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. — Wayfarer

Well you've no counterfactual by which to show that, so it's irrelevant to the argument. There's no world in which we didn't fight Hitler militarily but instead concentrated on popular opposition to his rule in any country he took over. So you've no way of knowing which method would have been quicker or had fewer lives lost. I surely don't need to tell one so well-versed as yourself in philosophical traditions (particularly religious ones) that there are many arguments in favour of pacifism and they didn't all just collapse with the advent of WWII.

We have every reason to think that Russia would thwart every effort to establish a full democracy in a country of its influence. — Jabberwock

So? Can we not fight that? Why are we suddenly disarmed of any means of resistance other than full-scale land war? Just look at the history of the overthrow of oppressive regimes and tell me how many were achieved through popular protest movements vs how many had to rely on military invasions. In fact, I'll save you the trouble - it's virtually all of them vs virtually none of them.

The idea that the only way to promote the freedom of the people of Donbas is to fight a bloody and destructive war to keep them under Ukrainian rule is ridiculous and ahistorical. Extraction from the yoke of tyranny has almost universally been won by the people, not governments invading each other.

For better or worse, Russia are now embedded in Donbas and Crimea. There are two choices; leave them there and fight to free the whole of Russia (including those regions) from tyranny, or expel them and continue Ukraine's progress toward the removal of tyranny in it's regions.

Option one will undeniably cause less bloodshed and has a better overall outcome for humanity. On the downside, it might not work.

Option two will definitely cause masses more bloodshed, may trigger a wider conflict, even a possible nuclear one, and has two possible routes to failure (Ukraine simply cannot shift Russia, or the toll of the war stymies Ukraine's progress away from tyranny).

So what is it about option two that's so attractive for you?

Are you seriously suggesting that Yemenis are as much affected by the war as Ukrainians? — Jabberwock

Yes. Your incredulity is not an argument. 50 million face starvation if grain and fertiliser exports continue to be disrupted, the total death toll in Ukraine stands at about 100,000. And I also talked about the children of the Ukrainians currently supporting war, did anyone ask them what future they want?

Are you seriously suggesting YOU are as much affected by the war as Ukrainians? — Jabberwock

Did I mention me?

Because it is right to let them choose the path they want to take. — Jabberwock

That's the matter in question. Begging the question seems to be an occupational hazard for you.

when we do not support them, then we are exactly 'offering Russia elements' that have very much to do with Ukraine, not with us. — Jabberwock

Russia are asking for elements which involve us, that's the point (matters such as membership of NATO, trade deals, political involvement, military collaboration...)

We let Russia decide Ukraine's fate, just because it is stronger. — Jabberwock

Do you seriously have that bad an understanding of what a negotiation is? Thank God you're not a diplomat.

So? Can we not fight that? Why are we suddenly disarmed of any means of resistance other than full-scale land war? Just look at the history of the overthrow of oppressive regimes and tell me how many were achieved through popular protest movements vs how many had to rely on military invasions. In fact, I'll save you the trouble - it's virtually all of them vs virtually none of them. — Isaac

None of the oppressive regimes were overthrown by military action? Hmm, let me think: the American Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Greek War, the Irish War, the Indonesian War, the Algerian War, the Russian Civil War, the Afghanistan War. Funny how many of them have 'war' in the name? And remind me, was the Hitler's regime overthrown by a popular protest? Because I do vaguely remember some foreign soldiers were involved... Mussolini? Rings a bell? Did Saddam Hussein resign after peaceful protests? Gaddafi? Sorry, I do not have all day.

The idea that the only way to promote the freedom of the people of Donbas is to fight a bloody and destructive war to keep them under Ukrainian rule is ridiculous and ahistorical. Extraction from the yoke of tyranny has almost universally been won by the people, not governments invading each other. — Isaac

Unless you noticed, Ukrainians are also people. And they are doing exactly that: defending themselves from getting under the yoke of tyranny. Your idea that it is somehow best to get under the yoke of tyranny and then just peacefully overthrow it is ahistorical: tyrannies have a strange habits of being quite resistant to change. It could be due to their tendencies to crush any opposition with brutal force, I guess.

For better or worse, Russia are now embedded in Donbas and Crimea. There are two choices; leave them there and fight to free the whole of Russia (including those regions) from tyranny, or expel them and continue Ukraine's progress toward the removal of tyranny in it's regions.

Option one will undeniably cause less bloodshed and has a better overall outcome for humanity. On the downside, it might not work.

Option two will definitely cause masses more bloodshed, may trigger a wider conflict, even a possible nuclear one, and has two possible routes to failure (Ukraine simply cannot shift Russia, or the toll of the war stymies Ukraine's progress away from tyranny).

So what is it about option two that's so attractive for you? — Isaac

This is a false alternative. Did the Baltics have to free all of the USSR to get independence? No, they did not - they seized the opportunity when Russia was unable to intervene (well, it did, but it was too weak to do it effectively).

The first option - 'fighting to free all Russia' is so unlikely that it is absurd - overthrow of the Communism took 50 years and happened mostly due to economic failure of the Soviet system. Tell me, how successful is the West in overthrowing the regime in Belarus? Not very, I would say? Why think that in Russia the result would be different? Giving up the whole Ukraine (because that is the option you really propose) would most likely mean condemning them to the yoke of tyranny for many decades to come.

The second option is not needed: the point is to weaken Putin militarily, economically and politically to the point where he will no longer be able to oppose integration of Ukraine into democractic structures and alliances. Possibly, it might not even require freeing the whole occupied territory.

Yes. Your incredulity is not an argument. 50 million face starvation if grain and fertiliser exports continue to be disrupted, the total death toll in Ukraine stands at about 100,000. And I also talked about the children of the Ukrainians currently supporting war, did anyone ask them what future they want? — Isaac

Please describe what exactly did you do to help in the world hunger crisis. It must have been a lot, if you demand that Ukrainians give up their freedom to alleviate it, right?

And I also talked about the children of the Ukrainians currently supporting war, did anyone ask them what future they want? — Isaac

Oh, so Ukrainians have no right to decide the future of their children, but you have the right to decide the future of Ukrainians. Right.

