I've also argued that there's no such thing as the will of the Ukrainians, or the motive of the Ukrainians. I've argued that no such thing exists because Ukraine (like all other countries) is an arbitrary line drawn by powerful people based on the amount of resources they had the power to control at the time. — Isaac

In other words: "the willingness to fight a common enemy is merely an illusion." Fighting people who kill your friends and neighbors may look and feel like a shared purpose but in reality, it is merely the struggle by elites to control people and territory.

It is an interesting theory of social organization. But it does not include a self-evident mechanism for how the coercion is brought to bear. Is there some kind of fear of anarchy as depicted by Hobbes? Repression of instincts ala Freud? Or more like the class struggle discussed by Marx? It certainly rules out a view of 'natural' society put forward by Locke.

The topic was the motives and objectives of 'Ukraine'. Since 'Ukraine' is an arbitrary line drawn on a map, it doesn't have any unified motive, nor objective and if one were to take an aggregate (vote, poll, whatever) the outcome would be different depending on where you put the line without any hint of a natural break.

As such appeal to such a notion morally is absurd. — Isaac

The comments you cite say that there is no such thing as a Ukrainian identity, history, language and culture. I've also argued that there's no such thing as the will of the Ukrainians, or the motive of the Ukrainians. I've argued that no such thing exists because Ukraine (like all other countries) is an arbitrary line drawn by powerful people based on the amount of resources they had the power to control at the time. It does not in any way 'capture' some natural grouping of people all of whom think alike. It would be no more real then me taking a quick glance at the posts on religion here and announcing that "the belief of TPF is that there is a God".

None of this prevents groups of people from ephemerally having common goals. what it does is remove any moral weight behind that commonality. — Isaac

Not only the idea that “national identities” are not natural groupings is pointless because nobody is arguing otherwise, but it is also fallacious to suggest, as your argument does, that natural groupings would justify moral claims because they are not arbitrary. Indeed, it’s a naturalistic fallacy to argue that from natural groupings (like “we are all human beings”) we can imply moral claims (therefore “it’s immoral committing to arbitrary groupings like national identities”). On the other side, non-natural groupings can justify moral claims to the extent that moral commitments (along with feelings and pragmatic reasoning) constitute non-natural groupings, like national identities, religious identities, political identities, etc.
And even if you still consider such “national identity” or patriotic commitments arbitrary because allegedly based on arbitrary lines drawn on a map, that wouldn’t be enough for you to consider them wrong, indeed you also believe that moral claims are ultimately arbitrary as arbitrary preferences [1]

Of course, appeal to such a notion pragmatically is very useful (democracy is a pragmatic appeal to the aggregated will of an arbitrary group of people), but that's not what's going on here. Not only does Ukraine not currently have a functioning democracy (a pragmatic problem), but the results of any such democratic process don't carry great moral weight. My country democratically voted for Brexit. They were wrong to. It's wrongness is not somehow superseded by its being the 'will of the people'.

It is wrong to risk the lives of innocents over a border dispute. It being 'the will of the Ukrainians' doesn't make it less wrong. — Isaac

Large groups of people can agree on a course of action and still be morally wrong about it. — Isaac

A part from the Brexit example (where is the argument supporting the claim that the democratically chosen Brexit was morally wrong?), who on earth is denying the possibility that “the will of people” can be morally wrong? Nobody, right? From that possibility doesn’t follow at all that Ukraine doesn’t actually have a moral right to self-defence against Russian aggression. So either you provide compelling arguments supporting the claim that Ukraine does not have a moral right to self-defence against Russian aggression. Or you provide compelling arguments supporting the claim that the Ukrainian government doesn’t have legitimacy to exercise such right.
The moral claim that “It is wrong to risk the lives of innocents over a border dispute” is not enough compelling because it could be also wrong to risk lives and freedoms of innocents by surrendering to the demands of a genocidal regime.

