That's right. A single populist election is all it takes. Sovereignty is no defence against that. And driving a country into the ground economically is a sure fire way to push in the direction of making that more likely. — Isaac

No, it is not, it takes a bit more than that.

And seemingly you missed the whole point of my post: at this particular time those under Russian influence have it worse than those without it, even if they are under the terrible boot of the EU. That is why Ukrainians are trying to get out. Possibly, EU might change into Russia in half a year and the other way round and that would turn out to be a mistake, but that does not seem to concern them that much. Maybe because the probability of that happening seems to be rather low.

Negotiation is how we stop this God awful bloodbath. — Isaac

You say negotiation, others say appeasement. Peace in our time can mean a God awful bloodbath in someone else's time.

Yours was your only post for pages. — Isaac

Well the thread moves fast, so you can be forgiven for missing my response earlier today on the same page about Russian history, which a couple of people mentioned in a somewhat positive tone. But even if you had been right in your facts, that is flimsy evidence on which to base an accusation of racism and xenophobia. But never mind, I'm sure I have prejudices and ignorance to spare.

No, it is not, it takes a bit more than that. — Jabberwock

OK, what?

at this particular time those under Russian influence have it worse than those without it, even if they are under the terrible boot of the EU. That is why Ukrainians are trying to get out. Possibly, EU might change into Russia in half a year and the other way round and that would turn out to be a mistake, but that does not seem to concern them that much. Maybe because the probability of that happening seems to be rather low. — Jabberwock

I don't see what any of that has to do with a war over sovereignty. As if war was the only way to decide on leaders...

You say negotiation, others say appeasement. — unenlightened

I'm aware of what others say. I've had it 'said' at me at some length. It might be nice to hear what you say, and why you might say it?

even if you had been right in your facts, that is flimsy evidence on which to base an accusation of racism and xenophobia. — unenlightened

The racism and xenophobia were your hypothetical Ukrainian's failings. The failure to condemn them, yours.

It might be nice to hear what you say, and why you might say it? — Isaac

Well I have to say it is not always nice to hear what you say

OK, what? — Isaac

As far as I know there have been no cases of well established democracies turning into full-blown autocracies in half a year. But I might be wrong here, can you give some such examples?

I don't see what any of that has to do with a war over sovereignty. As if war was the only way to decide on leaders... — Isaac

Sovereignty gives Ukrainians a chance to be not-Russia. Sure, they might have squander that chance, especially if the West abandons them, they can turn into an awful copy of Russia. Still, they would have that chance. On the other hand, at this time, giving up sovereignty to Russia practically deprives them of a chance to be a democratic, well-governed, prosperous country. Sovereignty for Ukrainians is a way to better their lives, not an end in itself.

there have been no cases of well established democracies turning into full-blown autocracies in half a year. — Jabberwock

Ukraine is not a well established democracy and Russia is not a full-blown autocracy. There are several independent measures of human development, in every single one Ukraine is not far from Russia.

Sovereignty gives Ukrainians a chance to be not-Russia. Sure, they might have squander that chance, especially if the West abandons them, they can turn into an awful copy of Russia. Still, they would have that chance. On the other hand, at this time, giving up sovereignty to Russia practically deprives them of a chance to be a democratic, well-governed, prosperous country. Sovereignty for Ukrainians is a way to better their lives, not an end in itself. — Jabberwock

Is there some reason you're treating years of bloody war and destruction as if it were a minor additional consideration to weigh in?

it is not always nice to hear what you say — unenlightened

Well, it turns out...

I have prejudices and ignorance to spare. — unenlightened

I’ve noticed, actually in other threads also, that the most frail, most weakest arguments rely on advocating the expertize of the person who is quoted and whose opinion the PF member supports. The actual points aren’t then open for discussion…because the quote is from an ”expert” and as members aren’t ”experts”, how dare they have opposing views! And if soneone else is quoted who is against this ”expert”, well, likely he or she is from the wrong camp. The personalization of the views and opinions is the distorinting problem.

This reasoning just unintentionally shows how either limited the knowledge of the person using this argument or that the person suffer of some kind of inferiority complex because the simple fact is that politics, international relations and conflicts actually aren’t some quantum physics people don’t understand. We can discuss the opinions, the viewpoints themselves quite easily.

Ukraine is not a well established democracy and Russia is not a full-blown autocracy. There are several independent measures of human development, in every single one Ukraine is not far from Russia. — Isaac

I do not believe that the distinction between a full-blown autocracy and a full-blown kleptocracy is that important in case of Russia. The point is that Ukraine wants to be less like Russia.

Is there some reason you're treating years of bloody war and destruction as if it were a minor additional consideration to weigh in? — Isaac

It is not my consideration to make, it is what Ukrainians have decided.