Did I mention me? — Isaac

Well, you feel you have the right to decide the fate of Ukrainians, because of the war, and disagreed that it is their decision to make, even though they are most affected by it. Why?

That's the matter in question. Begging the question seems to be an occupational hazard for you. — Isaac

What is the matter in question? You do want to decide for Ukrainians in matters that mostly concern Ukrainians. Where exactly I am begging the question?

Russia are asking for elements which involve us, that's the point (matters such as membership of NATO, trade deals, political involvement, military collaboration...) — Isaac

You seem to have a naive conviction that giving in to demands of a bully at the slightest show of his force will stop him exactly where he is. That is ahistorical as well. 'I bring you peace', said Chamberlain. Guess what? He did not.

You would renounce Ukraine's NATO membership, if Russia demanded it under the threat of war, is that correct? Well, what if Russia demanded all the occupied territories, under the threat of war? You would give it that to them as well (or force Ukrainians to do it). What if they demanded Odessa, historically Russian city, under the threat of war? Sure, why not. Corridor to Transnistria, vital for Russian interests? Of course. The question is: what in Ukraine you would NOT give under the threat of war?

Do you seriously have that bad an understanding of what a negotiation is? Thank God you're not a diplomat. — Isaac

Oh, I have a quite good idea what negotiations are. Negotiations were involved in the Budapest Memorandum, quite a lot of them. Oops. And what about Minsk 1? Oh, how they negotiated, the guarantees they gave! Ouch. Wait, there was also Minsk 2! They negotiated there as well, so all the resolutions must have been final and dutifully observed by both sides, right? Right?

The issue is that you propose to give Russia anything to avoid war. Is that a strong negotiating position, in your opinion?

None of the oppressive regimes were overthrown by military action? Hmm, let me think: the American Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Greek War, the Irish War, the Indonesian War, the Algerian War, the Russian Civil War, the Afghanistan War. Funny how many of them have 'war' in the name? And remind me, was the Hitler's regime overthrown by a popular protest? Because I do vaguely remember some foreign soldiers were involved... Mussolini? Rings a bell? Did Saddam Hussein resign after peaceful protests? Gaddafi? Sorry, I do not have all day. — Jabberwock

I didn't mention anything about non-violence. I said military action. Action by the military. How many oppressive regimes were overthrown by one countries military invading territory held by another? Compare that to those overthrown by the actual population within that region (violently or not). Especially true if you set that as the motive (we had no intention, for example, of regime change in Nazi Germany, the intention was defence).

tyrannies have a strange habits of being quite resistant to change. It could be due to their tendencies to crush any opposition with brutal force, I guess. — Jabberwock

Seriously? Have you seen the images from the war? What in those does not seem to you like brutal force? You act as if the option of removing the Russians by land war was some kind of trivial paperwork exercise. Both options face brutal resistance. We're talking about historically which option has had the least. If you want to make the case that open war generally is met with less brutal force than popular uprising then be my guest, I'm all ears.

The first option - 'fighting to free all Russia' is so unlikely that it is absurd — Jabberwock

What a stupid thing to say. You're basically saying that Russia is screwed, condemned to be forever under tyranny. That's ridiculous, of course it isn't.

how successful is the West in overthrowing the regime in Belarus? Not very, I would say? — Jabberwock

How successful have Ukraine been at removing Russia militarily? Not very I'd say? If you only look at one side of an equation it's going to be impossible to draw an relative conclusions. We're comparing two options here, It's no good just dismissing one because it's unlikely. What matters is whether it's more likely than the other.

Giving up the whole Ukraine (because that is the option you really propose) — Jabberwock

Don't tell me what I really propose. If you want to discuss ideas with some imaginary opponent go start a fucking blog. This is a discussion forum, for people to discuss ideas with other real people, not to make up what they think.

most likely mean condemning them to the yoke of tyranny for many decades to come. — Jabberwock

Funny that, because we hear over and over in this very thread how it is wrong to bring up Ukraine's right-wing nationalism of the early 2000s because "things are so different now". You've cited Ukraine's path to freedom yourself (despite it being on a par with Russia only a few years ago). Now, all of a sudden it's somehow impossible for any Russian-controlled regions to follow the same path?

But let's say we do. Again, you're only comparing one side. What do the next decades hold for Ukrainians after another year of destructive war? A rosy utopia of freedom and prosperity? Their infrastructure is destroyed, they are entirely beholden to Western corporations and they have lost millions of citizens. What alternative future are you comparing this decades of tyranny to?

Please describe what exactly did you do to help in the world hunger crisis. It must have been a lot, if you demand that Ukrainians give up their freedom to alleviate it, right? — Jabberwock

What kind of a counter argument is that? Please describe what exactly did you do to help in the world campaign for freedom. It must have been a lot, if you demand that Yemenis give up their lives to support it, right?

Oh, so Ukrainians have no right to decide the future of their children, but you have the right to decide the future of Ukrainians. Right. — Jabberwock

Who said the Ukrainians had no right? We are all part of humanity and we're all responsible for each other in our part. When did that get wrong. I must have missed the memo were we all turned into nationalists.

Well, you feel you have the right to decide the fate of Ukrainians, because of the war, and disagreed that it is their decision to make, even though they are most affected by it. Why? — Jabberwock

I've just given my reasons. The war affects more than just Ukrainians and my governments are taking actions one way or the other and it's my duty as a citizen to hold them to account. That means that I must judge their actions based on the outcomes I think are right. Hiding behind someone else's decision won't cut it.

What is the matter in question? — Jabberwock

Whether "it is right to let them choose the path they want to take"? I don't see any argument from you why holding a Ukrainian passport makes one magically the only entity whose interests need to be considered by our governments when deciding how to respond to this crisis.