[1]

My moral claims are arbitrary. My preferences arbitrary. — “Isaac

So take the arbitrary border between Russia and Finland (1300 km or something).
One side of that line is ruled by a ruthless autocrat.
The other side is a democracy, observing fair respect for human rights.
As far as I can tell, the differences are stark enough.
(I suppose we might ask where people would prefer to relocate.)
So, the line may certainly be arbitrary in one sense, yet there's a clear enough political demarcation.
One of suppressive ruthless autocracy versus democracy and rights, and then some.
And that matters.
The otherwise arbitrary border also differentiates how people on each side live (or presently can live), and their trajectories, which matters in particular if one side wanted to take over the other.
In one sense arbitrary, in another not so much.

Yes, Isaac, there can be civil wars. — ssu

Right. so...

You have peace when countries accept the present drawn borders. — ssu

...is patently false.

you arguing that Ingushetia is a part of Checnnya and Chechnya has somehow broken away from Russia? — ssu

The question was whether it should (as the USSR wanted (the Chechen-Ingush ASSR) or shouldn't. There's no 'right' answer, there's no God-given lines we 'discover' by examination. there's just power plays.

In other words: "the willingness to fight a common enemy is merely an illusion." Fighting people who kill your friends and neighbors may look and feel like a shared purpose but in reality, it is merely the struggle by elites to control people and territory. — Paine

No. Not 'in other words' at all. What I've said about the lack of cultural natural groups and the issue of unified common goals are totally separate. you can't just pretend I said the same thing by putting "in other words..." in front of it. Either argue against what I've actually written or don't bother.

a self-evident mechanism for how the coercion is brought to bear. Is there some kind of fear of anarchy as depicted by Hobbes? Repression of instincts ala Freud? Or more like the class struggle discussed by Marx? It certainly rules out a view of 'natural' society put forward by Locke. — Paine

Here's not the place to start debating the merits of the various theories of social conformity. You've already alluded to several, so you're clearly aware that such theories exist. It seems odd then that you would want to say the notion lacked any mechanism. It seems even a cursory glance at any sociology or psychology textbook would provide you with a dozen such mechanisms without having to lift a finger.

...is patently false. — Isaac

No need to reply as Christoffer said it already:

But I guess since you need to fire in every direction that's even remotely criticizing your viewpoints, you will fall to the level of criticizing semantics when there's nothing else. Big yawn — Christoffer

The question was — Isaac

about countries fighting wars. Obviously there are other kinds of wars too, but see above. As I said, there can be civil wars. And insurgencies and terrorism acted by groups and individuals etc.

The moral claim that “It is wrong to risk the lives of innocents over a border dispute” is not enough compelling because it could be also wrong to risk lives and freedoms of innocents by surrendering to the demands of a genocidal regime. — neomac

:up: :100:

Especially if people making this flawed argument then do make moral claims for taking up arms etc. if there's another state as the attacker.

* * *

I think there's few if any here that would support the Saudi-led intervention into Yemen and the fact is that nothing has happened after Afghanistan became again an Emirate making the argument of the invasion extremely dubious in the first place. The "preventing a safe Haven for terrorists"-argument for the continuation of the Afghan war was in my view false and actually far worse even than the domino-theory of Vietnam war (which also was in error). Would many women opt to work outside their home in Afghanistan and would many Afghans opt for a Western-oriented Afghanistan? Yes, but that wasn't the reason to invade Afghanistan.

Could in 2014 the war in the Donbas be called a civil war or insurgency? Partly yes, but even then the active participation and central role of Russia was obvious. Has the war changed? Obviously after February 24th 2022.

It seems odd then that you would want to say the notion lacked any mechanism. It seems even a cursory glance at any sociology or psychology textbook would provide you with a dozen such mechanisms without having to lift a finger. — Isaac

I was trying to figure out how your view of society worked. You declare the self-identification of persons as participants in a group to be meaningless in regard to the polity they find themselves within:

I've also argued that there's no such thing as the will of the Ukrainians, or the motive of the Ukrainians. I've argued that no such thing exists because Ukraine (like all other countries) is an arbitrary line drawn by powerful people based on the amount of resources they had the power to control at the time. It does not in any way 'capture' some natural grouping of people all of whom think alike. — Isaac

This line you draw between the appearance of a will and the forces actually driving events is not a self-evident fact. It is a part of a theory you are using to interpret events.

