There is also the ideological premise that it is rational and honorable to defend one's country against a foreign invader. — _db

I think this is one of the confounding factors in any moral analysis. The idea that a worse country (in human rights terms) ought not take over a better one seems a simple enough metric, hence the "fighting for democracy" narrative, but in amongst that narrative we hear, like little Freudian slips, a far more distasteful nationalism. The sense that Ukrainians are fighting 'for Ukraine', that they fight because 'Ukraine' is under threat (not their lives, their homes and their well-being - 'Ukraine'). It's these little fur-balls of nationalism that choke many of the routes to peace. No territorial concessions (even if they would save lives, homes and well-being) because they would not save 'Ukraine'). No negotiations with Putin because, even though literally any concession at this stage might save lives, homes and well-being - it would humiliate 'Ukraine'.

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

So if we're going to consider 'The Ukrainians' as one of the options for shot-callers, then we'd better understand by what mechanism they might do so. How exactly do you see 'The Ukrainians' making an informed choice on this - with no elections, no referendums, no opposition parties, and an almost complete press blackout on any anti-government news agendas?

Not to mention the fact that the sub-set of Ukrainians that really matter here are those living in Crimea and Donbas. Even if 'The Ukrainians' in the wider sense could be informed and consulted, then how do we weigh the voices of those actually effected against those 600 miles away? We might as well consult 'The Eastern Bloc', or 'The Slavic Peoples', or 'The Black Sea Region', or 'Eastern Europe'...

And if we rule out 'The Ukrainians' on the grounds of there being no plausible mechanism by which they could possibly make a relevant, informed choice, then we're left with - Zelensky's Government, the US Government, The UN and Putin's Government as the potential shot-callers.

Does it then make a difference? None of them live in Donbas or Crimea. All of them are wealthy enough not to have to suffer the consequences of their actions either way. So what difference does it make now who calls the shots on this? Wealthy elite or wealthy elite? We get to choose accents.

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. — Christoffer

What are you talking about? We've gone over all of these issues multiple times.

Hundreds of pages have been dedicated to the issue of nuclear war, which everyone seems to agree should be avoided.

The "big" consequence that you fail to mention in your "serious arguments".

It just so happens that the rest of the world also has a right to self-defence in the sense of avoiding conflict in the first place.

For example, if you provoke a bunch of people in a bar and get into a fight, perhaps I recognise your right to self defence once you are attacked. However, that does not place any onus on me to support you in anyway. It would be nearly universally agreed that my right to self preservation by simply walking away from the situation far supersedes any obligation to support other people's right to the same.

Of course, a critical factor of evaluation is my power to do something. If I could help get a better outcome (no one hurt and, certainly no one killed) by doing something at no, or exceedingly low, risk to myself people would generally agree that does become a moral obligation at some point of common sense and easy actions. However, if my only way to affect the outcome is to throw myself into the fight or then give weapons (forks, knives, guns) to the side I think is more justified, in this sort of classic drunken brawl situation essentially no one would agree that I have any obligation to put myself at risk and likewise giving someone a weapon in a drunken brawl is questionable at best (murder / manslaughter at worst if someone dies by my weapon; there would need to be very particular circumstances in which "supplying arms" actually leads to a better outcome).

What does all this mean in the situation in Ukraine? In short, there may simply be no effective actions as bystanders outside the fight that lead to a better outcome, regardless of any moralising at all.

The harms of the war to Ukrainians and poor people around the world are considerable, it must be weighed in the balance of what compromise may end the war.

Sure, a compromise can be a "win" for Putin, but if there's no way to effectively "punish" someone who commands thousands of nuclear warheads then we simply have to live with that.

You seem to conflate terrible outcomes of rash and ill-considered policies to escalate the situation but "not too much" with the intended outcome.

We understand very well your intended outcome -- I would not say it is by definition justifiable (a lot of questions would need to be actually answered in a serious way, as you lament) -- but the discussion has been stuck since the beginning on how the intended outcome of Biden / Zelesnkyites can actually be achieved.