You seem to have a naive conviction that giving in to demands of a bully at the slightest show of his force will stop him exactly where he is. — Jabberwock

Where exactly have I advocated giving in?

what in Ukraine you would NOT give under the threat of war? — Jabberwock

That depends entirely on the likely consequences. If the aim isn't to protect human well-being, then what the hell is it? If concessions cause less damage to human well-being than war, then we ought choose concessions. If they cause more, we ought choose war. What other consideration would you have us include?

Oh, I have a quite good idea what negotiations are. Negotiations were involved in the Budapest Memorandum, quite a lot of them. Oops. And what about Minsk 1? Oh, how they negotiated, the guarantees they gave! Ouch. Wait, there was also Minsk 2! They negotiated there as well, so all the resolutions must have been fina and dutifully observed by both sides, right? Right? — Jabberwock

So because some negotiations fail the whole concept is thrown out?

The issue is, that you propose to give Russia anything to avoid war. — Jabberwock

Where have I proposed that?

Let's make this simple. Here's a report from the OHCHR, whom I hope we can agree are pretty independant. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/Crimea2014_2017_EN.pdf

It details the Human Rights abuses in Russian occupied Crimea (occupied for eight years). It lists hundreds of 'disappearances' dozens of extrajudicial killings and a litany of freedoms lost.

The death rate in the Ukraine war currently stands at about 100 civilians and about 700 soldiers per week.

Ukraine turned from a path of corrupted oligarchy and right-wing nationalism to one of more freedom and European integration within just over a decade.

So it is clear that Russian-occupied territories (even the whole of Russia) can turn from corrupted oligarchies to free democracies within a decade (unless we're siding with the racist trope that Russians are somehow just worse people than Ukrainians).

It is also clear that a decade of Russian occupation leads to the deaths of dozens (perhaps hundreds if we include a generous allowance for unrecorded deaths), plus restrictions on freedoms (such as the freedom of association), and some thousands in refugee and asylum seekers.

It is also clear that even another six months of war will cause deaths in the tens of thousands, refugees in the hundreds of thousands, is already restricting freedoms (such as press freedom, freedom of movement and freedom of association), and result in billions in debt and damages. Not to mention the very real risk of millions facing starvation because of the disruption to grain and fertiliser harvests, and the risk of nuclear war.

So can you (or anyone) explain to me why they consider the most humanitarian option to be pursuing war to avoid occupation?

And if such an option is not the most humanitarian one (just the one that the Ukrainians have chosen) then can anyone explain why we should support our governments in supporting the lesser humanitarian option?

Some answers we've already had...

"Giving in to Russia's territorial grabs will lead to more deaths in the long run."
We gave in to Russia's territorial grab in Crimea. It didn't. For 'in the long run' to mean much longer than a decade or so (Crimea has been occupied for eight years), we'd have to have an argument for why Russia cannot do what Ukraine did in ten years. There's no such argument that isn't pretty overtly racist.

"Giving in to Russia's territorial grabs will embolden other dictators so we have to include their actions in the consequent death toll"
Fine. We're facing off against nearly a thousand deaths a week. Plus potentially millions more from the disruption. Which other emboldened dictators would anyone like to include the death rate from. I doubt they'll even register a difference.

"Putin must be punished"
Good. The ICC plans to prosecute him for war crimes. His own generals seem more than a little murderous in intent, and his people (especially in the occupied regions) are not universally happy with him either. He's a pariah on the western world stage and has his foreign assets frozen. I very much doubt 'not getting Donbas' is particularly high on his list of punishment he fears right now.

"It's not our choice to make"
It is. I'm asking about our support for our government's actions in supporting one option over another. It is our choice. We can lobby our governments to provide more military aid to enable war, or we can lobby them to use their global influence to push for Ukraine to negotiate and cede territory if necessary. Our governments are acting right now, absolving us of responsibility isn't an option.

"We have to uphold international law"
Yes (Americans should take note). Nothing in international law specifies the response beyond investigation by the ICC and eventual prosecution. There is no legal requirement to resist invasion, nor to provide aid to those doing so. We do not have to uphold "what we reckon international law ought to be".

"People are willing to die for freedom"
The issue is not freedom vs non-freedom. It is war vs political resistance as a method of ensuring it. It's good that people are willing to risk their lives for other people's freedom. It's not quite so good that people are willing to risk other people's lives for their freedom. War tends to involve the latter. Political resistance the former.


Any more?

I didn't mention anything about non-violence. I said military action. Action by the military. How many oppressive regimes were overthrown by one countries military invading territory held by another? Compare that to those overthrown by the actual population within that region (violently or not). Especially true if you set that as the motive (we had no intention, for example, of regime change in Nazi Germany, the intention was defence). — Isaac

There is no reason to limit the examples to invasion of one country by another, given that Ukraine does not and never planned to invade Russia. Why bring it up then? And Ukrainians have no intention to change the regime either, their intention is defence against the regime. If Russia did not try to subdue them and meddle in their affairs, they would not care what regime they have. So yes, I believe all the examples where people defended themselves against a regime still apply, wether those people were formally organized into military units or not.

Seriously? Have you seen the images from the war? What in those does not seem to you like brutal force? You act as if the option of removing the Russians by land war was some kind of trivial paperwork exercise. Both options face brutal resistance. We're talking about historically which option has had the least. If you want to make the case that open war generally is met with less brutal force than popular uprising then be my guest, I'm all ears. — Isaac

It is you who suggests that overthrowing Russian regime by peaceful methods would be somewhat trivial if we let Russia to install that regime in the first place. That is simply absurd and ahistorical, as I have pointed out. I am making a case that defending against the regime BEFORE it is installed has more chance of success than afterwards, before the region is turned into a police state, as those are not that easy to overthrow as you believe them to be.

What a stupid thing to say. You're basically saying that Russia is screwed, condemned to be forever under tyranny. That's ridiculous, of course it isn't. — Isaac

Forever, no, for a very long time, yes. At least as long as in Belarus, possibly as long as in the USSR. Why think it would be faster?