Controversies...

Putin Thanks Church for Supporting Ukraine Invasion in Christmas Message
^{— Evan Gershkovich, James Marson · The Wall Street Journal · Jan 7, 2023}
(↑ covers more than Putin)

Former Moscow-linked Church claims religious persecution as security raids heat up
^{— Scott McLean, Svitlana Vlasova, Matthias Somm · CNN · Jan 15, 2023}

Persecution of Christians in Ukraine?
National security concerns?
What's your take?

Seems unlikely that it's religious (to me at least), except politics has spilled into religious space with some force/fervor.
Perhaps analogous to...

Christians 'cannot stand idly by': Russian priest arrested after denouncing invasion of Ukraine
^{— Mike Thom · CHVN Radio · Mar 12, 2022}

Russia-Ukraine war: Priest detained for criticising Putin
^{— Aleem Maqbool · BBC · Jul 17, 2022}

Either way, persecution versus security, religious versus political, are easy controversies to raise, and derail.

Good, so we're agreed then that keeping borders where they are is neither a guarantor of peace, nor necessary to ensure it.

I was trying to figure out how your view of society worked. You declare the self-identification of persons as participants in a group to be meaningless in regard to the polity they find themselves within: — Paine

Where have I declared any such thing? This is pointless if you you're just going to make up stuff I said. If you ever feel like engaging with what I write by all means pick this back up, but I don't see the point in keep responding to stuff I haven't said. If something I've said is confusing, you can just ask. You don't have to guess.

Good, so we're agreed then that keeping borders where they are is neither a guarantor of peace, nor necessary to ensure it. — Isaac

Especially when moving borders is quite rare these days in conflicts... especially the ones the US does. Last time the US made annexations like Russia was I think in the Spanish-American war. Hence Russia war and annexations are quite rare in the World of today.

I quoted you and tried to make sense of it. I am not trying to put words in your mouth.

If one rejects any kind of "thinking alike" in forming polities, that doesn't explain how such polities come into being. Saying: "I've argued that no such thing exists because Ukraine (like all other countries) is an arbitrary line drawn by powerful people" does not explain it by itself. There is more to life in society than saying where its boundaries are.

There is a gap between two things you are saying. If you find this observation to be moronic, ignore it.
And if you do so, I will return the favor.

moving borders is quite rare these days in conflicts — ssu

Except...

1990 — Namibia gets independence from occupying South Africa.
1991, May 18 — Somaliland declares independence from Somalia but is not recognized by any other country.
1993, May 24 — Eritrea breaks off from Ethiopia.
1994, February 28 — Walvis Bay and the Penguin Islands transferred by South Africa to Namibia.
2008, August 14 — Bakassi transferred to Cameroon by Nigeria
2011, July 9 — South Sudan formally obtains independence from the Republic of Sudan.

1990, May 22 — North Yemen unites with South Yemen. August 2 — Kuwait annexed by Iraq
1991, February 27 — Kuwait is liberated from Iraq; Saudi Arabian–Iraqi neutral zone is officially recognized as being disbanded, it had been de facto disbanded since 1981.
1994 — Under the Oslo Agreements, Israel transferred parts of the West Bank (Areas "A" and "B") and the majority of the Gaza Strip to the rule of the Palestinian National Authority.
1997, July 1 — Hong Kong transferred to China by the UK as a special administrative region.
1999, December 20 — Macau transferred to China by Portugal as a special administrative region.
2002, May 20 — East Timor gains independence 3 years after the end of its occupation by Indonesia.
2004 — Russia ceded Tarabarov Island and eastern part of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island to China as part of permanent border demarcation.
2005, August — Israel dismantles its settlements in the Gush Katif region of the Gaza Strip, and the remainder of the Gaza Strip, most of which had already been transferred to Palestinian rule in 1994, becomes administered by the Palestinian Authority, until 2007 when the territory is seized by the military wing of Hamas in a violent coup d'état.
2005, Israel dismantles its settlements in the Northern Samaria region of the West Bank.
2015, June — The India–Bangladesh border is removed of most of its enclaves and exclaves.
2021, November — The Qatar-Saudi border was demarcated, giving Qatar access to the entirety of Khawr al Udayd[4]