If there's no way to impose Western desires on Putin by force without creating far more harms than a compromise that ends the war, then the entire operation is simply a virtue signalling gesture.

But to who? The dead?

The dim view you have of the Ukrainian government has no immediate bearing on their stated purpose to restore their territory. The issue is how far support from other nations will go to achieve this goal. That issue falls within the question Benkei raised. Clearly the support cannot continue at "any cost."

It is unlikely that your moral calculus will be used to figure out what the limits will be.

The dim view you have of the Ukrainian government has no immediate bearing on their stated purpose to restore their territory. — Paine

No, indeed. I really can't think why anyone would come to believe it might, but at least you've clarified the matter should any such benighted souls be reading along.

The issue is how far support from other nations will go to achieve this goal. — Paine

In what sense is that 'the issue'? I can see it being 'an issue', but why 'the issue'? We were talking about who is "calling the shots" as you put it. Are you saying that support from other nations is the sole determining factor here?

If so, then the opinion of those other nations' populations seems to take on a more substantive weight. I mentioned as much a little while back, but you must have missed it.

So, given that the support of other nations is critical, you'd agree that the course of events is now dictated largely by those other nations (and by proxy, their populace, to the extent public opinion matters to them)?

the entire operation is simply a virtue signalling gesture.

But to who? The dead? — boethius

More than virtue, the defence of Ukraine sends a signal of strength. And it sends it to Putin, essentially.

↪neomac ↪Isaac 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. — Benkei

I think the escalation to WW3 is severely overstated. It seems as if people have long forgotten that similar wars where on one Super Power's enemy was eagerly supported by the other Super Power were more of the norm in the Cold War. In the Korean War the Soviet Air Force and the USAF fought each other over the skies of North Korea, and both sides just kept it as a secret.

Even if Kherson falls to Ukraine, it's not a desperate situation for Putin.

It seems as if people have long forgotten that similar wars where on one Super Power's enemy was eagerly supported by the other Super Power were more of the norm in the Cold War. — ssu

Ah yes, happier times...

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-ussr-and-us-came-closer-to-nuclear-war-than-we-thought/276290/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/5-times-cold-war-almost-ended-nuclear-eruption-197443

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/nuclear-close-calls-cuban-missile-crisis

I'm off to jump to sixteen flaming buses on a motorbike because, after all, Evil Knieval got away with it, so it must be just fine. No need for any alarm.

In fact, hang it, why don't we just invade Russia? After all, what was the battle of Stalingrad really, but a lot of high jinx?

In fact, hang it, why don't we just invade Russia? After all, what was the battle of Stalingrad really, but a lot of high jinx? — Isaac

For Ukraine to defend itself from an Russian attack is different from NATO attacking Russia.

But if you listen to Putin, it seems to be the same.

Playing the devil's advocate: what if the Americans want to slowly push Putin go tactical nuclear to turn his escalate to de-escalate strategy against him?

There might be 4 possible promising consequences in doing this:
- Heavy conventional retaliation: like destroying the Russian strategic infrastructures (e.g. Black Sea fleet), no fly zone in Ukraine, bombing Russian army in occupied (but not-annexed) territories.
- Possibly turn the Rest of the World and of Europe definitely against Russia.
- Possibly turn the trend of American domestic divisions (at least wrt Russia) in line with the current anti-Putin stance more favorable with the Biden at the next elections.
- And therefore also possibly turn Russian support for Putin (especially inside his own entourage) against Putin.

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. — Isaac

And what are exactly the natural rights or concepts of justice or rights-not-claiming-anything-about-law that Zelensky has violated in not having a coalition with Russian collaborationist parties?

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 “ — Isaac

For Zelensky, the desirable consequence of not having a coalition with Russian collaborationist parties, is that the response to Russian invasion is going to be more resolute, military decisions are not going to be ratted on and therefore chances to regain control over occupied territories are greater.