How successful have Ukraine been at removing Russia militarily? Not very I'd say? If you only look at one side of an equation it's going to be impossible to draw an relative conclusions. We're comparing two options here, It's no good just dismissing one because it's unlikely. What matters is whether it's more likely than the other. — Isaac

How successful was Ukraine in not submitting the whole country under the Russian regime? I would say very. Putin wanted to take over the country and he did not, Ukrainians stopped him militarily. I would count it as a success. So yes, Ukraine was much more successful in opposing a regime militarily then the peaceful opposition in Belarus.

Don't tell me what I really propose. If you want to discuss ideas with some imaginary opponent go start a fucking blog. This is a discussion forum, for people to discuss ideas with other real people, not to make up what they think. — Isaac

When I have asked you specifically what concessions you would not make in the face of war, you wrote a whole paragraph to avoid that question. Unless you answer straight which Russian demands would need to be rejected, even under the threat of force, I am justified to assume that you would give up the whole Ukraine. If that misrepresents your view, give a straight answer: where is the limit.

Funny that, because we hear over and over in this very thread how it is wrong to bring up Ukraine's right-wing nationalism of the early 2000s because "things are so different now". You've cited Ukraine's path to freedom yourself (despite it being on a par with Russia only a few years ago). Now, all of a sudden it's somehow impossible for any Russian-controlled regions to follow the same path? — Isaac

Have you missed all that I wrote? Russia is actively thwarting all attempts of democratizing of former republics, if it can, and it is quite open about it to discourage others. What is so hard about it to understand?

But let's say we do. Again, you're only comparing one side. What do the next decades hold for Ukrainians after another year of destructive war? A rosy utopia of freedom and prosperity? Their infrastructure is destroyed, they are entirely beholden to Western corporations and they have lost millions of citizens. What alternative future are you comparing this decades of tyranny to? — Isaac

I am comparing the Baltics and Belarus. Sure, a lot depends on how much Ukraine will be helped on its road to democracy, but I have no reason to believe that with the right support it cannot be like a bigger, more resourceful Lithuania. I would say the other option is Belarus in the best case, but I am afraid it could be much worse, given how often 'deukrainization' is mentioned by the propaganda.

What kind of a counter argument is that? Please describe what exactly did you do to help in the world campaign for freedom. It must have been a lot, if you demand that Yemenis give up their lives to support it, right? — Isaac

I have donated to several Ukrainian funds. But you do demand that Ukrainians give up their freedom to alleviate the hunger crisis, right?

I've just given my reasons. The war affects more than just Ukrainians and my governments are taking actions one way or the other and it's my duty as a citizen to hold them to account. That means that I must judge their actions based on the outcomes I think are right. Hiding behind someone else's decision won't cut it. — Isaac

Your governments are taking actions that enable Ukrainians to make the choice whether their freedom is worth fighting for militarily or not. I believe they should have that possibility, because the issue concerns mostly them - they will feel the consequences. You believe that it is better to create a situation where they cannot make that choice. In other words, you want to make that choice for them.

Who said the Ukrainians had no right? We are all part of humanity and we're all responsible for each other in our part. When did that get wrong. I must have missed the memo were we all turned into nationalists. — Isaac

Ukrainians can choose their future only if they have outside help. Without that help, their future is decided by Russia. You want to deprive them of that help, so yes, I think you want to deprive them of that right.

Whether "it is right to let them choose the path they want to take"? I don't see any argument from you why holding a Ukrainian passport makes one magically the only entity whose interests need to be considered by our governments when deciding how to respond to this crisis. — Isaac

If you don't see it, then you did not read my three last posts. People who are most affected by the consequences of certain actions should have the most say about choices concerning those actions. That is usually how it works.

That depends entirely on the likely consequences. If the aim isn't to protect human well-being, then what the hell is it? If concessions cause less damage to human well-being than war, then we ought choose concessions. If they cause more, we ought choose war. What other consideration would you have us include? — Isaac

That depends entirely on the likely consequences. If the aim isn't to protect human well-being, then what the hell is it? If concessions cause less damage to human well-being than war, then we ought choose concessions. If they cause more, we ought choose war. What other consideration would you have us include? — Isaac

That is a lot of words written to completely avoid the question. I have asked you a series of very specific options, consider the likely consequences and then answer.

I understand your views, but you must also understand they are not shared by most people. Americans thought that it is worth risking their lives in exchange for freedom, so did Haitans, Greeks, the Irish, Algerians, Afghans, Russians, Poles, the French... I would say the list is rather long. Of course, it is better to throw off the yoke of tyranny by peaceful methods, but history teaches us that such opportunities are somewhat rare. Usually it involves death, violence and destruction. Yet people think it is worth it. I understand you disagree, but maybe let those directly involved decide.

Not to mention that given your reasoning, we should give in to all terrorists: after all, they always threat with more damage than would happen if their demands are not met. Do you have any idea why we are not doing that?

So because some negotiations fail the whole concept is thrown out? — Isaac

No, the concept works very well in the right conditions. However, the situation did not change sufficiently for them to occur.

Where have I proposed that? — Isaac

You insist that we make concessions, while refusing to specify where concessions must stop. Unless you do that, it is most reasonable to assume that you are willing to accept all concessions.

So can you (or anyone) explain to me why they consider the most humanitarian option to be pursuing war to avoid occupation? — Isaac

The simple answer is: it is not the most humanitarian option. The American Revolution was not the most humanitarian option: most likely Brits would have directly killed less Americans than died in the Revolution. This possibly concerns many if not most fights and wars for freedom. What you fail to understand is that there are some things that people are willing to risk their lives for or even knowingly die for.

There is no reason to limit the examples to invasion of one country by another, given that Ukraine does not and never planned to invade Russia. Why bring it up then? — Jabberwock

Because they are planning to invade Russian held territory. The legal paperwork doesn't change how many people die, nor how successful/necessary the operation is likely to be.

It is you who suggests that overthrowing Russian regime by peaceful methods would be somewhat trivial — Jabberwock

No I'm comparing the two options. I haven't declared either to be trivial, nor have I ignored either. It is the act of ignoring one to only look at the other that I'm disputing.

