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

And your theory is?

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. — Isaac

My knowledge claim amounts to questioning your claim that we do not have “proper measure” to assess legitimacy through popular support. As I said there are formal and informal ways to express popular support for a government. Informal support exists in democracy and outside of it, and it can be measured through various indicators. In political theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#Forms_of_legitimate_government) there is no analytic or explanatory reason to restrain “legitimacy” and its measuring to what one can formally get from normally functioning democratic institutions. If you do it, it’s for propagandistic reasons, not to well-inform.

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 — Isaac

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 — Isaac

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. — Isaac

Since you keep playing dumb, here is what you get wrong on the consequences. The consequence is not that Ukrainians ended up having an “autocratic government”, the form of government didn’t change: in wartime democratic regimes do not function as in peacetime, that’s all. The consequence is not that Zelensky’s strategic decisions are illegitimate, but that they are legitimately taken by a democratically elected president to act as a representative of Ukrainian people in peacetime and wartime accordingly. The consequence is not that Ukrainian people didn’t decide as in peacetime, but that they (as people from any other democracy on the planet) do not get to decide about national security in wartime as much as they do not get to decide about fiscal policies in peacetime. Besides the consequence which you see so problematic is not even that Ukrainian people are not deciding, but that the government didn’t have a coalition to Russian collaborationist parties, but since this too is perfectly compatible with democracy, there is no reason to see this consequence as problematic from a democratic point of view.
Better now?

Propaganda works also through artists, pop stars, and other kinds of VIPs — neomac
So? Are you suggesting propaganda induced opinions are well-informed ones? — Isaac

The objective of propaganda is not to ensure that citizens are well-informed (according to what standard? How well-informed vs persuaded by propaganda are democratic citizens in peacetime really?), but that doesn’t necessarily imply misinformation, nor that propaganda is an illegitimate or ineffective way to earn political support, just because it doesn’t inform well enough. Unless you have in mind one single form of legitimacy for ideological reasons.

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. — Isaac

With the same qualification you pick Mearshaimer&co’s claims to support your views.
“On what grounds”?! “Citations from experts” (as if I didn’t do it already)?! “Interpretation”?! Have you ever fucking read Mearsheimer really?! Do you know his theory called “offensive realism”?! Did you read anything about geopolitical theories and in particular realist theory at all?! It’s like asking me grounds, citations, interpretation about aritmetics. Not to mention that you yourself couldn't cite any Mearsheimer's or Putin appeasement claims from geopolitical realists assessing this war in terms of Ukrainian casualties (even less in comparison to Yemeni casualties), or greedy military industries/banks&co wanting to suck blood from the rest of the world.
No, dude, I am not here to recover your ignorance on such basics. On the contrary, I’m satisfied at denouncing it and mocking it as it deserves.

The article I linked already has some discussion about what this is, but basically it appears to be that the US wants to prolong this war to "weaken Russia". What weakening Russia means is less important imo than the consequences of doing so, e.g. thousands of dead Ukrainians and Russians.

What weakening Russia means is less important imo than the consequences of doing so, e.g. thousands of dead Ukrainians and Russians. — _db

As if the US is doing this single handedly. Utter bullshit.

The US doesn't need to do this single handedly. Lots of other countries, particularly those in NATO, are aligning with its goals. Just like Russia is not single handedly taking on Ukraine; it has support from other countries (Belarus, Iran, India...).

The White House has stated that its position on this conflict is that by supplying Ukraine with a seemingly-inexhaustable supply of military aide, it will bring about peace in Ukraine. War is peace.

The White House has stated that its position on this conflict is that by supplying Ukraine with a seemingly-inexhaustable supply of military aide, it will bring about peace in Ukraine. War is peace. — _db

On the one hand, you recognize that abandoning Ukraine is not the best way to help Ukrainians. On the other, you condemn the White House for supplying aid to Ukraine.

I'm not going to ask you to clarify this because I suspect that you'll just continue waltzing sideways instead of discussing the issue.