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. — Isaac

“Up to the Ukrainians” means up to the governmental representatives of Ukraine that were democratically voted to act as such in peacetime and wartime? “Autocratic government without opposition” (where “opposition” = “Russian collaborationist parties") which in wartime is perfectly legitimate and perfectly compatible with democracy (Italian democratic governments are not supposed to make political coalitions with anti-state mafia representatives, you know). No we aren’t if the current Ukrainian government is fighting for national sovereignty and security against foreign invasions. One could claim that Ukrainians do not give a shit about Ukrainian self-determination. But Zelensky’s government has great support from Ukrainians, even despite the censorship that he rationally applied over press and opposition, even the losses they have suffered sofar. So what on earth are you talking about?

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. — Isaac

Political representatives do not delegate decisions to the people they represent, otherwise what the hell is their job supposed to be, people could literally decide everything by referendum. But it doesn’t work that way in normal times (there are no referendums on fiscal matters), go figure during wartime. I don’t know wars of national self-determination based on referenda, usually they are led by strong leaders with great popular support.

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

So my comments on legitimacy through popular support and how to measure it when democratic tools are not available was pertinent. And your constraining “legitimacy” to “democratic” legitimization is twice misleading: there are other forms of legitimacy (informal support) that can be measured, and Zelensky was democratically (formally) legitimized to be the chief leader of Ukraine in peacetime and wartime.

More than virtue, the defence of Ukraine sends a signal of strength. And it sends it to Putin, essentially. — Olivier5

More bold statements without any evidence or argumentation and complete ignorance of the implications.

Unfortunately, when conclusions are both unsound and invalid it takes a bit longer to explain so amazingly false.

For example, assuming the premise is true, that NATO has shown "strengths" by supporting Ukraine while knowing that support to Ukraine will not be enough to actually win against the Russians, then one must actually argue why it's moral to instrumentalise Ukrainian lives in that way simply to "send a signal". Are you really embracing the position that any amount of Ukrainian death and suffering is justified as long as it "sends a signal" from NATO to Putin?

However, the entire entire idea that military support support to Ukraine (but not "too much") is a signal of strength is extremely debatable.

What has the war demonstrated so far? Apart from placing significant limits on type and quantity of arms supplies, obviously NATO will not commit their own troops and planes into this kind of border dispute. Is that a signal of strength?

Likewise, of the arms and training and billions of dollars of economic support as well ... Russia has still been occupying a significant part of Ukraine for nearly a year. How is it "strong" to let them do that. Saying "get out Putin!" and following up that statement with kicking Putin out would be "strong" and "powerful", sure, but has that happened? Will it happen? Even if it does happen, how many Ukrainian dead are worthwhile to attain such an objective?

Then there's squaring this belief of needing to show "strength" to Putin with the belief the Russian forces are entirely incompetent and essentially their own worst enemy. What need to show strength to an incompetent?

So my comments on legitimacy through popular support and how to measure it when democratic tools are not available was pertinent. — neomac

Ah, so you'd agree that since we know there's majority Russian speaking minorities in the occupied territories, we can safely conclude they do indeed want to separate from Ukraine even if we reject the legitimacy of the democratic tools in play?

Certainly if Ukraine's right to self determination is just cause, so too is Crimea and Donbas and the other regions?

As long as there's "legitimacy through popular support" (or at least it's possible to just say so) then Russia is simply coming to the aid of people completely justified in their right of self determination and under attack by Ukraine since 2014.

Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO setting up shop on the other side of its 1,000-mile-plus border with Ukraine. — Isaac

A part from the fact that with Sweden and Finland joining NATO the NATO border to Russia would be twice as much (and Putin practically said it's not a big deal)


But there are some basics that you and other Pollyannas here do not seem to fully grasp when you so cheerfully cite Mearhsheimers&co who see NATO enlargement as a mistake and want to push Ukrainians to surrender as much as Putin can feel satisfied.