1990 — East Germany unites with West Germany on October 3. Transnistria declares independence from the Moldavian SSR but is not recognised by any country.
1991 — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania restore their independence from Soviet occupation. With the complete dissolution of the Soviet Union, it is split up into a further 12 independent states, including the European states of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The independence of all the former Soviet republics is recognised by December 26 (except the Baltic states, which the Soviet Union recognized on September 6).[by whom?] Slovenia (June 25) including the former "zone B" of the Free Territory of Trieste, Croatia (June 25), and the Republic of Macedonia (September 8) all declare their independence from Yugoslavia. Croatia and Slovenia are formally recognized on January 15, 1992 and Macedonia in April 1993.
1992 — Bosnia and Herzegovina declares independence from Yugoslavia on March 1 and is formally recognised on April 6. A civil war breaks out, and as the result of the war, two largely autonomous entities are formed: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. The remaining of Yugoslavia becomes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (renamed to Serbia and Montenegro in 2003).
1993, January 1 — Czechoslovakia is dissolved into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the "Velvet Divorce".
2003 — Lithuania's share of Lake Vištytis increases to about 383 ha (about 22% from 2.2%) from a new border treaty with Russia.[7]
2006, June 3 — The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro is dissolved; Montenegro and Serbia each become independent states.
2008, February 17 — Kosovo unilaterally declares independence from Serbia and is recognised by just over half (101 out of 193) of UN member states.
2014, March 18 — Russia annexes Crimea from Ukraine, following an internationally unrecognized plebiscite.
2016, November 28 — Belgium and the Netherlands swap land near Lanaye and Oost-Maarland over the discovery of a headless body several years prior, which the Belgian authorities could not access without crossing Dutch territory. The border has been straightened out and now runs down the centre of the Meuse River.[6] The change took effect on 1 January 2018.
2020 — While Nagorno-Karabakh remained an internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan, the four UN Security Council resolutions, adopted in 1993 and demanding immediate withdrawal of the Armenian occupying forces from all occupied regions of Azerbaijan, remained unfulfilled until 2020. In 2020, a new war erupted in the region, which saw Azerbaijan retake control of most of southern Karabakh (Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Zangilan, Qubadli, Hadrut districts) and parts of north-eastern Karabakh (Talish, Madagiz). A trilateral ceasefire agreement signed on 10 November 2020, ended the war and forced Armenia to return control of all of the remaining territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh."

1999 — Panama Canal Zone returns from joint US–Panamanian control to Panamanian control. A previous important development was the 1979 change from US control to joint US–Panama control, with plans for full Panamanian sovereignty at some point after that.
2010 — The Netherlands Antilles is dissolved, as Curaçao and Sint Maarten become constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, while Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius become special municipalities of the Netherlands.
2022, June 14 — Hans Island is split between Canada and the Danish territory of Greenland.

1994 — The Republic of Palau is formed from the remainder of the Trust Territory of the Pacific, as an independent state associated with the U.S.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_changes_(1914%E2%80%93present)

...but apart from those 41 examples in the last 30 years, it's virtually never done.

If one rejects any kind of "thinking alike" in forming polities — Paine

It's not that there's no polities. One could create any such grouping - {all dog owners} - for example. It's...

1) a border does not create such a grouping other than {all the people who live within that border}

...and following from (1)...

2) there's no.moral weight to any aggregation of views from those grouped by such means.

The aggregated views of {all the people who live within that border} has no meaning. It's just a random means of stratification unrelated to the opinion being aggregated.

As such, all this talk of Ukrainian agency and Ukrainian objectives is nothing but propaganda. There's no moral weight at all to the happenstance aggregate opinion of all the people who happen to be encompassed by an arbitrary spatial line.

To illustrate. If we did want to use the opinion of the people affected to influence our decision... Why aren't we asking those on the Russian side of the border? They'll definitely be affected.... Why are we asking people on the Western border of Ukraine (hundreds of miles away) but not just over that border... Why are we asking the rich Ukrainian businessmann (who arguably has the resources to weather most storms), but not the Yemeni child who might not live in Ukraine but will undoubtedly be more affected?