We can discuss the opinions, the viewpoints themselves quite easily. — ssu

We evidently can't. You preface everything you say with "in reality..." as if you alone had access to the truth, and everyone who disagrees with you is either a supporter of a war criminal, or uniformed, or some.other insult to their intelligence. So no... Apparently we cannot discuss the viewpoints and opinions quite easily. It's proving to be virtually impossible to just have a discussion about the opinions and viewpoints, largely because of your refusal to accept the validity of anyone's but your own.

I do not believe that the distinction between a full-blown autocracy and a full-blown kleptocracy is that important in case of Russia. The point is that Ukraine wants to be less than Russia. — Jabberwock

So. The argument you were supposed to be countering was about how far Ukraine might be from Russian-style authoritarianism. The answer is, not far. The question wasn't about recent direction of travel.

It is not my consideration to make, it is what Ukrainians have decided. — Jabberwock

Then why were you presenting an argument at all? It's a bit disingenuous to present an argument and then when your reasoning is challenged claim its not your decision anyway.

What difference doesn't make to the argument that the Ukrainians have decided? If the Ukrainians decided to kill everyone of Russian descent would you have nothing to say on the matter because "it is what Ukrainians have decided"?

The argument was that the US somehow stopped peacetalks while the re-invasion of Ukraine was not even a month old.

- Now the war is over one year old and much has happened then. That was my point.

- And you haven’t answered that what was the likelyhood of Russia to negotiate a peace when it was still wanting to denazify Ukraine, when it was still engaged in the battle of Kyiv and war enthusiasm was very high?

- What would have been the peace deal then?

Please answer these questions and we are on the right track.

So. The argument you were supposed to be countering was about how far Ukraine might be from Russian-style authoritarianism. The answer is, not far. The question wasn't about recent direction of travel — Isaac

No, as I have already explained. Sovereignty for Ukraine is a way to steer away from Russian-style authoritarianism.

Then why were you presenting an argument at all? It's a bit disingenuous to present an argument and then when your reasoning is challenged claim its not your decision anyway. — Isaac

I was explaining why Ukrainians fight for sovereignty - to get away from Russkiy mir. Nobody else but them is able to decide whether it is worth the war and destruction, because they will suffer through it. It is a value judgement they had to make, because it concerns themselves. Apparently, you would rather deprive them of that choice, as you know better what is good for them.

What difference doesn't make to the argument that the Ukrainians have decided? If the Ukrainians decided to kill everyone of Russian descent would you have nothing to say on the matter because "it is what Ukrainians have decided"? — Isaac

The difference is that they decided about themselves, so your example is silly.

Now the war is over one year old and much has happened then. That was my point. — ssu

I get your point. It's a valid one. Holding a different one doesn't make one uniformed, biased, nor a putin-supporter. We all want an end to this war we just have a difference of opinion as to how.

what was the likelyhood of Russia to negotiate a peace when it was still wanting to denazify Ukraine, when it was still engaged in the battle of Kyiv and war enthusiasm was very high? — ssu

I don't know, it's not my area of expertise. Obviously people better informed than me thought it possible so that's good enough for me to consider it a reasonable option. Obviously, if possible, its the better one.

What would have been the peace deal then? — ssu

On the table, I believe, was a neutral Donbas, and, non-NATO Ukraine. Russia believes it has a right to a 'sphere of influence' in the region. Had nuclear disarmament and general demilitarization of international relations been successful, had the power of international law been respected and strengthened, we might might well have been able to tell them where to stick their beleif. But it wasn't, so we can't. Instead we have to deal realistically with the fact that a very powerful actor in the region wants something. If we outright deny it, they will try to take it by force.

We either meet that force (by some substantial margin), or we negotiate a deal where they get a bit of what they want and we get less risk of war.

What we don't want, literally the worst outcome, is a drip feed of weapons designed to keep the two sides just about even so that neither side is incentivised to negotiate since both sides think they might win and everybody loses - except those who make money out of war, which is the point.

Continuation of earlier comments:

Russia to deem Ukraine-bound ships 'potential carriers of military cargo' from Wednesday eve
^{— Felix Light, Peter Graff · The Reuters · Jul 19, 2023}

Russia was also declaring southeastern and northwestern parts of the Black Sea's international waters to be temporarily unsafe for navigation, it said, without giving details about the parts of the sea which would be affected.

Evidently, it's not just Ukraine (and a couple of other hotspots) that has (and/or might get) a Kremlin problem. Doing this to try forcing their demands, you have to wonder what's next.

Seems to me the impassable obstacle to any kind of settlement is that Putin cannot afford to be seen retreating. As everyone outside Russia, and some inside, knows, the invasion has been a failure, insofar as the original aim was a complete occupation of Ukraine and overthrowing the Government. Seems that is not going to happen, but for Putin to now turn around and say OK we'll withdraw our forces would be seen, obviously, as complete defeat. Now they're dug in, sorrounded by minefields, it's going to be a much harder proposition for Ukraine than stopping the shambolic and badly-planned offensive which comprised the first phase of the war.