On the other, you condemn the White House for supplying aid to Ukraine. — frank

Military aid. It has refused to support proposals for diplomatic negotiations that could lead to peace, even when these proposals have come from Ukrainians themselves.

The US appears to have an agenda for Ukraine, and doesn't care if the Ukrainians agree or not.

I'm not going to ask you to clarify this because I suspect that you'll just continue waltzing sideways instead of discussing the issue. — frank

Okay, so discussion is over then, I guess.

Simple: it is legitimate for NATO to help Ukrainians fight this war — Olivier5

On what grounds?

By virtue of being on site... — Olivier5

Ukraine is nearly 800 miles wide. I know it's quite flat, but either Ukrainians have very good eyesight, or them being "on site" makes no difference at all. Virtually everyone not directly on the front line is getting their information from sources. Just like the rest of the world.

having relatives and friends in Ukraine and Russia to whom they can talk — Olivier5

And how do these friends and relatives obtain an over view of the strategic situation?

speaking the languages — Olivier5

Yeah, right, because apparently no one in the foreign press speaks Russian or Ukrainian. You've heard of Google translate?

following local news — Olivier5

The local news that's been banned?


Your narrative falls apart at the slightest analysis. Ukrainians are not an homogeneous mass, we don't even know if they all support Zelensky's current strategy, and even if we did all the measures usually in place to ensure well-informed mandates are missing. There's no reason at all to assume 'Ukrainians' are calling the shots here and even if they were, there's no moral incentive to act on their expressed preference.

My knowledge claim amounts to questioning your claim that we do not have “proper measure” to assess legitimacy through popular support. — neomac

I know. It's false. If we had proper measure (the ones you cited as showing support) I wouldn't so easily have been able to find a poll to the contrary. These are not proper measures of support. They are heavily biased, heavily flawed methods of obtaining a very general impression.

In addition, the lack of opposition parties and opposition press means that any support thus measured is unlikely to be well-informed and so even less useful as an indicator of genuine support.

Better now? — neomac

No. On account of being a bunch of un-evidenced, or occasionally blatantly false, assertions.

that doesn’t necessarily imply misinformation, nor that propaganda is an illegitimate or ineffective way to earn political support, just because it doesn’t inform well enough. — neomac

Propaganda is OK. Autocracy is OK. Banning free press is OK. Conscription is OK. Denying human rights is OK.

Remind us again why you think Russia must be stopped.

With the same qualification you pick Mearsheimer&co’s claims to support your views. — neomac

I have no qualification to pick Mearsheimer. I don't need a qualification to pick a view, nor to interpret it. It's what we do when we take a position on affairs we're not personally expert in.

You, however, do need some qualification if you want to claim a view or interpretation is wrong, more than merely disagreeing.

I never said the Ukrainians were a mass, nor that Google translate did not exist. If you think that from you basement you know better what's happening in Ukraine than the people living in Ukraine, wank away.

I never said the Ukrainians were a mass, nor that Google translate did not exist. — Olivier5

Then you should be able to answer a very simple question. By what mechanism does a citizen of Lvov gain information about the strategic situation on the front line 600 miles away and the diplomatic situation in the Parliaments of Ukraine and Russia which are unavailable to a citizen of the UK or the US?

It's a really simple question. It just requires you to identify the data gathering and communication method Ukrainians use that other nationalities do not have access to.

It's a really simple question. It just requires you to identify the data gathering and communication method Ukrainians use that other nationalities do not have access to. — Isaac

It's an irrelevant question. It has no import on the issue at hand, which was:

how many Ukrainian dead are worthwhile to attain such an objective? — boethius

I answered that the Ukrainians would be best placed to answer that. You implied they were poorly informed but that is simply not true. Nobody has perfect information of course but relatively, the Ukrainians are in a better position in terms of access to information on the war in Ukraine than foreigners, by virtue of being closer to it.