Forever, no, for a very long time, yes. At least as long as in Belarus, possibly as long as in the USSR. Why think it would be faster? — Jabberwock

Simple. Ukraine did it. So did several other states (as you only recently pointed out). If Ukraine can do it, why not Russia?

Putin wanted to take over the country and he did not — Jabberwock

This is disputed.

Unless you answer straight which Russian demands would need to be rejected, even under the threat of force, I am justified to assume that you would give up the whole Ukraine. If that misrepresents your view, give a straight answer: where is the limit. — Jabberwock

Nonsense. I don't have the data to make such a decision. I do have the data to show the current options are heavily in favour of occupation. Other potential demands would have to be weighed on their merits, but since there are no other demands right now, I can't see the point.

Russia is actively thwarting all attempts of democratizing of former republics, if it can, and it is quite open about it to discourage others — Jabberwock

So was Ukraine. The people threw that shackle off.

I have donated to several Ukrainian funds. But you do demand that Ukrainians give up their freedom to alleviate the hunger crisis, right? — Jabberwock

I've donated to several famine funds. But you do demand that Yemenis give up their lives to promote freedom in Ukraine, right? Where is this line of argument supposed to go?

Ukrainians can choose their future only if they have outside help. Without that help, their future is decided by Russia. You want to deprive them of that help — Jabberwock

Where have I said that I don't think we ought help Ukraine? The argument is about which methods we should be willing to support, not about whether we offer any support at all.

People who are most affected by the consequences of certain actions should have the most say about choices concerning those actions. — Jabberwock

OK, so in what way are we consulting the people in Yemen whose lives are put at risk by disruption to grain exports? You're not advocating a 'most effected, most choice' option, you're advocating a 'do everything the Ukrainians ask' option. Given the enormous death toll, I'd say ordinary Russian conscripts were pretty much the most affected (they seem to be being killed in higher numbers), so where are we considering them?

it is not the most humanitarian option ... What you fail to understand is that there are some things that people are willing to risk their lives for or even knowingly die for. — Jabberwock

I'll add it to the list. But also, specific to Ukraine. It's just a narrative that they're 'fighting for freedom'. You've no idea why they're fighting. We know a good deal are fighting out of nationalist sentiment, a good number from hatred of Russia, many for revenge. There's little evidence of a strong single unifying 'cause'.

Because they are planning to invade Russian held territory. The legal paperwork doesn't change how many people die, nor how successful/necessary the operation is likely to be. — Isaac

Then Washington invaded British-held Boston. There you go, military invasion overthrows the regime! Should I look up all the others? The bottom line still is, people have risked their lives for freedom throughout the history. Coming up with made-up criteria will not change it.

No I'm comparing the two options. I haven't declared either to be trivial, nor have I ignored either. It is the act of ignoring one to only look at the other that I'm disputing. — Isaac

And I have explained why I think that option is very unlikely.

Simple. Ukraine did it. So did several other states (as you only recently pointed out). If Ukraine can do it, why not Russia? — Isaac

Ukraine lost its independence in 1921 and gained it again in 1991. How is this an example of 'simple' or 'faster'?

Nonsense. I don't have the data to make such a decision. I do have the data to show the current options are heavily in favour of occupation. Other potential demands would have to be weighed on their merits, but since there are no other demands right now, I can't see the point. — Isaac

You had no problems of presenting demands and likelihood of their fulfillment when you have described the hypothetical peace negotiations, but now you have no data. You can assess that the current options are heavily in favour of partial occupation, but somehow are unable to assess the options in favour (or not) of complete occupation. Curious.

So was Ukraine. The people threw that shackle off. — Isaac

The people threw that shackle off after 50 years when the USSR was economically collapsing and could not intervene, like it did in 1968 in Czechoslovakia or almost did in 1980 in Poland. So yes, the people did it, but the situation was quite favorable.

I've donated to several famine funds. But you do demand that Yemenis give up their lives to promote freedom in Ukraine, right? Where is this line of argument supposed to go? — Isaac

I see, you donated. But if you sold all your possessions, leaving just the bare minimum, you would save even more Yemenis. That would be THE MOST HUMANITARIAN OPTION, would it be not? Yemenis give up their lives so that we can have smartphones, computers, and watch Netflix, that does not bother you that much? Somehow you do not feel obliged to relinquish all your comforts and do not demand that from all the people you know? Only Ukrainians should give up their freedom?

Where have I said that I don't think we ought help Ukraine? The argument is about which methods we should be willing to support, not about whether we offer any support at all. — Isaac

You would prefer to force Ukrainians to go under Russian occupation and then somehow help them in other ways. Does that misrepresent your views in any way?

OK, so in what way are we consulting the people in Yemen whose lives are put at risk by disruption to grain exports? You're not advocating a 'most effected, most choice' option, you're advocating a 'do everything the Ukrainians ask' option. Given the enormous death toll, I'd say ordinary Russian conscripts were pretty much the most affected (they seem to be being killed in higher numbers), so where are we considering them? — Isaac

As long as you have a smartphone, leave the Yemeni out of this. Until we give up our comforts for them, we should not not expect Ukrainians to give up their freedom.

I am advocating that Ukrainians be able to decide in matters most related to them, exactly as I wrote. I would be extremely happy if Russian conscripts could decide for themselves, however, the West has little means to enable that choice. In the case of Ukrainians, we can.

And i still feel the need to ask: do you believe we should always meet the demands of terrorists, if it is the most humanitarian option?

removing the leader of a country and replacing him with a more egalitarian one [...] pursue (with the billions invested currently in war) replacing him with a better leader — Isaac

Yaay a suggestion, though it could use (or needs) some fleshing out.

By the way ...

so that no one cares which side of the border they're on — Isaac

Is this related to the "border/country free world" thing from earlier in the thread?

Yaay a suggestion, though it could use (or needs) some fleshing out. — jorndoe

We could sit down with Putin and just have a heart to heart. I think he might come around.

The bottom line still is, people have risked their lives for freedom throughout the history. — Jabberwock

Again, that metric is not the issue. The method is.

I have explained why I think that option is very unlikely. — Jabberwock

No you haven't. You said it's because the regime would oppose it. All autocratic regimes oppose resistance. Why are Russians uniquely unable to win out against that?