The aggregated views of {all the people who live within that border} has no meaning. It's just a random means of stratification unrelated to the opinion being aggregated. As such, all this talk of Ukrainian agency and Ukrainian objectives is nothing but propaganda. There's no moral weight at all to the happenstance aggregate opinion of all the people who happen to be encompassed by an arbitrary spatial line. — Isaac

A series of non sequiturs. What one earth does “The aggregated views of {all the people who live within that border} has no meaning” even mean? The aggregated views of “all human beings” has meaning? The aggregated views of “all religious people”? The aggregated views of all supporters of Barcelona football club? The aggregated views of any random family on earth? The aggregated views of the working class? When does an aggregation of views according to whatever grouping function, has meaning at all? What does determine the moral weight of the aggregate opinion of all people grouped in a certain way?
Each period is allusive in its meaning, its logic link to what precedes or follows, and its polemic target. Pure mystification.

To illustrate. If we did want to use the opinion of the people affected to influence our decision... Why aren't we asking those on the Russian side of the border? They'll definitely be affected.... Why are we asking people on the Western border of Ukraine (hundreds of miles away) but not just over that border... Why are we asking the rich Ukrainian businessmann (who arguably has the resources to weather most storms), but not the Yemeni child who might not live in Ukraine but will undoubtedly be more affected? — Isaac

More than illustrating, its muddling even further. Who is “we”? The Western citizens? The Western governments? The participants to this thread? You mean Biden, any ordinary dude in the West, or me should go ask a Yemeni child (what age? 5 years old is fine?) what he thinks of the “special military operation” of Putin in Ukraine and if he agrees on the West to military aid Ukraine and sanction Russia? You mean that if he says yes, then Biden should support Ukraine and solicit the Western leaders to do the same, and if he says no, then Biden shouldn’t? You mean a 5 year old Yemeni kid can decide for the president of the United States what the United States should do? Or you simply mean that state presidents should go around ask random people of other countries what they think about the war to let them influence his decision about what he should do as a president of the USA wrt the war in Ukraine? Are you crazy?! Did you do that yourself?! Did Putin ask a 5 year old Yemeni kid if he agrees on continuing to bomb and kill Ukrainians whatever it takes?!
Why the hypothetical form “If we did want to…”? What happens if we didn't want? Are you giving us other options? Do we have to choose randomly among them? Can we use dices?

Hi Ukraine. How's the weather up there, cold enough for ya? Sorry about Dnipro and all. I'm sure you have your ideas on how to proceed from here, but I'm afraid @Isaac says that borders don't exist. As it thereby follows that your will in this matter has no particular moral claim, we decided to consult with a random sampling of hotdog vendors instead. Have a nice day.

It's not that there's no polities. One could create any such grouping - {all dog owners} - for example. It's... — Isaac

The word 'polity' does not mean a grouping by means of a shared property. The first meaning given in the OED is: "Civil organization (as a condition); civil order." It comes from the Ancient Greek: polis. The Republic by Plato is titled: Politeia. A better translation than the 'Res Publica' of Latin would be 'What makes a City. The City refers to a place. Different places have different polities.

Polities obviously include formally articulated forms of governance. But they cannot be recognized 'as a condition' without placing them alongside other institutions, both those formally established and those preserved through custom. Who gets to do what varies greatly. Perhaps any discussion of polity requires the context of history. Conditions in a Hindu caste society are much different than a community in the Iroquois nation, for example. Participation and exclusion take place in the context of polity.

This central element of life in society is not recognized by your statement:

The aggregated views of {all the people who live within that border} has no meaning. — Isaac

This atomizes the participation of each individual in their location to the point that they are not in a place. It is like a theater filled with a hundred Descartes who have nothing to do with the other Descartes sitting next to them.

I grant that if one takes this condition as a premise, any sense of a shared space becomes arbitrary. But nothing you have presented demonstrates that people actually live like that.