You may want to argue otherwise but that amounts to the ivory tower syndrome: the belief that from your distant armchair you can tell what's happening on the ground better than the people who are actually on the ground. I find it ridiculous.

Beside, their lives are on the line, not ours. That too places them in a more legitimate position to decide "how many Ukrainian dead are worthwhile to attain [their] objective".

Deny it all you like, Ukrainians exist and they have collective agency.

relatively, the Ukrainians are in a better position in terms of access to information on the war in Ukraine than foreigners, by virtue of being closer to it. — Olivier5

By what mechanism? If you're going to support your ridiculous claim you need a mechanism, you've failed to provide one.

By what mechanism do those within Ukraine get an overview of the strategic situation on the front line and diplomatic channels which is denied non-Ukrainians? Without such a mechanism your claim is just hot air.

Beside, their lives are on the line, not ours — Olivier5

Bullshit. Utter callous, nationalist bullshit.

Millions are facing starvation because of this war, and thousands of rich Ukrainians will remain completely untouched by it, including many of those actually making decisions. Wars don't affect people on the basis of what fucking passport they carry. They affect, unsurprisingly, the poorest, the working class. And they affect whomever they touch, passport or no.

Millions are facing starvation because of this war, and thousands of rich Ukrainians will remain completely untouched by it, including many of those actually making decisions. Wars don't affect people on the basis of what fucking passport they carry. They affect, unsurprisingly, the poorest, the working class. And they affect whomever they touch, passport or no. — Isaac

This is a very general statement. You want to make it more specific, otherwise it's not empirically or logically testable. What's the actual proposition here? Like, that poor people worldwide are going to suffer from high food and energy prices? So Ukrainians should lay down arms and submit to Putin so as to help Africans?

By what mechanism? — Isaac

Pushing the idea at an extreme so that you can fathom it: if you were visiting planet Kepler-186f, landing on it and exploring it, don't you think you'd have a better feel for it than from your average living room in Wigan or Trenton?

if you were visiting planet Kepler-186f, landing on it and exploring it, don't you think you'd have a better feel for it than from your average living room in Wigan or Trenton? — Olivier5

Yes. But your average Ukrainian is not visiting the front line, nor are they visiting the negotiation rooms in Parliament, so the analogy is irrelevant.

There are journalists, intelligence agents and amateur social media posters who all have a better grasp of the situation in those two areas than the average Ukrainian. They publish their information online for anyone to read.

Ukrainians learn about the situation on the front line and negotiation rooms from media. Same way we do. They don't all fucking go there in person, there's not a queue where all 40 million of them slowly file past to get a first-hand view.

Here's an example...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63528183?at_medium=RSS&

It tells me about Zelensky's latest announcement. A journalist found out for me. 15 hours ago.

How do think the average Ukrainian found out? Did Zelensky go round their house? Did he shout it from the rooftop?

Here's a feed giving me information about the war...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/nov/06/russia-ukraine-war-live-besieged-bakhmut-harder-and-harder-to-survive-in-says-official

It tells me how hard the citizens of Bakhmut are finding it to survive.

How do think the average Ukrainian found out? I found out 4 hours ago via a Reuters reporter who actually spoke to people there. What would a citizen of Lvov have to get any different or more accurate report?

Propaganda is OK. Autocracy is OK. Banning free press is OK. Conscription is OK. Denying human rights is OK. — Isaac

Are you talking to me? I never made such claims.

I wouldn't so easily have been able to find a poll to the contrary. — Isaac

But you didn't. The poll doesn't survey the popularity of Zelensky among Ukrainians: Ordinary Ukrainians on the front lines are divided on a ceasefire and negotiations.
Besides also in peacetime, in democracy, you have people voting against what turns out to be the winning party or refusing to go to vote, that has no bearing on the fact that that party has democratically won.

In addition, the lack of opposition parties and opposition press means that any support thus measured is unlikely to be well-informed and so even less useful as an indicator of genuine support. — Isaac

Where opposition = "Russian collaborationist". Zero problem with that in democracy. Besides the "Russian collaborationist" can just run propaganda and misinformation as Russians do on national TV, so there is no guarantee that having such opposition people would be more well-informed.

