Are the child abductions acceptable collateral damage, and so there's nothing further to be done here? — jorndoe

This is a good example of the limits of our knowledge. there have been no child abductions. UNICEF's director for emergency operations, Manuel Fontaine, said during a press conference that the organization does not have any evidence at present to back up Kiev's accusations. There has possibly been child abductions. The UN said it found the reports credible.

So what are you suggesting we unleash?

Flatten Moscow because it credibly might have abducted children, if and when we actually get any evidence?

Pre-emptive nuclear strike just in case?

So Uganda?

in Northern Uganda, where the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has abducted an estimated 10,000 children since mid-2002. The rate of abductions over the last two years has been the highest of the Northern Ugandan conflict’s 18-year history. — https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/01/29/abduction-children-africa

Ought we have bombed them too?

Nigeria? DRC?

in Nigeria, the UN estimates that at least 950 students have been abducted from their schools by armed men since December. Over the past six weeks alone, nearly 500 children were abducted in four separate incidents across the central and northwest parts of the country. Many of these children have not yet been returned. It is hard to fathom the pain and fear that their families and loved ones are suffering in their absence.

“In the DRC, in the first quarter of 2021 alone, more than 3,400 violations against children such as recruitment to armed groups, abduction and killing were verified, representing 64 per cent of the total number of violations verified for the entire year of 2020. — https://www.unicef.org.uk/press-releases/concerns-deepen-over-attacks-against-children-and-child-abductions-in-parts-of-west-and-central-africa/

NATO boots on the ground there too?

We're sure going to have our work cut out.

In Iraq

the abduction of children has become a serious and common social problem in Iraq. This summer, a UN report confirmed that 1,496 Iraqi children have been abducted during the past 36 months and few have been seen again. — https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2016/09/child-kidnapping-abduction-iraq.html

Hey, maybe we ought to invade!

, I updated the comment, but you were quick to type...a lot. Don't know if you want to update accordingly. :)

Again, propaganda. Collateral damage to what NATO actions? — boethius

What propaganda? It's not about NATO in particular.

seem to be implying that we're holding back some sanction we have available — Isaac

I'm not in particular.

What is this punishment you think we've been holding in reserve — Isaac

Punishment is your word. The parents/peers want their children back. Wouldn't you? If that's impossible, then so be it, I guess.

You folk are reading extras into my comments here.

seem to be implying that we're holding back some sanction we have available — Isaac


I'm not in particular. — jorndoe

You folk are reading extras into my comments here. — jorndoe

Then I'm afraid the point you're making remains opaque. Is having your children abducted horrifying? Yes. Did we really need to point that out?

Bomb them too? — Isaac

You're going into ramble mode.

Are the child abductions acceptable collateral damage, and so there's nothing further to be done here? (To show an extreme limit, I'm guessing no one would nuke Moscow due to this.) — jorndoe

Then I'm afraid the point you're making remains opaque. — Isaac

My point? I asked questions.

You folk are reading extras into my comments here. — jorndoe

Try again.

I prefer to think of it as rhetoric, but 'ramble mode' if you like. The point is not eradicated by the elimination of any particular methodology. It doesn't answer the question. If not nukes then what? and more importantly, why Russia, why now? Why not Uganda, Nigeria, DRC, Iraq... Because Russia is the bogeyman of the day, should our response be based on the latest social media efforts?

Up to 2,000 children might be involved in the Russian 'kidnapping'.

Across Yemen, 2.2 million children are acutely malnourished, including nearly more than half a million children facing severe acute malnutrition, a life-threatening condition. In addition, around 1.3 million pregnant or nursing mothers are acutely malnourished. — https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/yemen-acute-hunger-unprecedented-levels-funding-dries

2.2 million.

That's a thousand children for every Ukrainian child who (at this stage) might have been kidnapped.

Wars aren't free, front pages have limited space. So our capacity to act is not infinite. Which should be our priority? How many poor starving black kids do you get to one western-looking white baby in media attention these days, anyone know the going rate?

, FYI, this thread is about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

^{(Besides, the rest of the world matters too, and that does not mean Ukraine doesn't.)}

I take it then that you downplay that Ukrainian situation, "collateral damage accepted", nothing further to see here? Is that in/correct? To return to my comment, that would indeed be one response setting out a limit (or absence thereof perhaps).