Ukraine lost its independence in 1921 and gained it again in 1991. How is this an example of 'simple' or 'faster'? — Jabberwock

As late as 2008, Ukraine was in roughly the same position as Russia on indices of freedom, corruption and human development. Whatever progress it's made relative to Russia, it has done in the last few years. I get your nationalist tendency to think the colour of the flag is the marker of independence, but most of the world have moved on from colonialism and consider more complex measures of human freedom than whether they like the flag.

I know the world's media would have us believe Ukraine are the world's most noble beaten down underdogs, but they're not. Until recently they were a hotbed of far-right nationalism, corruption, human rights abuses and black market arms trading. The people revolted against that. They did so over only a few years. There is no reason at all why Russians cannot do the same, they are coming from almost exactly the same position on indices of freedom.

You had no problems of presenting demands and likelihood of their fulfillment when you have described the hypothetical peace negotiations, but now you have no data. — Jabberwock

Yes, because you've given me no options. The offers and possibilities are real here. Occupation, neutrality, NATO membership... these are real negotiation points. You're asking me to measure hypothetical ones. I don't have the data on hypothetical demands. If you give me a real demand you think Putin might make, I'll do my best to find some figures to use.

The people threw that shackle off after 50 years when the USSR was economically collapsing and could not intervene, like it did in 1968 in Czechoslovakia or almost did in 1980 in Poland. So yes, the people did it, but the situation was quite favorable. — Jabberwock

See above, this is just wrong. The move from corruption to freedom is recent. Your obsession with the USSR being the cause of all oppression is not reflected in the data I'm afraid. The Ukrainian government did a perfectly good job of oppressing its own people up until very recently

I see, you donated. But if you sold all your possessions, leaving just the bare minimum, you would save even more Yemenis. That would be THE MOST HUMANITARIAN OPTION, would it be not? Yemenis give up their lives so that we can have smartphones, computers, and watch Netflix, that does not bother you that much? Somehow you do not feel obliged to relinquish all your comforts and do not demand that from all the people you know? Only Ukrainians should give up their freedom? — Jabberwock

This argument doesn't make any sense at all. I'm asking you why you choose to support the Ukrainians. Why do you choose to support your government spending billions on their war and not on protecting the Yemeni. It has nothing to do with what I'm asking Ukrainians, I'm not talking to a Ukrainian, I'm talking to you. Why do you choose to support Ukrainian freedom over and above Yemeni food supply?

Your government has a limited pot of money, why are you happy for them to spend it securing Ukrainian freedom at the expense of Yemeni food security.

You would prefer to force Ukrainians to go under Russian occupation and then somehow help them in other ways. Does that misrepresent your views in any way? — Jabberwock

I'm not forcing anything? Are you forcing people to starve because you're not actively helping them? Are you forcing people to live without shelter because you're not providing a home? Are you currently forcing Afghan women to live under the oppressive Taliban regime?

No. I'm responding to the situation Russia has put them in, in the context of all the other crises the world is facing.

As long as you have a smartphone, leave the Yemeni out of this. — Jabberwock

I have a Fairphone, but that's not the point. The point is that we face a choice as to which crisis we ask our governments to prioritise. I want a balance, you want Ukrainian freedom above all else. I'm asking why.

I am advocating that Ukrainians be able to decide in matters most related to them, exactly as I wrote. I would be extremely happy if Russian conscripts could decide for themselves, however, the West has little means to enable that choice. In the case of Ukrainians, we can. — Jabberwock

Yes. I know what you're advocating, I'm asking why. If giving Ukraine that option is bought at the expense of Yemeni food security, Ukrainian children's future, dead Russian conscripts, risk of nuclear war... Why are you advocating it? What is it about giving Ukrainians the options they want that trumps those other concerns for you?

so that no one cares which side of the border they're on — Isaac


Is this related to the "border/country free world" thing from earlier in the thread? — jorndoe

Yes. Borders cause wars. It is not noble or ethical to support their instatement or protection. It is the quality of the governments on either side that matters, not the location of the division between them. Where there is oppression, we should strive to reduce it, not move it to the other side of an arbitrary line.

That's what's being advocated here. That we support the expending of thousands of lives, not in reducing oppression, but in moving it. Putting it back within the borders of Russia where, presumably, it belongs...?

What government are you assuming to be Jabberwock's?

What government are you assuming to be Jabberwock's? — wonderer1

Oh, I don't want to excessively personalise, so I don't suppose it matters. I'm treating them as a generic interlocutor, so assuming vaguely Western. If not then maybe no lobbying is needed, it sounds that way from the responses.

I assume (perhaps wrongly) that a wider audience are reading and would find an intimately specific conversation about individual actions quite boring...?

It would be interesting to get the perspective of a Brazilian, or an Ethiopian, or better yet a Russian, but none seem to be here (commenting at least).

Again, that metric is not the issue. The method is. — Isaac

Your alternative was 'popular protest movements vs how many had to rely on military invasions'. I did not expect you to take it so literal, if you do, then the alternative is obviously false - most commonly opressive regimes were overthrown neither by popular protests nor by military invasions (which Ukrainian defense, by the way, still is not), but by wars and revolutions. You wrote 'just look at the history of the overthrow of oppressive regimes' and I did exactly that - most of them were overthrown through death and violence, not by peaceful protests.

No you haven't. You said it's because the regime would oppose it. All autocratic regimes oppose resistance. Why are Russians uniquely unable to win out against that? — Isaac

Yes, all autocratic regimes oppose resistance and they often last quite long, so there would be nothing unique about that. Do I have to list all the lengths of autocratic rules to make that point?