You, however, do need some qualification if you want to claim a view or interpretation is wrong, more than merely disagreeing. — Isaac

It's enough to have read Mearsheimer's to realise how clumsy it's your attempt to making a point in favor of your views by citing him. You are incapable of understanding my own claims (I suspect you do not even understand your own claims), so it's no surprise that you do not understand what "legitimate security concerns" means in Mearsheimer's "offensive realism" theory. Or you do but you are playing dumb. In any case I'm not handholding you through fairly simple concepts, you need a minimum level of comprehension.

The poll doesn't survey the popularity of Zelensky among Ukrainians — neomac

So?

Zero problem with that in democracy. — neomac

I didn't ask if you had a problem with it. Your lack of concern for the proper functions of a free democracy is noted. I'm explaining the consequences.

It's enough to have read Mearsheimer's to realise how clumsy it's your attempt to making a point in favor of your views by citing him. — neomac

In your case, it clearly isn't.

i's no surprise that you do not understand what "legitimate security concerns" means in Mearsheimer's "offensive realism" theory. — neomac

You've yet to demonstrate that. Disagreeing with you (a layman) does not constitute "not understanding". Disagreeing with a consensus of experts constitutes "not understanding". Disagreeing with you is practically a badge of qualification in the field.

Yes. But your average Ukrainian is not visiting the front line, nor are they visiting the negotiation rooms in Parliament, so the analogy is irrelevant. — Isaac

Quite a few Ukrainians of both sex are "visiting" the frontline.

There are journalists, intelligence agents and amateur social media posters who all have a better grasp of the situation in those two areas than the average Ukrainian. They publish their information online for anyone to read. — Isaac

But all these sources like ISW are available to Ukrainians too, on top of their capacity for direct observation and interview.

It tells me how hard the citizens of Bakhmut are finding it to survive. — Isaac

Still, the citizens of Bakhmut know better about it.

Okay, so discussion is over then, I guess. — _db

I really don't think there's a point. And randomly, this is why I think progressives are breaking up the Democratic party. They're mirroring the extreme positions of Trump supporters. The will of the people disintegrates.

One of the few civilians left in Kherson describes his daily struggle to survive under Russian occupation and keep the dream of liberation alive.

By a resident of Kherson, as told to Kseniia Kelieberda and Miranda Bryant for The Guardian
Sun 6 Nov 2022 01.00 EST

More than eight months after Kherson’s capture by Russian soldiers, the city is heavy and gloomy. Everything is frozen, hidden. After 3pm, there are no people on the streets. In the morning they go out to buy groceries and then they sit at home.

Kherson is being robbed by the Russians. Everything is taken out: monuments to Suvorov, Ushakov, Potemkin and Margelov were removed from their pedestals; barges, fire engines, ambulances and office chairs. They break into apartments. Even the windows of the city hall have been removed. A total organised plunder of the city is under way. Cars carry loot to the river and from there they are transported by boats to the left bank.

A car with a loudspeaker drives around the city urging residents to leave and text messages are sent during the night. But, like me, many of my friends stayed. We buy food and store water. We do not believe in forced evacuation. People are said to be taken to remote regions of Russia – but these are rumours.

There is practically no internet in Kherson. Communication has disappeared and even Russian TV channels have stopped broadcasting. That’s why there are so many rumours. We hear Ukraine’s artillery duel with Russia and we wait for release.

Russian soldiers can stop you on the street and detain you. They can break into your apartment and take anything.

I’m used to living like this. I’m feeling philosophical.

In some ways, the living conditions are normal. There is water and electricity, heating works, rubbish is taken out. There is food, but food prices are rising daily. Some shops and hospitals are closed. Although medical equipment has been removed, I read on Facebook that the doctors of the city’s first maternity hospital are delivering babies. Somewhere they found an old gynaecological chair, tools and medicines, and they work. In war, too, children are born. Three pharmacies remained in Kherson. The rest were evacuated. I don’t need medication. I do not complain about my health.

