Instead of branding interlocutors with being "for" or "against" "at any cost". 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?

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

That other people disagree with you about those wider consequences doesn't mean they haven't considered them. They've been discussed at great length here. Often with you, even.

Just trying to frame disagreements over subjective speculation as the naivety of whichever party disagrees with your subjective judgment is disingenuous.

Just trying to frame disagreements over subjective speculation as the naivety of whichever party disagrees with your subjective judgment is disingenuous. — Isaac

I'm not doing that, that is you framing things in that way, as you always do with your strawmen and why you have dragged this thread down to your level. 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. That you interpret that as me "calling people naive for disagreeing with me" is intentionally strawmanning and changing the very context of what I wrote. This is why your arguments are constantly low quality and why this thread is mostly bullshit today and why I rarely come back here. Mods should rename this thread to "Strawman discussion about the Ukraine war", because that's basically what this thread is.

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

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.

The fact that you see the world one way doesn't make people naive for seeing it differently. Your opinions are not facts. That is, there is a difference between you thinking that X will result from Y and it actually being the case that X will result from Y.

Mods should rename this thread to "Strawman discussion about the Ukraine war", because that's basically what this thread is. — Christoffer

The irony...

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

So what? In your example the goal is to be at the conference on time (and you failed it). While Zelenesky’s goal is not to have a coalition with Russian collaborationist parties (and he succeeded it). 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.

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

If that’s how you understand legitimacy, you better clarify it because: In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a regime. Whereas authority denotes a specific position in an established government, the term legitimacy denotes a system of government—wherein government denotes "sphere of influence". An authority viewed as legitimate often has the right and justification to exercise power. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular regimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential elite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)). And all that doesn’t necessarily require democratic ways of holding political leaders to account.
BTW is Putin a legitimate leader according to your way of understanding political legitimacy?

It's a basic tenet of democracy. — Isaac

So what? 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.

Yes, that's true. I've been discussing the legitimacy of that mandate. — Isaac

Without clarifying what you mean by “legitimacy”. And if you do not clarify your own terms, then I feel encouraged to apply my understanding of them.

Besides we have a different notion of political legitimacy. — neomac

Then stop responding to my posts as if I shared your notions. — Isaac

I don’t see why: 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.

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

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?

These are facts and a solid foundation for any speculation that revolves around the possible consequences of just letting Russia get what they want. Disregarding these facts is just ignorant and not a valid foundation for any counter-argument. 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.

This is why this thread is shit.

The irony... — Isaac

The irony is that you are blind to these simplifications because I've yet to hear any actual consequence analysis of such a simplified position. I'm waiting to hear it...

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

Are you having trouble reading?

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

No one is disregarding those factors, they are disagreeing with you about the likelihoods, weights, and values.

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

Just look at the two bolded words and explain to me how they yield a single unequivocal answer. A probability, by definition, has two options.

These consequences are things seriously considered in every place where serious discussion about the war is happening — Christoffer

And they are seriously considered here too. Pages and pages have been written about them. People just disagree with you about the likelihoods, weights, and values.

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

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

If that’s how you understand legitimacy, you better clarify it because: — neomac

No, that's precisely how I'm using the term. It does not merely mean the same as 'lawful', it is about "right and justification" as your quote specifies.

BTW is Putin a legitimate leader according to your way of understanding political legitimacy? — neomac

No. He has neither the right nor the justification for wielding the power he does.

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

An eleventh time maybe will make some in road...

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

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.

As to...

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

This from Charles A. Kupchan, professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

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.

Remind us again what your qualifications are? Professor of what? Which university? Senior fellow where?

If you read the full article...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/opinion/russia-ukraine-negotiation.html

...you'll see how professor Kupchan is not ignoring the fact of Russia's war crimes. He is disagreeing with you about how best to avoid further incidents. How professor Kupchan is not ignoring the fact of China's interest in Taiwan. He is disagreeing with you about how best to deal with it. How professor Kupchan is not ignoring these other implications. He is disagreeing with you about how best to handle them.

"right and justification" as your quote specifies. — Isaac

What do you mean by "right" and "justification" as distinguished from "lawful"?

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

And? What's your point in highlighting the consequences? What lesson is there to learn in there?

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

We have been through this already. Terminological issues can be settled through stipulation whenever terminology diverges from some standard usage or triggers misunderstanding. What is substantial however is conceptual consistency and explanatory power behind the given terminology.

Excellent points, thank you for your reply. :100:

What do you mean by "right" and "justification" as distinguished from "lawful"? — neomac

That which is 'lawful' is that against which there is no law. Taking property from Jews was lawful in Nazi Germany, but it was neither right nor justified.