I take it then that you downplay that Ukrainian situation, "collateral damage accepted", nothing further to see here? Is that in/correct? — jorndoe

It's not downplaying it to place it in context. The question of what we do in Ukraine can't be answered without answering the question of what we do that instead of. We only have one army, one front page, one pot of charitable giving, one pot of 'sanction tolerance', etc. So, yes this thread's about Ukraine, but the question is always "Is the situation in Ukraine, more important than the situations elsewhere that would otherwise be calls on our attention/resources?" That's still a question about the Ukrainian situation, still very much on topic.

As to your specific question about child kidnapping, as I've said, there's no confirmed collateral damage to accept at this stage. There is the 'credible' possibility of collateral damage, as yet unconfirmed. That matters because the consequences of what we do about it need to measured against cold hard facts, not media flame wars.

So to answer your comment directly. Yes. A limit I would definitely place on lethal force is that we at least have some evidence beyond word-of-mouth that the atrocity we're punishing actually took place. It's good that UNICEF are investigating, and I agree with the use of limited force to allow them to continue that investigation (should they find themselves blocked), but I think it's madness to go in guns blazing in response to reports from a situation where both sides are engaged in heavy propaganda.

Remember the 'credible' 45 minute WMDs?

, the situation with the children has come up among peace criteria and whatnot. Why wouldn't it? It's not idle ad hoc speculation here, in this thread. What you call context is indeed downplay/diversion. dismisses it as propaganda (and has done the same before). As an aside, according to Alina Rohach (Sep 12, 2022), the Russian machinery is being oiled with "legislation that will allow the adoption of Ukrainian children using a simplified procedure". In order to respond to my comment (limit'ry), you don't have to wait for evidence; presumably your response wouldn't change.

Maybe a peace criterion could be a guarantee to return all such children otherwise unharmed no later than a month after a cease-fire? (Just tossing something out there.) Easily contrasted by auto-enrollment in organized Russian governmental machinery...

This would be true if any daughter of literally anyone in Russia was murdered by a Ukrainian operation. — boethius

Are you suggesting that “literally anyone in Russia” whose daughter got “murdered by a Ukrainian operation” could become Kremlin ideologue? Coz that’s what the linked article was about.

And war policy hawks, even "philosophical" one's like Dugin, are rarely, if ever, some sort of threat. It would be like saying The Project of a New American Century and company, was a threat to Bush since he didn't invade Iran like many were insisting. — boethius

The analogy doesn't hold to me. First Putin's regime is authoritarian, more pyramidal, more relying on strong man figure and censorship of opposing views: so the more disgruntled voices by political and intellectual elites who once supported him unconditionally become public the greater is the pressure on the leader. Secondly, Dugin’s complaint is not important because of him, but because it might express a feeling deeply shared also among people within Putin’s closer entourage and since military defeat may increase a dictator’s odds of forcible ouster, perceived defeat may be as well insidious.

The oligarchs didn't overthrow Putin, the protesters in the streets didn't overthrow Putin, neither the rank and file or the generals, and Dugin is just now next on the list of people that have not overthrown Putin. — boethius

Western propaganda is not only for Western consumption. Putting all the blame on Putin, stressing his military humiliations and suggesting regime change can be instrumental to boost Putin’s paranoia at the expense of his entourage and offering a way out to potential high rank defectors as soon as things are going to look intolerably shitty to them. That’s part of the psychological warfare which is meant also to provoke decisional mistakes in Putin and his entourage. And if the mistakes were not enough for a coup from his entourage, they might still be enough to trigger a regime collapse.