2022, June 14 — Hans Island is split between Canada and the Danish territory of Greenland. — Isaac

The infamous Whisky War. :)

2016, November 28 — Belgium and the Netherlands swap land near Lanaye and Oost-Maarland over the discovery of a headless body several years prior, which the Belgian authorities could not access without crossing Dutch territory. The border has been straightened out and now runs down the centre of the Meuse River.[6] The change took effect on 1 January 2018. — Isaac

The Meuse conflict was resolved easier than the San Juan wetland conflict, but at least Nicaragua abides by UN's verdict.

The list has a few items related to the USSR (past Kremlin rule).

To illustrate — Isaac

Moscow is further away still.

talk of Ukrainian agency and Ukrainian objectives is nothing but propaganda — Isaac

...? Nah.
Though, I'm wondering, is there an (implicit) argument against democracy ("majority dictatorship") here somewhere?

(reported elsewhere, adapted by me, as the topic has come up prior in the thread)

Ukrainians figure out how to take down Russian bombs:
On Dec 30^th the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces released its daily battlefield update, noting that their soldiers had shot down a significant number of Russian missiles and drones. Ukrainian forces were able to shoot down 58 cruise missiles as well as 23 unmanned aerial vehicles in a 24-hour period according to the General Staff. December was a difficult month for Ukraine as the country saw several major missile and drone attacks that not only damaged key infrastructure but also killed nearly a dozen civilians. On Dec 16^th a fresh barrage of missiles knocked out power in Ukraine and put the whole country under air raid alarm according to CNN journalists Olga Voitovych and Eliza Mackintosh.

They have set a goal to leave Ukrainians without light, water, and heat — Denys Shmyhal (Ukraine Prime Minister · Dec 16, 2022)

But Shmyhal also said something interesting, pointing out that Ukrainian air defense forces had shot down 60 of the 76 missiles fired at the country—a figure that has revealed a big change in the war. Whether it be with German-supplied Flakpanzer Gepards or with man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), Ukraine has gotten very good at thwarting Russia's air campaign. Back in October of 2022 Russia's military strategists switched tactics and began targeting Ukraine's critical infrastructure as a way to weaken morale and collapse the country's will to fight. Russia's escalation initially worked well. One attack on Oct 10^th involved 80 missiles and 24+ Iranian Shahed kamikaze drones which killed 19 Ukrainians and wounded 100+ more according to the Atlantic Council.

nearly half of Ukraine's energy grid has been knocked out by recent Russian missile strikes — James McKinley (New York Times journalist · Nov 18, 2022)

Today Ukraine's energy grid remains fragile but it is still operating and still providing power to citizens because of the Ukrainian Armed Forces' ability to shoot down Russian missiles. Part of the reason why Ukraine has become so successful at shooting down Russian missiles is because of the equipment it has received from its Western allies. In early November, according to CBS News, Ukraine acquired its first shipments of National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems as well as its first Aspide Air Defense Systems.

The NASAMS systems had a 100 percent success rate in intercepting Russian missiles as the Kremlin continues its ruthless bombardment of Ukraine — Lloyd Austin (US Defense Secretary · Nov 16, 2022)

But it isn't just expensive equipment that has made a difference. Igla-S MANPADS have proven to be very adept at intercepting incoming Russian missiles. During the Dec 29^th attack, a MANPAD was filmed shooting down a low-flying Kh-101 cruise missile according to Tanmay Kadam of the Eurasian Times.

The missile was detected visually by a group of Ukrainian air defense personnel deployed in the zone of the flight of the missile, following which one of them fired on the missile from Igla MANPADS — Tanmay Kadam (Eurasian Times · Dec 29, 2022)

This wasn't the first time a cruise missile had been shot down by a Ukrainian soldier armed with a MANPAD. In October, Dmytro Shumskyi was credited with downing two Russian missiles in Chernihiv with an FIM-92 Stinger.

Questions:
How is this taken in the Kremlin? Should a change in their tactics be expected?
Seems clear enough that taking down the bombs have saved lives. Expensive, but surely worthwhile?

I read some months ago that Russia was having to re-purpose chips from domestic appliances such as dishwashers to use in their missiles due to their inability to purchase chips on the open market because of sanctions. In any case, the way they have been bombarding Ukraine is completely unconscionable and must be prevented, thwarted or stopped by any means necessary.