For the past few months, I have been preparing food for the winter. Occasionally, I meet colleagues at work, acquaintances. If there is internet, I advise employees. Sometimes I go to the dacha. I’m reading – mostly fiction and memoirs – and improving my culinary skills. Last Thursday, I met a colleague and went to the grocery store. While I cooked, I talked with relatives. In the evening, I read for two or three hours. Last week, I made 11 litres of grape juice with grapes I picked at the dacha. It took over six hours. In the occupied city, the days go by slowly and monotonously. You need to find something to do.

I don’t feel safe. Russian soldiers can stop you on the street and detain you. They can break into your apartment, search it and take away anything. My apartment has already been searched and we were detained at the dacha, which is near the Antonovsky railway bridge. They thought that we were gunlayers. They beat me up and threw me in jail. They took away my travel equipment – backpacks, tent, money, a phone and a laptop – but nothing incriminating was found and they released me a day later under house arrest. Now the city is in chaos. I will go to the dacha again, to help my friend move to the right bank. Everyone who lives in the dachas have been told to leave by the end of the week.

Those who wanted to leave Kherson and could, left. But we did not have humanitarian corridors and organised evacuation to Ukrainian territory. To leave was either very expensive or you needed your own car. Those who couldn’t afford to leave stayed in Kherson.

All my pro-Ukrainian acquaintances ignored Russia’s “evacuation”, which was mainly used by collaborators and their families, and those who were frightened by their false claims that Ukraine would blow up Kakhovka hydroelectric power station and attack Kherson. This is a journey into the unknown.

I believe that “evacuation” is a voluntary deportation of the population. Blackmail and intimidation of people are used. People were transported by boats across the Dnieper, and then they were transported by buses. We don’t know where these people are. There are various rumours.

I’m not hiding. I live in my apartment. I’m not alone. My cat, Hunter, lives with me. There is a family Telegram chat where every morning there is a roll call – they write to me from Kyiv, Chernivtsi, Bucharest. If there is a connection, I talk to them.

We know what’s going on with everyone.

There are few civilians left in Kherson now. I think 25% to 30%. I live in a multistorey building with 260 apartments. In the evening, no more than 20 windows are lit. Before the war, about 350,000 people lived in Kherson.

Soon, I think the right-bank part of the country will be liberated and that Ukraine will win. I am preparing to fight. I have built up food and water stocks, prepared the gas burner and decided on a reserve place to live. I stocked up on Hunter’s food as well. It is very hard to wait but I believe in liberation. I think it will happen this month.

Life has changed dramatically since Russia’s invasion. For people in occupied Kherson, the main thing now is to survive. I think about what will happen after the war.

When the occupation is over, I dream of seeing all my relatives and friends and returning to a peaceful life. I want to work, relax, travel. Faith in the imminent liberation of the city is keeping me going.

We want to create a family agricultural company and I will definitely go to the Camino de Santiago with my wife. Maybe someone else will join us, too. We had planned to do it back in 2020. But the pandemic happened, then the war. In the 21st century, only bloodthirsty savages are capable of this. They have no place in the civilised world.

So? — Isaac

So popular support can be measured through indicators others than the ones provided by formal democratic institutions. Indeed the poll you provided is again an indicator to take into account, that however doesn't invalidate the claim that Zelensky has great support from Ukrainians.

I didn't ask if you had a problem with it. — Isaac

I didn't talk about me I talked about democratic institutions as such. And I gave you historical examples to prove the point.
No sensible person would consider Italy a failed democracy because it doesn't admit a mafia party or a fascist party or a North Korean party within its party system. On the contrary, we may consider Italy democratic precisely because it doesn't include such parties. And if you do not understand this, you are a danger to democracy.