That which is 'right', in this context, is that which derives from rights in some way (either natural rights, or concepts of justice), as in the expression "I have a right to know why you said that", it's not claiming anything about the law. I have a right to keep my property, but it may not be justified to have excess.

That which has 'justification', in this context is that for which some reason (or reasons) can be given that refer usually to either desirable consequences or virtues which are causally related to the act in question. "blowing up that bridge was justified because it prevented greater harm in the future ".

What's your point in highlighting the consequences? What lesson is there to learn in there? — neomac

That when we say that some decision about Ukraine is rightly "up to the Ukrainians" we currently have no legitimate method of asking them, we are talking about a (currently) autocratic government without opposition. As such we are mistaken if we legitimise Ukrainian strategic decisions on the grounds of a Ukrainian right to self-determination.

Zelensky's apparent recent decision to refuse negotiations until there's regime change in Russia, for example, is not a legitimate decision of the Ukrainian people. We have no moral reason to support it on grounds of self-determination alone.

Cheers.

One of the big reasons given for why Western countries need to support Ukraine is because Putin is seen as a bully who is hell-bent on imperialist expansion, and that if the West does not stop Putin, he will just continue on to invade other countries. The analogy is drawn between Putin and Hitler - appeasement of Hitler didn't work, and it won't work here with Putin. The support of Ukraine - particularly the military of Ukraine - is considered to be a humanitarian imperative.

It is doubtful that this would be sufficient reason by itself to justify sending billions of dollars to Ukraine, particularly when there are even worse crises occurring in the world in which the West is conspicuously not involved in, in the way it is involved in Ukraine.

What really seems to be the reason the West is so obsessed with this regional conflict is that this is the perfect opportunity to drain the resources of Russia in a prolonged proxy war. It gets dressed up as a moral crisis ("democracy is threatened by the ravaging Russian hordes").

The reality is that the West is willing to fight to the last Ukrainian.

There is also the ideological premise that it is rational and honorable to defend one's country against a foreign invader. Fleeing from one's country when it is attacked by another country is considered cowardly and there is an incredibly strong distaste of people who do so. I recall a particularly interesting paragraph in one of David Graeber's essays that touches on this premise:

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

Probably living under Russian dominion would be worse than living under Ukrainian dominion, but getting butchered on the battlefield is by far the worst and it seems absolutely ridiculous to claim that Ukrainian sovereignty is worth this risk.

I'd still like to know exactly what threat NATO was/is to Russia.

^{Some Putin quotes: Dec 23, 2021, Feb 24, 2022, ≈ Oct 26, 2022, Oct 27, 2022
Some earlier comments: Oct 16, 2022, Oct 18, 2022, Oct 28, 2022}

So, not nuclear really.

But maybe foreign troops close to Russia's borders. Maybe just foreign (NATO) troops in the host country? Albeit stationed for defense, they could be seen as threatening.

@Tzeentch seems to suggest that Putin's geo-objectives require control of Crimea. (Then in case of war with Ukraine, Sevastopol or a base alone wouldn't do?) Maybe or maybe not to the extent of non-control being an existential threat? A bit up in the air. Doesn't depend on NATO specifically, though. Rather, NATO would instead have gotten in the way of Russia grabbing Crimea, and the following invasion.

^{• Putin Admits Annexation of Crimea Put in Motion Weeks Before Referendum (Haaretz; Mar 9, 2015)
• Putin reveals secrets of Russia's Crimea takeover plot (BBC; Mar 9, 2015)
• With Trump on his side, Putin admits Russia staged the ‘referendum’ to annex Crimea (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group; Jul 17, 2018)
• From 'Not Us' To 'Why Hide It?': How Russia Denied Its Crimea Invasion, Then Admitted It (RFE/RL; Feb 26, 2019)
• Putin Admits He’s Worried NATO Could Help Ukraine Get Crimea Back (The Daily Beast; Feb 1, 2022)
• Putin admits Ukraine invasion is an imperial war to “return” Russian land (Atlantic Council; Jun 10, 2022)}

What else, though?

As a primary justification for war, this stuff seems to matter, yes?

^{On the strategic (chess game, objectives) side, SophistiCat posted something; not much else lately.}

It is not clear who would be doing the appeasing in your description. Is it the man behind the curtain using Ukrainians to fight a proxy war or a choice Ukrainians are making for themselves?

The answer to who is calling the shots relates to how an end to the war can be negotiated.