For example, the "meme" of "everything is going to plan," which no Russian official has ever said — boethius

Yet,

“Putin says: everything is going to plan in Ukraine”
https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-putin-russia-idUSS8N2UP08I

“The work is proceeding in a calm and rhythmic way. The troops are advancing and reaching those endpoints that are assigned as a task at a certain stage of this combat work. Everything is going according to plan”
https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2022/06/30/2736617/russia-s-operation-in-ukraine-going-according-to-plan-putin

And in state run TV:
“We’ve been told that everything is going according to plan. Does anyone really believe that six months ago the plan was to be leaving [the city of] Balakliya, repelling a counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region and failing to take over Kharkiv?” usually pro-Putin political expert Viktor Olevich said on the state-run NTV channel, the Moscow Times reported.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/09/12/pro-kremlin-figures-voice-frustration-after-ukraine-routs-moscows-forces-a78769

BTW I use memes like this for mocking not for their truth value.

When the offensives started we were made all sorts of promises about Russian lines collapsing, morale so bad the entire Russian army would essentially just disband into the fog, taking Kherson by force and encircling the Russians there (not just Russia withdrawing), and pushing deep into Russian territory all the way back to the Russian border!!

Has that plan happened? — boethius

Did Western/Ukrainian officials state: "Everything is going according to plan"?

we were made all sorts of promises about Russian lines collapsing — boethius

Can you quote these promises?

How much should Putin + team be allowed to get away with scot-free? — jorndoe

Seeing the distance between what people in this discussion think is happening, it seems like any possible talks would have to start with some very basic steps toward living in a shared reality. The Russians would have to explicitly acknowledge that Ukraine is an actual state with the right to protect its sovereignty. This is going to be difficult to admit after selling the war as a fight with NATO itself. Why would Ukraine accept establishing anything less than that as a minimum requirement?

Without that first step, agreeing to investigations of deportations, war crimes, the targeting of civilian populations and the financial liability for repairing destroyed things would be meaningless (in the pre-Beckett sense).

Now that Russia has officially annexed 5 oblasts, any territory deal will either have to be done by fiat as an arbitrary drawing of boundaries or a process of referendums to challenge the nice results given by the Russian authorities. The Ukrainians have been adamant about not considering the former and the Russians are not likely to agree to a referendum 'rematch'. It would require a sharp change of rhetoric.

Another possibility, as pointed out by ssu, is a freezing of the conflict, where neither side concedes anything, but the front lines don't really change. The liberation of Kherson makes that seem less likely. There are certainly many commentators who say that such a stalemate is where things are going despite that development.

James Dubik opines:

End the Ukraine war well
^{— The Hill; Nov 13, 2022}

↑ some of the same as you,

Stop funding Russia’s nuclear weapons
^{— Henry Sokolski; The Hill; Nov 13, 2022}

:D Like a catch-22 with Rosatom sort of sitting comfortably in the middle. A good time to go green? (OK, with current tech that won't do, I think.) Switch to other import, gradually at least? Where will the produce end up if the imports are canceled? Either way, it seems capitalism and slowness to change have made the decisions for now.

It's not idle ad hoc speculation here, in this thread. — jorndoe

So you're asking a hypothetical? The answer would be the same.

What you call context is indeed downplay/diversion. — jorndoe

It's not made so simply by you saying it. You have to argue the case. In what way does comparing Ukraine's situation to the situation in other countries 'downplay' it? I've not lied or hidden any truths about either situation. I've not made that comparison for no reason (I stated the reason clearly), so I'm lost as to why it might be considered 'downplaying', other than it not toeing the current party line.

In order to respond to my comment (limit'ry), you don't have to wait for evidence; presumably your response wouldn't change. — jorndoe

I'm not saying I'd wait for evidence before responding to your question. I'm saying "wait for evidence" is the response to your question. That's what I think we ought to do (in this case). Investigations are underway, they ought to be allowed to complete their work.

If it turns out that thousands of children have been forcibly adopted, then UN diplomats ought to support local authorities in securing their return, just as they ought do in all those other countries I mentioned which are suffering from a similar problem.

Maybe a peace criterion could be a guarantee to return all such children otherwise unharmed no later than a month after a cease-fire? (Just tossing something out there.) — jorndoe

Under what threat? You (nor anyone else on this thread) have given absolutely no reasons why Russia would accept any terms at all, let alone the undoing of this 'repatriation' they've apparently just done. For whatever reason, Russia wants these children in Russia (assuming they're doing what they've been accused of) and your solution is to say "please don't"?