Wrong thread.

:up:

(oh hey, good to see you back)

Thanks, I'm enjoying the forum again, and trying not to get involved in too many arguments.

How is this taken in the Kremlin? Should a change in their tactics be expected? — jorndoe

Not likely. Terror against civilians has been their favored tactics practically from the beginning of the invasion, or rather since the leadership realized within the first few weeks that the blitzkrieg failed and that Ukrainians were not welcoming their "liberators" with open arms. This is nothing new for Russia: they did the same in Chechnya and in Syria. The campaign to destroy life support systems for millions of people in the middle of winter is just the latest escalation of that tactics. It had long been called for by hardline supporters of the war inside Russia, and Putin seems keen to please them, although they are a small minority.

The only change that I am seeing is in the state propaganda rhetoric. In the past crimes against civilians were denied at all levels, however implausibly. Now, while the Russian MoD hypocritically claims that the strikes are aimed against "military control centers and energy infrastructure linked to them," state media and lower-level officials are openly acknowledging and even praising the destruction of critical civilian infrastructure. And they are not shy about articulating the reasons for attacks against civilians: it is to destroy their will to resist and turn them against their government. That the tactics didn't work before and isn't working now doesn't seem to give anyone a pause and doesn't prompt any change in thinking at the top.

As for the effectiveness of the air campaign, it may be less effective than hoped for, but as long as a percentage of missiles and drones gets through, it does its job. Note also that some munitions are better at getting through the air defense than others. For example, Ukraine has no defense against the Kh-22 missile that destroyed the apartment complex in Dnipro (and earlier destroyed a shopping center, also causing dozens of casualties). Patriot might have shot it down, but it is not deployed yet, and Ukraine will never have it in anything like sufficient quantities to protect its major population centers. In any case, all Russia needs to do is launch more than the defense can shoot down. The only potential issue for Russia is the depletion of its stocks of long-range munitions at a much faster rate than the industry can produce. But they are already supplementing their dwindling stocks with hundreds of cheap Iranian strike drones, and according to Western intelligence, they are also negotiating to buy Iranian ballistic missiles.

In the past crimes against civilians were denied at all levels, however implausibly. Now, while the Russian MoD hypocritically claims that the strikes are aimed against "military control centers and energy infrastructure linked to them," state media and lower-level officials are openly acknowledging and even praising the destruction of critical civilian infrastructure. — SophistiCat

Destroying critical infrastructure, civilian or otherwise, is not a crime under IHL. You'd be surprised at how much is permitted under IHL as long as the use of force is proportional to the military advantage gained.

Deliberately targeting non-combatants is clearly forbidden, however when non-combatants are injured or killed during attacks on military targets (again, critical infrastructure is a legitimate military target) this is still not a crime and assuming the criterium of proportionality is adhered to is considered collateral damage. This applies even if civilian casualties were expected beforehand.

Ironically, a lot of IHL is written through a military lens. For example, while it is not allowed to purposefully undertake actions to starve a civilian population, it says nothing about freezing a population as a result of destruction of the power grid.

The likely reason for this is because civilian food stockpiles are by and large not interesting military targets, whereas the power grid is an important military target.

In short, doing things on the battlefield that are considered criminal under IHL is a complicated matter.

The word 'polity' does not mean a grouping by means of a shared property. — Paine

Yes, that's why I referred to any such grouping.

This atomizes the participation of each individual in their location to the point that they are not in a place. It is like a theater filled with a hundred Descartes who have nothing to do with the other Descartes sitting next to them. — Paine

I have no idea what this means, I'm afraid. Everyone is in a place, so we could include that place in our groupings. Let's say 'East of the Dnieper' is such a place. How does that change the moral weight given to the opinion of the people there?

nothing you have presented demonstrates that people actually live like that. — Paine

Nor does it need to. I'm making a moral argument. Moral arguments are about the way things ought to be, not about the way things are.