• Security concerns are legitimate reason to do war, invade countries, disrupt energy and food supply on word scale, threat to escalate to nuke (if they can) no matter what costs on people and corporations and other countries! This is true for Russia as for all countries: China, Iran and Nord Korea included! The US and the EU countries included! Ukraine included!
• Security concerns are national security concerns, so nationalism is in some form still there as a fully motivational force!
• American isolationists think that it’s not in the US national security interest to fight this war in Ukraine against Russia. And this could be a fucking serious problem for European national security concerns !

It’s these assumptions that one should keep in mind when citing these people. They do not calculate the endgame of this war in terms of saving Ukrainian lives nor in terms of selling less/more something (shale gas, weapons, hamburgers) to let some big corporations sniff more cocaine, fuck Filippino trans, in a golden villa, and making jokes about the billions of poor Yemeni kids that explode under American bombs AT ALL.

Ah, so you'd agree that since we know there's majority Russian speaking minorities in the occupied territories, we can safely conclude they do indeed want to separate from Ukraine — boethius

Of course. Or at least I find it plausible.

even if we reject the legitimacy of the democratic tools in play? — boethius

I'm not rejecting anything. I'm just saying that in wartime democratic institutions do not work as in peacetime. But that doesn't mean that during wartime political representatives are not legitimate representatives in a democratic sense!

Certainly if Ukraine's right to self determination is just cause, so too is Crimea and Donbas and the other regions? — boethius

Right to self-determination can be handled through international law. Otherwise in the messy way it is handled now. (I didn't use the expression "just cause" on purpose because it requires further elaboration).

As long as there's "legitimacy through popular support" (or at least it's possible to just say so) then Russia is simply coming to the aid of people — boethius

Sure so Putin would claim.

completely justified in their right of self determination — boethius

For me a discussion of rights makes sense wrt a legal system, in this case international law and related international recognition. Beyond that self-determination is matter of national interest against other national interest.

t seems as if people have long forgotten that similar wars where on one Super Power's enemy was eagerly supported by the other Super Power were more of the norm in the Cold War. — ssu

Communication between the nuclear superpowers has deteriorated a great deal. The diplomacy that existed a few decades ago no longer exists. If there were already several extremely close calls back then, it stands to reason that we're in an even more delicate situation now that communication is gone.

It will probably come as no surprise that Isaac is playing fast and loose with the truth in saying that Ukraine banned opposition parties. Only one of the main opposition parties was banned (Opposition Platform). It was an openly pro-Russian party that maintained close ties with Russian officials and Russian ruling party before the invasion. (One of its leaders, Viktor Medvedchuk, has longstanding personal ties to Vladimir Putin. After he was arrested on treason charges, Putin had him exchanged for over 200 Ukrainian prisoners, including all of Azov commanders, as well as foreign prisoners who were sentenced to death in Donbass. That provoked a lot of anger among Russian war hawks.)

It should also be noted that although the parties themselves were banned, their elected representatives were not ejected from legislatures, and members of local governments from those parties continued in their capacities. (Unlike, for example, members of the banned British Fascist party, who were interned until the end of the war.) The Opposition Platform simply renamed its faction in Ukraine's parliament.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head imo. It seems like western liberals displace nationalistic feelings into that of other countries in order to have a socially-acceptable way to express it. Nationalism about one's country is bad, but nationalism about another country is perfectly fine. The similarities between cheering for a favorite sports team and cheering for a client state in a proxy war is striking.

More than virtue, the defence of Ukraine sends a signal of strength. And it sends it to Putin, essentially.
— Olivier5

More bold statements without any evidence or argumentation and complete ignorance of the implications. — boethius

You should take the obvious truth a little more seriously than that.

War has little to do with virtue, usually, and much to do with strength. Nobody has ever done a war or supported a war for "virtue" or for "virtue signaling". That you would even consider it shows how detached from reality you are.