The upshot of all of this being that it's likely this situation will be at a stalemate for a long while, with Ukraine harrying the enemy for small gains on the ground and Russia regularly destroying civilian targets with air-power. A glimmer of hope is that the Russian economy contracts so badly that even the poor brainwashed citizens of that country begin to chafe under the boot, although even that is a long way from open rebellion.

Sovereignty for Ukraine is a way to steer away from Russian-style authoritarianism. — Jabberwock

War does not equal sovereignty. War equals massive indebtedness, economic collapse, and often an accompanying risk of increases in extremist politics, particularly nationalism. You read my quotes from Yuliya Yurchenko? If you're concerned about sovereignty and steering away from authoritarianism, the best route is one which promotes economic independence, equality, and respect for everyone in your community. War is just about the worst course of action.

Nobody else but them is able to decide whether it is worth the war and destruction, because they will suffer through it. — Jabberwock

Nonsense. We're all just people. There are rich Ukrainians who'll not suffer a scratch from war and there are poor Yemenis who'll more likely suffer painfully slow deaths from hunger the longer it continues. There's powerful arms manufacturers and their investors who'll benefit from a protracted war, there's the Russian conscripts and their families. There's the children and grandchildren of the current Ukrainians who were never asked if they wanted their future sold out to Black Rock. and there's the rest of the world who might take umbrage at the prospect of being wiped of the face of the earth by the ensuing nuclear war.

I realise it's like rule one in your playbook (when cornered say it's up to the Ukrainians), but it's just isn't.

Notwithstanding that, the question is about whether we continue to supply weapons, whether we write off debt, whether we push for negotiations (or block them), whether we offer Russia elements it wants (elements to do with us, not Ukraine). These are all decisions for Western powers (and so presumably Western electorates) to make. Why are we obliged to simply follow the Ukrainians on any of those decisions?

it's likely this situation will be at a stalemate for a long while, with Ukraine harrying the enemy for small gains on the ground and Russia regularly destroying civilian targets with air-power. A glimmer of hope is that the Russian economy contracts so badly that even the poor brainwashed citizens of that country begin to chafe under the boot, although even that is a long way from open rebellion. — Wayfarer

Yes, I agree to a point. The only way out of this situation is regime change (and accompanying material condition change) for the people currently under Putin's rule. I don't think history is on your side thinking economic contraction will do it. Can you think of many examples where extreme poverty has lead to populations electing less authoritarian leaders?

If removing the leader of a country and replacing him with a more egalitarian one is the only "glimmer of hope" (and I agree it is), then why are thousands dying to prevent that leader from occupying land? Why not save the thousands of lives, give him the land, then pursue (with the billions invested currently in war) replacing him with a better leader so that no one cares which side of the border they're on?

I'll answer my own question. That strategy prioritises people's well-being over profit.

Why not save the thousands of lives, give him the land — Isaac

You mean, to appease Putin?

You mean, to appease Putin? — Wayfarer

Is there something unclear about "save the thousands of lives" that's causing uncertainty about my motive?

So, yes?

If so, don’t agree. Putin cannot be rewarded for his crimes.

So, yes? — Wayfarer

What? I've no idea what you're talking about.

Putin cannot be rewarded for his crimes. — Wayfarer

At what cost? Why is punishment more important than the strategy which saves most lives? And what's wrong with the ICC? And what about being deposed isn't punishment?

I'll answer my own question. That strategy prioritises people's well-being over profit.

SO if you're saying that as a negotiating gambit, that Ukraine should 'give him the land', meaning recognise Russian ownership of the lands that have been seized, then I don't agree, as this would be rewarding Putin's aggression (i.e. by allowing him to keep the spoils of war). Of course continuing to fight the war will result in more deaths, but appeasing the dictator will only empower him to continue on his path of militarist aggression.

I'm hoping he is overthrown. I don't for one minute expect a democratic revolution in Russia, but there may be powerful actors who recognise the futility of Putin's isolationism and the ruin he has brought to his people, and who in the event of regime change, would be prepared to negotiate a withdrawal in return for the lifting of sanctions. Faint hope, I know.

appeasing the dictator will only empower him to continue on his path of militarist aggression. — Wayfarer

Why? If life under Putin is so awful, why would those under him be less likely to oppose his rule just because he got more land? It doesn't make sense. In fact the opposite would seem to be more likely as the new total population of Russia would be shifted slightly more in the direction of openly opposing Putin's rule. One only need look at the strength of opposition in Russian occupied territories. They hate him (and with good reason). How would bringing these areas officially under Russian rule make the newly expanded population less likely to revolt?