As late as 2008, Ukraine was in roughly the same position as Russia on indices of freedom, corruption and human development. Whatever progress it's made relative to Russia, it has done in the last few years. I get your nationalist tendency to think the colour of the flag is the marker of independence, but most of the world have moved on from colonialism and consider more complex measures of human freedom than whether they like the flag. — Isaac

Let us check that out... The Economist Democracy Index in 2008 for Russia was 4.48, while compared to 6.94 for Ukraine, with full democracies starting at about 8. RSF Freedom of Press - Ukraine 19.25, Russia - 47 (the lower score, the greater freedom). Human Freedom index for 2008 - Ukraine 76, Russia 111 (less is better). Freedom in the World 2013 (no earlier issues) - Ukraine 4, Russia 6 (1 - best, 7 - worst). Polity IV State Fragility 2009 - Ukraine 6, Russia 8. They only indices they were comparable in was corruption. So what you wrote is simply false. Ukraine has began to improve democratically from the moment it has thrown the Kremlin yoke off. Yes, it went slower than in some other republics, yes, there were some regresses, but that is precisely because Russian influences were there much stronger than in the Baltics. The flag has nothing to do with it, it is a matter of Russian dominance.

I know the world's media would have us believe Ukraine are the world's most noble beaten down underdogs, but they're not. Until recently they were a hotbed of far-right nationalism, corruption, human rights abuses and black market arms trading. The people revolted against that. They did so over only a few years. There is no reason at all why Russians cannot do the same, they are coming from almost exactly the same position on indices of freedom. — Isaac

No. It seems you simply do not know the history of Ukraine. People revolted in 2004, not 'a few years' back. And they did not revolt against autocratic regime (Kuchma did not even run in the elections), but against rampant corruption and electoral fraud. That was four years before 2008, when you believe Ukraine was still authoritarian. Not to mention that your objection undermines your own argument: if Ukraine was autocratic from 1931 till 'a few years back', then it would be even longer, so it cannot be an example of fast rejection of authoritarian rule, can it?

See above, this is just wrong. The move from corruption to freedom is recent. Your obsession with the USSR being the cause of all oppression is not reflected in the data I'm afraid. The Ukrainian government did a perfectly good job of oppressing its own people up until very recently — Isaac

No, it was not, as I have pointed out above. It was slow, gradual, with many regresses, but it is certainly not recent. Moreover, most deficiencies in the democratic processes in Ukraine were related to bitter infighting between the different fractions and corruption, not to autocracy. In general from 2000 Ukraine has been described as a 'hybrid regime', i.e. one with some deficiencies and abuses (like rigged elections), but different from authoritarian rule, like Russia. They are not comparable.

Yes, because you've given me no options. The offers and possibilities are real here. Occupation, neutrality, NATO membership... these are real negotiation points. You're asking me to measure hypothetical ones. I don't have the data on hypothetical demands. If you give me a real demand you think Putin might make, I'll do my best to find some figures to use. — Isaac

Yes, I have given you a list of specific options, you just evaded it. Let us assume that we give Putin all the territories he has now, Ukraine renounces NATO, peace is reached and in three years Putin comes back with the army and asks for the rest of the lands which are now officially annexed to Russia as enshrined in the constitution. Should Ukraine concede or not?

This argument doesn't make any sense at all. I'm asking you why you choose to support the Ukrainians. Why do you choose to support your government spending billions on their war and not on protecting the Yemeni. It has nothing to do with what I'm asking Ukrainians, I'm not talking to a Ukrainian, I'm talking to you. Why do you choose to support Ukrainian freedom over and above Yemeni food supply?

Your government has a limited pot of money, why are you happy for them to spend it securing Ukrainian freedom at the expense of Yemeni food security. — Isaac

I choose to support Ukrainians, because they were attacked by Russians as they were striving for freedom. But I also believe that conceding to Putin's demands will only encourage him, making the whole Europe less secure.

I'm not forcing anything? Are you forcing people to starve because you're not actively helping them? Are you forcing people to live without shelter because you're not providing a home? Are you currently forcing Afghan women to live under the oppressive Taliban regime?

No. I'm responding to the situation Russia has put them in, in the context of all the other crises the world is facing. — Isaac

Fair enough. You are not forcing them. Let me rephrase that, then: you would prefer to deny them military help, so they fall under the Russian regime, and then help them somehow. Is that correct?

I have a Fairphone, but that's not the point. The point is that we face a choice as to which crisis we ask our governments to prioritise. I want a balance, you want Ukrainian freedom above all else. I'm asking why. — Isaac

Oh, so we no longer strive for THE MOST HUMANITARIAN OPTION, but a balance. Last year's number of dead Yemeni (when the grain deal was in force) was acceptable, but with the deliveries stopped it would be too much.

Yes, I would rather help Ukrainians, possibly because I know more Ukrainians than Yemeni. But also because I believe Putin must be stopped.

Yes. I know what you're advocating, I'm asking why. If giving Ukraine that option is bought at the expense of Yemeni food security, Ukrainian children's future, dead Russian conscripts, risk of nuclear war... Why are you advocating it? What is it about giving Ukrainians the options they want that trumps those other concerns for you? — Isaac

I do not think it is at the expense of Ukrainian's children future, on the contrary. It is specifically for their future, so they do not have to do 'peaceful protests' in a police state. As I said, I am closer to Ukrainians than Yemeni, the risk of nuclear war is rather small. As for Russian conscripts, you have just argued that they can peacefully revolt any time they want, so why that should be a problem?

And I notice that again you decided to skip the question about the terrorists: well, that is my concern, too - if you concede to a bully, sooner or later you have to concede again, unless you reach a boundary. Unfortunately, due to your evasions, I still do not know how much you are willing to concede under a threat of force. You get indignant when I suggest you would concede everything, but I am not sure why - you postulate the most humanitarian option and giving everything up to avoid violence IS the most humanitarian option.

Yes, I would rather help Ukrainians, possibly because I know more Ukrainians than Yemeni. — Jabberwock

All I really wanted to know.

All I really wanted to know. — Isaac

Should have asked, would save us some time.

Yes. [...] — Isaac

OK, this goes well beyond any particular troubles in the world, and (I think) also answers

could use (or needs) some fleshing out — jorndoe

i.e. such a "border/country free world" would go towards

that no one cares which side of the border they're on — Isaac

except doesn't answer how such a world might/would come about.