"Virtue signaling" is just your way to put the fact that Ukraine has just cause and Russia does not.

But this war and the western support to it does signal something: a newfound resolve to push back against Putin's plans even at a very high cost

then one must actually argue why it's moral to instrumentalise Ukrainian lives in that way simply to "send a signal". Are you really embracing the position that any amount of Ukrainian death and suffering is justified as long as it "sends a signal" from NATO to Putin? — boethius

Not at all, but it's indubitable that a signal of strength is being sent by NATO and Ukraine.

the entire entire idea that military support support to Ukraine (but not "too much") is a signal of strength is extremely debatable. — boethius

For one, all these weapons and munitions cost a lot of money, right? For two, distributing too many weapons to Ukraine raises the risk that some may find their way to the black market. For three, Russia can also seize NATO material, allowing them to study them up close to find weaknesses and hacks. Therefore, it stands to reason that NATO countries should provide whatever support is necessary for Ukraine to defeat Russia, but not more. This explains for instance why tanks haven't been provided: they cost too much, can't afford to lose them to the enemy, etc.

ven if it does happen, how many Ukrainian dead are worthwhile to attain such an objective? — boethius

It's for them Ukrainians to decide on that question. Nobody is forcing Ukraine to fight.

What a disgusting sentiment. :vomit:

↪neomac
It will probably come as no surprise that Isaac is playing fast and loose with the truth in saying that Ukraine banned opposition parties — SophistiCat

No surprise, of course. But his sophisms are worse than just failing to get facts right.

For Ukraine to defend itself from an Russian attack is different from NATO attacking Russia. — ssu

Well spotted. I've also noticed that making scrambled eggs is different from frying them.

Neither observations have the slightest relevance too the inanity of your suggestion that the risk of nuclear war "isn't all that bad" because we got away with it last time.

And what are exactly the natural rights or concepts of justice or rights-not-claiming-anything-about-law that Zelensky has violated in not having a coalition with Russian party collaborationists? — neomac

I've already said. democracy gains it's legitimacy from a well-informed, free electorate. we have a right to know what our government's are up to, a right to hold them account and a right to have institutions in place to do those tasks on our behalf.

For Zelensky, the desirable consequence of not having a coalition with Russian party collaborationists, is that the response to Russian invasion is going to be more resolute, military decisions are not going to be ratted on and therefore chances to regain control over occupied territories are greater. — neomac

Good for him. why would I judge the justification on the basis of his desirable outcomes? A bank robber might claim his actions were justified because he wanted the money. Does that make him justified?

“Up to the Ukrainians” means up to the governmental representatives of Ukraine that were democratically voted to act as such in peacetime and wartime? — neomac

It doesn't. It means up to the people who have citizenship of Ukraine. The meaning could not be simpler.

Zelensky’s government has great support from Ukrainians, even despite the censorship that he rationally applied over press and opposition, even the losses they have suffered sofar. — neomac

No it doesn't...

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2022/11/03/ukraine-risks-being-locked-into-endless-war-in-bid-for-perfect-peace/

Ordinary Ukrainians on the front lines are divided on a ceasefire and negotiations. My Ukrainian colleague Karina Korostelina and I surveyed the attitudes of both residents and displaced persons in three Ukrainian cities close to the southeast battlefields this summer. Almost half agreed it was imperative to seek a ceasefire to stop Russians killing Ukraine’s young men. Slightly more supported negotiations with Russia on a complete ceasefire, with a quarter totally against and a fifth declaring themselves neutral. Respondents were torn when considering whether saving lives or territorial unity were more important to them. Those most touched by the war, namely the internally displaced, were more likely to prioritise saving lives. Other research reveals that those farthest from the battlefields have the most hawkish attitudes

Political representatives do not delegate decisions to the people they represent, otherwise what the hell is their job supposed to be, people could literally decide everything by referendum. But it doesn’t work that way in normal times (there are no referendums on fiscal matters), go figure during wartime. I don’t know wars of national self-determination based on referenda, usually they are led by strong leaders with great popular support. — neomac

I didn't mention anything about needing referenda. I'm talking about a lack of fully free opposition. Referenda wouldn't even solve that problem. You need a properly informed electorate for that.

there are other forms of legitimacy that can be measured — neomac

Yes, but a survey of pop stars is not one of them.

there are some basics that you and other Pollyannas here do not seem to fully grasp when you so cheerfully cite Mearhsheimers&co — neomac

And your qualifications are...?