I'm wondering, is there an (implicit) argument against democracy ("majority dictatorship") here somewhere? — jorndoe

It's relevant only insofar as the majority decision in some place carries only a pragmatic weight, not a moral one. Majorities are not just automatically right. The 'right' course of action in Ukraine is not determined by consulting the Ukrainians and going with the majority. Gun laws in America are wrong, no matter what the majority say.

We're currently supporting Ukrainian fighting, even to the retaking of the Donbas and Crimea. That means we (the ones doing the support) have a moral decision to make as to whether that course of action is right. It's not just automatically right because a majority of Ukrainians want it. That would be patently absurd. Hence the 'agency' here is irrelevant. Since the US, UK etc are not bound by the enfranchised of Ukraine, we are under no obligation whatsoever to support the results of consulting that polity.

Even the Ukrainian government, technically, are elected representatives. They're supposed to represent the interests of the polity, not necessarily do exactly as they say. But we, other states, have absolutely no obligation at all to do what the polity in Ukraine says they want.

Human Rights Watch: Russian Attacks on Energy Grid Threaten Civilians

Russian forces’ widespread and repeated targeting of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure appears primarily designed to instill terror among the population in violation of the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said today. Numerous missile and drone attacks in October and November have deprived millions of civilians of at least temporary access to electricity, water, heat, and related vital services ahead of the cold winter months. — HRW

Russian politicians, lawmakers, and other commentators on Russian state media widely applauded the prospect of Ukrainian civilians being left without heat and water in winter. One member of parliament stated that ordinary people should “rot and freeze”, another said the strikes were necessary to destroy the Ukrainian state’s capacity to survive. — HRW

Amnesty International: Russian attacks on critical energy infrastructure amount to war crimes

Reacting to the news that Russian attacks on energy facilities in Ukraine over recent days have led to a nationwide blackout in the country, Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, said:

“The strategy behind Russia’s latest warfare tactics is unmistakable. In bombing Ukraine’s critical civilian infrastructure, including energy facilities, the Russian army clearly intends to undermine industrial production, disrupt transportation, sow fear and despair and deprive civilians in Ukraine of heat, electricity and water as the cold grip of winter approaches.”

“Russia’s targeting of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure is unlawful. The morale of the civilian population is not a lawful target, and carrying out these attacks with the sole purpose of terrorizing civilians is a war crime. All those responsible for ordering and committing these criminal attacks must be held to account. With Russia ramping up its efforts to terrorize civilians in Ukraine, the international community must urgently respond and condemn these heinous attacks.” — Amnesty International

International Federation for Human Rights: Russia’s attacks against energy infrastructure violate international humanitarian law

In this position paper, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) analyses why the Russian attacks against Ukrainian energy infrastructure violate international humanitarian law and could be qualified as war crimes. — FIDH

Reuters: When are attacks on civilian infrastructure war crimes?

Russia's attacks on Ukraine's civilian infrastructure, including energy facilities, have been described as possible war crimes by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International. — Reuters

BBC: Is attacking Ukraine's power grid a war crime?

"Demoralising people, terrorising people, is not considered to be an acceptable military advantage," Dr Varaki explains. In fact, she says, the opposite is true: "Terrorising the civilian population is considered to be a war crime."

As well as Russia's insistence that it is targeting only military objects, the Kremlin has hinted that there is another reason for the strikes - persuading Kyiv to talk.

"The unwillingness of the Ukrainian side to settle the problem, to start negotiations, its refusal to seek common ground - this is their consequence," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. — BBC

I have no idea what this means, — Isaac

It is a description that shows the result of only considering "groups" of individuals and their opinions to adequately represent people living together in a particular society. All the different ways people work, judge themselves, mate, educate children, and govern themselves are not simply an aggregate of their opinions.

Opinions, by themselves, do not do anything.

Nor does it need to. I'm making a moral argument. Moral arguments are about the way things ought to be, not about the way things are. — Isaac

You present the absence of Ukrainian agency as a fact, authorizing the removal of their voice from any moral calculus. You champion Mearsheimer's theory of International Relations as the best explanation of the events unfolding in Ukraine. You discount previous behavior by Russia as indicative of anything happening in this conflict.

All of your 'moral' arguments are made upon the basis of what you have argued to be happening.