EDIT: more explicit

The Kremlin really doesn't like Odesa.

Odesa, other Ukrainian port cities bombarded by Russia for 3rd consecutive night
^{— Samya Kullab · AP via PBS · Jul 19, 2023}

Ruining grain export and "retaliation" all in one?

Russia bombards Ukraine ports, threatens ships, jolting world grain markets
^{— Viktoria Lakezina, Vitalii Hnidyi, Peter Graff, Angus MacSwan · Reuters via MSN · Jul 20, 2023}

The aggressor is deliberately hitting the port infrastructure - administrative and residential buildings nearby were damaged, also the consulate of the People's Republic of China. — Oleh Kiper

Russian attacks kill one in north Ukraine, hit grain terminals in south
^{— Anna Pruchnicka, Kim Coghill, Timothy Heritage · Reuters · Jul 21, 2023}

Kiper said Russia had attacked with Kalibr cruise missiles that were fired from the Black Sea at low altitude to bypass air defence systems.

Not sure how, say, China can justify supporting this crap.

Igor Girkin (Strelkov), the main instigator of the Donbass war and a man main responsible for killing three hundred people in a passenger plane over Donbass has been arrested in Russia. Not for his war crimes, of course, but for insulting Putin.

Interestingly, he did not say recently anything different from what he was saying for the last year and a half. Putin's grip on power seems to be slipping if he starts to see bloggers as a threat.

Girkin appeared in a Moscow courtroom on Friday where he was formally charged with extremism. Earlier this week he had called for Putin’s downfall, saying Russia “could not survive another six years” of his rule.

He has also been found guilty in absentia by a Dutch court of the murder of 298 people onboard flight MH17, the plane shot down by a Russian surface-to-air missile while flying over east Ukraine in July 2014.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/21/russia-arrests-pro-war-putin-critic-igor-girkin-reports

Igor No-mates, it seems.

Can anyone semi-informed imagine who might replace Putin, and what policy changes would result? Or am I only dreaming?

Putin's grip on power seems to be slipping — Jabberwock

Really? Because a minute ago, when it better suited your narrative...

tyrannies have a strange habits of being quite resistant to change. — Jabberwock

The first option - 'fighting to free all Russia' is so unlikely that it is absurd - overthrow of the Communism took 50 years and happened mostly due to economic failure of the Soviet system. Tell me, how successful is the West in overthrowing the regime in Belarus? Not very, I would say? Why think that in Russia the result would be different? — Jabberwock

before the region is turned into a police state, as those are not that easy to overthrow as you believe them to be. — Jabberwock

all autocratic regimes oppose resistance and they often last quite long — Jabberwock

Funny how the solidity of Putin's grip on power seems to change depending on the purposes the argument is being put to.

Encourage more war - "Putin is weakening and could be overthrown any minute, just a few more bombs and we'll be there."

Encourage political action instead of war - "Putin is strong, it would take many decades to overthrow him"

Do get dizzy at all?

Funny how the solidity of Putin's grip on power seems to change depending on the purposes the argument is being put to. — Isaac

Yes, tyrannies have a tendency to last quite long, unless significant impulses affect it. I would say that a bloody, unsuccessful war, with more than 100k dead and collapsing economy COULD be that impulse, don't you think? Especially that we know from history (those who know it) that such lost wars do tend to influence rulers quite negatively. What you you proposed, on the other hand, that is handing Putin Ukraine and giving him concessions would mean that he won the war. I would say that would be a regime-strengthening factor, don't you think?

And if you expect that Putin's rule will end with Russians gathering, holding hands in a circle and establishing a democracy in a week (which is your preferred method of getting rid of regimes, even though it did not happen that often in history), then you are even more naive and oblivious to the reality of Russian politics than your previous posts have shown.

Putin's end will not be peaceful and it will definitely not be pretty, in case you did not notice, Prigozhin was bringing to Moscow not a draft of a new democractic constitution, but tanks. I do not expect that Putin's end will be succeeded by a democracy, definitely not in a short term. I do not even think that Russian society is capable of a violent revolution at this time (which in regimes happens more often) - they have been trained to be politically apathetic for decades.

I rather expect that after Putin the next regime will be equally autocratic - only much weaker, which would make it uncapable of maintaining the war effort.

I would say that a bloody, unsuccessful war, with more than 100k dead and collapsing economy COULD be that impulse — Jabberwock

How convenient. The one thing that can end these otherwise impossible to shift tyrannies just so happens to be the one thing that is the solution you prefer anyway because of your personal allegiances.

What an entirely unbiased and rational pure coincidence!

How convenient. The one thing that can end these otherwise impossible to shift tyrannies just so happens to be the one thing that is the solution you prefer anyway because of your personal allegiances.

What an entirely unbiased and rational pure coincidence! — Isaac

You expect me to apologize that facts confirm my arguments and not yours?

No, it is not a coincidence, it is a process well known from history. The facts are that Putin's rule for over 20 years has been practically unchallenged by any peaceful protests (the only bigger one was the Bolotnaya Square, which was dealt with rather swiftly) and after a year and a half of unsuccessful, bloody war he already had to bargain away from an armed coup. Yes, that is very unfortunate that regimes tend to weaken much more through blood and violence than by peaceful processes, but the history teaches us that is the way it is. We can accept it and act accordingly (like the West does now) or we can ignore history, concede everything to regimes and just hope that they somehow stumble and fall down on their own.

You expect me to apologize that facts confirm my arguments and not yours? — Jabberwock

Ah well, if I'd known The Facts™ were involved, I'd have stayed schtum.

Ah well, if I'd known The Facts™ were involved, I'd have stayed schtum. — Isaac

I have given you two specific facts:
1. Putin's rule has been practically unchallenged by peaceful protests for twenty years.
2. The events of the Ukrainian war have weakened Putin's regime.

Which do you believe is false and why?

I'll try not to disappoint. — Isaac

I'm afraid you aren't succeeding.

I have the impression that you are trying to paint Jabberwock as a bigot, which seems the sort of thing you deplore about woke cancel culture.