Isaac is playing fast and loose with the truth in saying that Ukraine banned opposition parties...one of the main opposition parties was banned — SophistiCat

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3434673-nsdc-bans-prorussian-parties-in-ukraine.htmlhtml

the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has decided that, given the full-scale war being waged by the Russian Federation and the ties that some political organizations have with that state, any activity of a number of political parties will be suspended pending martial law. Namely: Opposition Platform - For Life, Sharij’s Party, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Left Forces, Derzhava, "Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, the Socialists, and Volodymyr Saldo’s Bloc," said Zelensky.

Amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Political Parties in Ukraine”, banning “pro-Russian parties”, were passed by Parliament and signed into law in May 2022. The cases brought by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine against 16 opposition parties — https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/09/25/update-on-the-banning-of-opposition-political-parties-in-ukraine/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspends-11-political-parties-with-links-to-russia

If you're having trouble counting, we could go through the basics.

Why?

It's for them Ukrainians to decide on that question. Nobody is forcing Ukraine to fight. — Olivier5

1) There's no mechanism in place by which they can make an informed decision, nor tell anyone what it is.

2) They literally are being forced to fight. The country has mandatory conscription and adult males are banned from leaving.

1) There's no mechanism in place by which they can make an informed decision, nor tell anyone what it is. — Isaac

They are better informed than you and me though.

2) They literally are being forced to fight. The country has mandatory conscription and adult males are banned from leaving. — Isaac

These are the orders of other Ukrainians, not NATO officials. So nobody (non Ukrainian) is forcing Ukraine to fight.

democracy gains it's legitimacy from a well-informed, free electorate. we have a right to know what our government's are up to, a right to hold them account and a right to have institutions in place to do those tasks on our behalf. — Isaac

Sure, but again in wartime democracies do not work with electoral consultations of a well-informed, free electorate to take decisions of national security. Are you crazy?

Good for him. why would I judge the justification on the basis of his desirable outcomes? — Isaac

You wrote: 'justification', in this context is that for which some reason (or reasons) can be given that refer usually to either desirable consequences
Now the legitimately elected president of Ukraine has the reasons I explained referring to the desirable outcome that I pointed out. What else do you need?

It doesn't. It means up to the people who have citizenship of Ukraine. The meaning could not be simpler. — Isaac

It's not you who decides the meaning of the words. Political representatives are called representatives precisely because they are elected by the Ukrainians to take political decisions that best satisfy their preferences. So the Ukrainian government represents Ukrainians in international politics.

No it doesn't...

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2022/11/03/ukraine-risks-being-locked-into-endless-war-in-bid-for-perfect-peace/

Ordinary Ukrainians on the front lines are divided on a ceasefire and negotiations. My Ukrainian colleague Karina Korostelina and I surveyed the attitudes of both residents and displaced persons in three Ukrainian cities close to the southeast battlefields this summer. Almost half agreed it was imperative to seek a ceasefire to stop Russians killing Ukraine’s young men. Slightly more supported negotiations with Russia on a complete ceasefire, with a quarter totally against and a fifth declaring themselves neutral. Respondents were torn when considering whether saving lives or territorial unity were more important to them. Those most touched by the war, namely the internally displaced, were more likely to prioritise saving lives. Other research reveals that those farthest from the battlefields have the most hawkish attitudes — Isaac

Dude, your article starts with "Talking peace is not popular in Ukraine right now. "
But ok I noted down what the results of a survey on 3 cities on the front line is.
Yet it doesn't falsify the claim that Zelensky has still great support in Ukraine.