I'm explaining the consequences. — Isaac

You are explaining nothing. You are just iterating on your piece of propaganda not meant to well-inform anybody.

You've yet to demonstrate that — Isaac

Why on earth would I?! Your intellectual clumsiness is just so fun to watch, dude, why would I give you another chance to get things straight? You have no fucking clue even what you are asking when you say "You've yet to demonstrate that". Priceless.

Quite a few Ukrainians of both sex are "visiting" the frontline. — Olivier5

So? There's 40 million Ukrainians. And the desperate, terrifying and bloody circumstances of the soldiers on the front line are hardly good conditions from which to get a good strategic overview. That's why armies have intelligence units and a command structure.

But all these sources like ISW are available to Ukrainians too — Olivier5

I didn't say they weren't. You're trying (and failing) to make the case that they're better informed. I'm not making the case that they're less well informed.

on top of their capacity for direct observation and interview. — Olivier5

Which is miniscule compared to the size of the population. Journalists have access to direct observation and interview too.

the citizens of Bakhmut know better about it. — Olivier5

They do. It doesn't give them any better an overview of the whole strategic situation.

the poll you provided is again an indicator to take into account, that however doesn't invalidate the claim that Zelensky has great support from Ukrainians. — neomac

We've been through this. It does literally indicate that. Zelensky is committed to a policy which this poll indicates does not have great popular support.

Zelensky is committed to a policy which this poll indicates does not have great popular support. — Isaac

Only within the sample of Ukrainians that the survey was specified to be representative of: namely "residents and displaced persons in three Ukrainian cities close to the southeast battlefields this summer" (so in an area were pro-Russians are more likely to be found)

the desperate, terrifying and bloody circumstances of the soldiers on the front line are hardly good conditions from which to get a good strategic overview. That's why armies have intelligence units and a command structure. — Isaac

Indeed. But then, aren't these Ukrainian intelligence units and command structure better informed than you and me?

You're trying (and failing) to make the case that they're better informed. I'm not making the case that they're less well informed. — Isaac

I am not trying to make a case here, it just seems obvious to me, that's all.

on top of their capacity for direct observation and interview.
— Olivier5

Which is miniscule compared to the size of the population. Journalists have access to direct observation and interview too. — Isaac

A capacity for direct, primary observation is generally held in higher regard epistemologically than the capacity to read secondary data in the newspaper.

It doesn't give them any better an overview of the whole strategic situation. — Isaac

What would you call "the whole strategic situation" exactly? Where does it start and end? And who has got a good view of it? God?

↪Olivier5

As Benkei said...

I don't trust the news in normal times and actively distrust it in war times.
— Benkei

...or did you go to Ukraine yourself, talk to the soldiers there, gather that intelligence directly... You must get up very early in the morning to get all that done. — Isaac

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. — _db

I'm not so sure of that, actually. US officials have been in contact with their counterparts.

(BBC 21st October 2022) US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu spoke on Friday, the two countries confirmed.

Both sides said the situation in Ukraine was discussed.

It is the first time they have spoken since a call on 13 May.

After Friday's call, Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told the BBC that the US was "eager to keep lines of communication open".

"It has been since May since the two gentlemen spoke, so Secretary Austin took today as an opportunity to connect with Minister Shoigu," he said.

Russia's defence ministry said that "current questions of international security were discussed, including the situation in Ukraine".

We forget just how little interaction there actually was during the Cold War. There weren't many times, for example, that the US and Soviet leaders met.

For example, Carter and Brezhnev:

(May 16th, 1979 WP) Almost 2 1/2 years after taking office, President Carter finally met Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev today, and both immediately agreed that is was long overdue.

In reporting the exchange on the eve of their first formal summit session Saturday, U.S. officials said both Carter and Brezhnev indicated that their next meeting should take place much sooner.

Gorbachev was the first Soviet leader that Reagan met in his second term in 1985. He didn't meet Andropov or Chernenko. Then there had been eight years that the leaders of the two Superpowers had met.