And Putin is still accused of war crimes. He still faces international condemnation. There's way more effective sanctions we can place on his leadership than denying him land. And most of those don't costs thousands of lives just to have the hope of doing.

I just find it truly bizarre that in a world of democratic institutions who've successfully fought for years to expand the reach of Human Rights to some of the most difficult areas in the world, all of a sudden the only way we can think of to oppose aggression is with more aggression.

Typical of the hawks; if you've got a problem "bomb it".

The issue with "not giving Putin what he wants" is that the cost of that strategy is the destruction of Ukraine, and with a risk of Putin getting what he wants regardless.

And what is it about "we support every single opposition movement in your country and make your leadership virtually impossible to carry out on the world stage, until you're finally deposed, then we arrest you for war crimes" that isn't a punishment?

When we punish criminals we typically don't focus mainly on taking their stuff off them.

Punishment is not the issue. we can punish in a number of ways. but Black Rock stand to profit massively if those fertile lands remain in Ukrainian hands, and not if they become Russian. So tell me @Wayfarer, you're the CEO of Black Rock, you stand to make millions from the reconstruction of Donbas if it's Ukrainian, you stand to make nothing if it's Russian. You own controlling shares in most media outlets. Which solution are you going to push for?

That's why the public narrative is all about stuff, not punishment. We don't care if Putin's punished or not. We don't care who dies, or how many suffer. We just want the stuff he wants. We want the benefits of investing in Ukraine, not let Putin have them.

I don't for one minute expect a democratic revolution in Russia — Wayfarer

Then I'm confused by your metric of probability. You said...

Putin cannot afford to be seen retreating — Wayfarer

So why is Ukrainian victory likely, but democratic overthrow not?

Why do you have such faith in military power but so little in people?

I just find it truly bizarre that in a world of democratic institutions who've successfully fought for years to expand the reach of Human Rights to some of the most difficult areas in the world, all of a sudden the only way we can think of to oppose aggression is with more aggression. — Isaac

The democratic institutions had to fight Hitler in WWII. The costs were of course appalling beyond all imagining, but the alternative would have been worse. Nobody wants this war to continue, and nobody wanted it to start, except for Vladimir Putin, sorrounded by cronies and yes-men who fed his delusions of grandeur.

Anyway, I've made my point and will hand the thread back to the regulars.

War does not equal sovereignty. War equals massive indebtedness, economic collapse, and often an accompanying risk of increases in extremist politics, particularly nationalism. You read my quotes from Yuliya Yurchenko? If you're concerned about sovereignty and steering away from authoritarianism, the best route is one which promotes economic independence, equality, and respect for everyone in your community. War is just about the worst course of action. — Isaac

Well, when the Ukrainians tried that (by driving toward closer integration with the EU) their president for some reason made a 180-turn and opted for closer integration with authoritarian Russia, which does not support those ideals, against public support. And we all know how it ended. And which countries in Russia's sphere of influence are democratic and economically independent? Those who are somewhat driving towards democracy (like Moldova and Armenia, earlier Georgia) just happen to have the same problems with Russian-inspired destabilization as Ukraine. Do you think that is a coincidence? Belarussians wanted democracy, how exactly that ended? With Wagner involved in presidential elections, isn't that right? With FSB allegedly preventing a 'coup'? We have every reason to think that Russia would thwart every effort to establish a full democracy in a country of its influence.

Nonsense. We're all just people. There are rich Ukrainians who'll not suffer a scratch from war and there are poor Yemenis who'll more likely suffer painfully slow deaths from hunger the longer it continues. There's powerful arms manufacturers and their investors who'll benefit from a protracted war, there's the Russian conscripts and their families. There's the children and grandchildren of the current Ukrainians who were never asked if they wanted their future sold out to Black Rock. and there's the rest of the world who might take umbrage at the prospect of being wiped of the face of the earth by the ensuing nuclear war.

I realise it's like rule one in your playbook (when cornered say it's up to the Ukrainians), but it's just isn't. — Isaac

Are you seriously suggesting that Yemenis are as much affected by the war as Ukrainians? Are you seriously suggesting YOU are as much affected by the war as Ukrainians? Please, do describe how. And as for Ukrainians, they massively support their defensive war, rich or not.

Notwithstanding that, the question is about whether we continue to supply weapons, whether we write off debt, whether we push for negotiations (or block them), whether we offer Russia elements it wants (elements to do with us, not Ukraine). These are all decisions for Western powers (and so presumably Western electorates) to make. Why are we obliged to simply follow the Ukrainians on any of those decisions? — Isaac

Because it is right to let them choose the path they want to take. And when we do not support them, then we are exactly 'offering Russia elements' that have very much to do with Ukraine, not with us. We let Russia decide Ukraine's fate, just because it is stronger.