I didn't mention anything about needing referenda. I'm talking about a lack of fully free opposition. — Isaac

And I addressed that too. Banning parties collaborating with the enemies is perfectly compatible with any democracy at war.

there are other forms of legitimacy that can be measured — neomac
Yes, but a survey of pop stars is not one of them. — Isaac

Yes it is, for the reasons I explained. It's part of the informal support among other indicators I listed. Indeed, the president Zelensky was a popular actor before becoming the president, did you know that? Do you think it was just a coincidence? That his popularity didn't play any role in his elections?
In Italy the M5S is founded by a very popular comedian, Giuseppe Grillo, do you think that this is a mere coincidence?
Are you familiar with the concept of "influencer"? Propaganda works also through artists, pop stars, and other kinds of VIPs, do I really have to explain it to you?

there are some basics that you and other Pollyannas here do not seem to fully grasp when you so cheerfully cite Mearhsheimers&co — neomac

And your qualifications are...? — Isaac

Did you just stop reading where you stopped the quotation or are you just playing dumb as usual? I didn't question Mearsheimers&co qualifications, I questioned your and other Pollyannas' full grasp of Mearsheimers&co views wrt the subject "legitimate security concerns".

Why? — _db

Because implicit in Isaac's message is that the West should abandon Ukrainians because that would save Ukrainian lives.

I've had it with that idiotic nonsense and thought you knew better.

They are better informed than you and me though. — Olivier5

How so?

So nobody (non Ukrainian) is forcing Ukraine to fight. — Olivier5

And that helps the legitimacy how?

again in wartime democracies do not work with electoral consultations of a well-informed, free electorate to take decisions of national security. — neomac

Twelfth time now...

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

What else do you need? — neomac

Good reasons.

it doesn't falsify the claim that Zelensky has still great support in Ukraine. — neomac

I'm not trying to falsify it. I'm not claiming Zelensky doesn't have popular support. I'm claiming we don't know for sure in any specific strategy. You're the one claiming we do know. You're wrong.

Banning parties collaborating with the enemies is perfectly compatible with any democracy at war. — neomac

Thirteenth time the charm...

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

Propaganda works also through artists, pop stars, and other kinds of VIPs — neomac

So? Are you suggesting propaganda induced opinions are well-informed ones?

I questioned your and other Pollyannas' full grasp of Mearsheimers&co views wrt the subject "legitimate security concerns". — neomac

Yes, the question was - with what qualification? On what ground is your 'grasp' the 'full' one? Do you have any citations from experts to back up your interpretation.

Military support or complete abandonment are not the only possible options, though they are the only ones that are given to Ukraine by the US and some of its allies.

https://jacobin.com/2022/05/peace-talks-diplomacy-negotiations-ukraine-russia-war-biden-johnson

Notably, other countries have kept pressing for peace, or at least cease-fires. Why hasn't the US?

I've had it with that idiotic nonsense — frank

amid the moral outrage and depth of animosity toward Putin, the risks of pouring arms into Ukraine should be considered carefully and dispassionately.

Providing Ukraine even more arms may well produce the results its proponents anticipate. It could, on the other hand, impel Russian commanders to subject Ukrainians to even greater pain. — Rajan Menon, director of the grand strategy program at Defense Priorities and senior research fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University

So what qualifies you to claim professor Menon's opinion is "idiotic nonsense"?

And that helps the legitimacy how? — Isaac

Simple: it is legitimate for NATO to help Ukrainians fight this war but not to force them to do so.

They are better informed than you and me though.
— Olivier5

How so? — Isaac

By virtue of being on site, having relatives and friends in Ukraine and Russia to whom they can talk, speaking the languages and following local news, etc. And the government has access to intell. ..