Seeing the distance between what people in this discussion think is happening, it seems like any possible talks would have to start with some very basic steps toward living in a shared reality. The Russians would have to explicitly acknowledge that Ukraine is an actual state with the right to protect its sovereignty. — Paine

Do you think that this should have happened in Chechnya? Do you think the Chechen separatists ought to have recognised that Russia was an actual state with a right to protect it's sovereignty? What about East Timor? Should they have acknowledged that Indonesia was an actual state with the right to defend its sovereignty? Kosovo? South Sudan? Ought these places too have respected the right of their previous states to protect their sovereignty?

You can't make peace with someone without acknowledging the existence of said someone. So when Russia signs a peace deal with Ukraine, it will have to recognise Ukraine as a fact.

My sense is that such peace deal will include a right of return for all Ukrainians presently in Russia, whether willingly in Russia or brought there against their will. Children included.

Russia is apparently more interested in snatching people than in stealing land. But in the end they will have to return both.

You can't make peace with someone without acknowledging the existence of said someone. So when Russia signs a peace deal with Ukraine, it will have to recognise Ukraine as a fact. — Olivier5

Go on. Explain your argument. A Russian diplomat is prevented from signing a document (and thereby constraining his government to act in accordance with that document) by what means? What exactly stays his hand?

Peace means an end to fighting. Russia could end fighting tomorrow even if the entire country had collective amnesia and forgot Ukraine even existed. Acknowledgement of the existence of spurious entities such as 'states' is not a requirement for peace.

To have peace, the Russian government would have to commit to a series of actions (such as withdrawing troops behind a line clearly marked on a map attached to the treaty).

All they need is GPS.

If anything, the act of signing a peace treaty usually requires the exact opposite belief. One cannot consider territorial changes as part of a peace deal if one concurrently believes that borders are fixed in perpetuity by the existence of 'states' who occupy those spaces.

In order to question whether the Ukrainian government ought control Crimea, it is necessary not to hold the view that there exists a geographically bounded entity called 'Ukraine', otherwise the question is meaningless. Likewise for 'Russia'.

If one holds the view that there exists a geographically bounded entity called 'Ukraine', then the question of where it's borders ought to be is already answered - wherever the edges of this entity called Ukraine are.

Negotiations over borders only make sense in the context of governments who recognise that the question of who controls what parcels of land is one entirely settled by international agreements such as the one under consideration.

Stop funding Russia’s nuclear weapons
— Henry Sokolski; The Hill; Nov 13, 2022

:D Like a catch-22 with Rosatom sort of sitting comfortably in the middle. A good time to go green? (OK, with current tech that won't do, I think.) Switch to other import, gradually at least? Where will the produce end up if the imports are canceled? Either way, it seems capitalism and slowness to change have made the decisions for now. — jorndoe

Just interested in how you square this within your narrative. As I see it, Biden's fighting this war because the arms lobby lobbied him to. He's funding Russian nuclear weapons because the nuclear lobby lobbied him to.

If you (presumably) think Biden is fighting this war, not because the arms lobby lobbied him to, but because it's 'right', then why is he also funding Russia's nuclear weapons? Is that 'right' too?

If Biden sometimes does things because they're 'right' (but powerful lobbies just coincidentally happen to benefit), and yet sometimes does things solely because those powerful lobbies benefit (no 'right' involved), then on what grounds do you think he chooses? And most importantly of all, why do you believe that (as opposed to the much simpler explanation that his actions are guided in both cases by powerful lobbying interests)?

Acknowledgement of the existence of spurious entities such as 'states' is not a requirement for peace. — Isaac

It is a requirement IFF you want to make peace with said entity. Logically speaking, you cannot make peace with a non existing entity, can you?

It is a requirement IFF you want to make peace with said entity. Logically speaking, you cannot make peace with a non existing entity, can you? — Olivier5

You don't have to 'make peace' with a state. Stop shooting people, stop bombing people. Just don't shoot and bomb. Job done. Peace. No 'states' required.

How do you explain United Nations Security Council Resolution 777? With whom did they agree that the state of Yugoslavia no longer existed?

What is illogical, for you about the statement "I believe that Russia ought to be in control of all the land up to the Dnieper, but I agree not to shoot or bomb anyone in that area nonetheless". How is that not a peace agreement?

It's not made so simply by you saying it. — Isaac

You (nor anyone else on this thread) have given absolutely no reasons why Russia would accept any terms at all, let alone the undoing of this 'repatriation' they've apparently just done. — Isaac

the situation with the children has come up among peace criteria and whatnot — jorndoe

↑ A blocker, even if reasonable or to be expected? A recipe for no peace; probably more of those.

I'm saying "wait for evidence" is the response to your question. — Isaac

And yet

The answer would be the same. — Isaac

Anyway, am I then to understand that the situation with the children, by your take, is irrelevant, does not figure in any limitation where

The limits are between what to tolerate and not to tolerate, what they may get away with and not get away with — jorndoe

?

That would be a response to my comment.

Acknowledgement of the existence of spurious entities such as 'states' is not a requirement for peace — Isaac

You can deny them all you like (maybe even come up with a better world without them of some sort), yet that's our present world. Simply dismissing them isn't helpful here. (Besides, you're starting to read like @NOS4A2. :wink:)

am I then to understand that the situation with the children, by your take, is irrelevant, does not figure in any limitation where

The limits are between what to tolerate and not to tolerate, what they may get away with and not get away with — jorndoe

I can't answer that question because you've not answered my request for clarity on it. 'Tolerate' how?

Are you asking me if I tolerate child kidnapping morally? If so, what an absurd question, I simply refuse to dignify it with an answer.

Are you asking me if we ought to do something about the accusations of child kidnapping? - If so, I've already given that answer - yes investigate it as UNICEF are already doing.

Are you asking me if (assuming the accusations are true) we ought do something to Russia (militarily) we're not currently already doing? - If so then I've already given you that answer too. No. We're currently doing all that it's possible to do (and much more) without risking making the humanitarian situation worse.

I can't find an interpretation of your question I haven't already answered.

You can deny them all you like (maybe even come up with a better world without them of some sort), yet that's our present world. — jorndoe

If peace negotiations have to agree to the legitimacy of the current political map in order to take place, then how are border changes ever legitimised?

Russia aren't denying Ukraine exists in the sense that they'd say "what country, I can't see any country". They're saying that it didn't ought to have the borders it currently does (some are saying that it didn't ought to exist at all - just like Yugoslavia). No one is saying that currently there's no such thing as the Ukrainian government and therefore nobody to negotiate with. They're saying that the current powers of that government ought to change.

statement "I believe that Russia ought to be in control of all the land up to the Dnieper, but I agree not to shoot or bomb anyone in that area nonetheless". How is that not a peace agreement? — Isaac

You realise that the concept of 'agreement' implies two (2) entities agreeing on something, right?

You realise that the concept of 'agreement' implies two (2) entities agreeing on something, right? — Olivier5

Yes. The supplicant and the enforcing power. Neither need be a state.

Again, United Nations Security Council Resolution 777 agreed that Yugoslavia no longer existed. With whom did they agree?

You realise that the concept of 'agreement' implies two (2) entities agreeing on something, right?
— Olivier5

Yes. The supplicant and the enforcing power. Neither need be a state. — Isaac

Not sure you are referring to here. What "enforcing power" do you have in mind, and what "supplicant"? The latter term is odd in the context of a negotiation between equals.

What "inforcing power" do you have in mind, and what "supplicant"? The latter term is odd in the context of a negotiation between equals. — Olivier5

The supplicant changes depending on the term. Article 1 might make Russia the supplicant (we promise we'll remove our troops behind this line), in article 2, Ukraine might be the supplicant (we promise we'll not launch any attacks over that line).

All that matters is that each party has to power to carry out that which they promise, and (usually) that there's some enforcing power to mitigate any lack of trust.

Neither need agree that the other ought to have those powers, only that they do.

But the further point I was making is that article 2's supplicant (in my example) need not even be Ukraine. Any party with power to commit acts Russia may prefer not committed would do. NATO, the UN, the US...France...

The supplicant changes depending on the term. — Isaac

Ok so your "supplicantS", plural, would be Russia and Ukraine. Who would your "enforcing power" be?