There is no evidence of that. — Olivier5

There's ample evidence. We have the numbers killed in the current war and the numbers dead under Russian occupation of Crimea. These are known facts. The numbers don't stack up.

a thousand year Russian reich over Ukraine would kill many many times more people (over thge years) than a quick war of liberation. — Olivier5

Probably, yes. Can you cite a single country in the modern world which has suffered a thousand years of oppression without revolution? Most ex-Soviet countries didn't last more than a few decades before throwing off their oppressors, and we already have the figures from 8 years of Russian occupation of Crimea.

And do you have any expert evidence at all that this will be a 'quick war' of liberation. I'm not interested in your armchair reckoning.

You've provided no evidence at all that continued Russian occupation of Crimea will result in more deaths than continued war, you've given no evidence that the war will be 'quick' and you've given no evidence that Russia's 'Reich' will last a thousand years. We can all just make stuff up off the top of our heads.

You cannot base geopolitical decisions on mathematical equations. There are too many unknowns. — Olivier5

Then on what do we base decisions where there are fewer unknowns? So far you've offered nothing but your idiosyncratic, uniformed guesswork.

Just exploring your idea further.

Say person A's actions will directly result in person B getting hurt (punched in the face by person A). You're saying it's a noble goal to prevent that, even if violence is used to do so - "If government was to limit itself to that task and that task alone I could consider it a grey area."

No say person A's actions will directly lead to the starvation of a million children. You would oppose stopping them by violence. Why?

It seems such an odd ethic. You'd prevent me from punching a person in the nose, but you wouldn't prevent me from polluting the main drinking source of an entire village, killing thousands.

Let's do a little pros and cons. The pros for both options are obviously that the people of the region move toward greater freedom. So the cons...

Option 1 - Ukraine retake the region militarily and their government continues its moves toward greater freedom

• costs thousands of lives in war
• risks escalating into nuclear war
• costs thousands more lives in food, medicine, fertiliser and fuel disruptions
• leaves little further negotiation room if it fails. Has only one chance (Ukraine can't continually wage war - if they lose, that's it for at least a few years)
• most analysts think it has only a small chance of succeeding

Option 2 - the region is ceded to Russia and we support protest movements and political campaigns to oust Putin's regime so the people of the region can move toward greater freedom

• failure means a slightly more oppressive regime has control of the region (but still evidence is of fewer total lives lost by that means)
• lets a bully 'get away with it'
• upsets Ukrainians who wanted that bit of land to be in their 'territory'

Has Crimea's time under the Russians resulted in hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed and decades of debt? No.
Has it risked nuclear war? No.
Has is caused global famines, health disruptions, economic crises and fuels shortages? No.
Has Putin 'getting away with' invading Crimea resulted in a mass campaign of European invasions? No.

So it's very hard to see how Ukraine invading Crimea is going to bring about a net gain in well-being.

Why rule out the first option? — Olivier5

Thousands dead (possibly hundreds of thousands). Tiny chance of success. No real improvement on the second option.

it's not like there is no historical precedent for war as a means to freedom. If the UK can wage a just war against the Nazis, then Ukraine can wage a just war against Putin's forces. — Olivier5

Yep.

I'm not the one arguing that there are no other choices.

There are two ways the region can move toward freedom.

Fighting a war to ensure control by a more freedom oriented government.

Ceding that war and fighting a series of protests and political campaigns to make the occupying government more freedom oriented.

I'm asking why you rule out the second option. And, more importantly, I'm asking for the expert evidence on which you base that judgment.

I've just argued that government is inherently a violent instrument, so there is no such thing as "great government" as far as I am concerned.

Protecting people against direct physical violence is a noble goal. If government was to limit itself to that task and that task alone I could consider it a grey area.

Anything else does not warrant violence. — Tzeentch

Why not?

Because I don't like being made complicit in rapacious institutions. — Tzeentch

We're not talking about 'rapacious' institutions. You're claiming an opposition to government tout cort. Even a great one.

I wasn't asking what you would do. I was asking why?

Why would you seek to avoid being part of it?

So Joe Bloggs uses his big stick to beat his neighbours into becoming his slaves. You could either stop him, by force, or stand by. Why would you stand by?

The situation in Ukraine is totally different from women vote in the UK or apartheid in SA — Olivier5

And all the other countries listed above? Ukraine different to all those too? You're suggesting that the situation in Crimea and Donbas is different to virtually every other country in the world which has, at one time or another, brought about freedoms through means other than war.

How can I close my eyes and easily imagine the color red and green, divorced from any object? — hypericin

By construction. Socially mediated.

Both the experience of red in the abstract and red as a property of an object are equally incommunicable. — hypericin

No. They're not. That's the point. What you're calling your 'experience of red' is a socially mediated construction. Therefore it is bound up with the language your culture uses and so can be reiterated in that language.

Since 1990. From Wiki

1990: People's Movement I was a revolution to restore democracy in Nepal and end the panchayat system in Nepal.
1990–present: United Liberation Front of Asom launch major violent activities against Indian rule in Assam. To date, the resulting clashes with the Indian army have left more than 10,000 dead.[183]
1990: 1990 Mass Uprising in Bangladesh Strikes and Protests topple the Bangladeshi military government and democracy is restored for the first time in nine years.
1990: The Poll tax riots were a series of riots in British towns and cities during protests against the Community Charge introduced by the government of Margaret Thatcher.
1990–1992: Anticommunist forces led a National Democratic Revolution that overthrew President Ramiz Alia and ended with an election victory by the Democratic Party of Albania, the biggest anticommunist party in Albania.
1990–1995: The First Tuareg Rebellion in Niger and Mali.
1991: The Kurdish uprising against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in Iraqi Kurdistan.
1991: The Shiite Uprising in Karbala, Iraq.
1991: The failed 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt takes place, leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union
1991: The Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front take control of Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, after dictator Haile Mariam Mengistu flees the country, bringing an end to the Ethiopian Civil War
1991: Somali National Movement rebels establish the Somaliland administration in northwestern Somalia, and declare the region independent from the rest of the country.
1992: 1992 Los Angeles riots
1992: Black May (1992) Thailand popular protest in Bangkok against the government of General Suchinda Kraprayoon and the military crackdown that followed. Up to 200,000 people demonstrated in central Bangkok at the height of the protests.
1992: Afghan uprising against the Taliban by United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan, or the Northern Alliance.
1994: The 1990s Uprising in Bahrain, Shiite-led rebellion for the restoration of democracy in Bahrain.
1994: The Zapatista Rebellion: an uprising in the Mexican state of Chiapas demanding equal rights for indigenous peoples and in opposition to growing neoliberalism in North America.
1997: The 1997 rebellion in Albania sparked by Ponzi scheme failures.
1998: The Indonesian Revolution of 1998 resulted the resignation of President Suharto after three decades of the New Order period.
1999: The Iran student protests, July 1999 were, at the time, the most violent protests to occur against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
1999–2000: The Cochabamba Water War in Bolivia.

2000s
Police clash with protestors during the December 2001 riots in Argentina.

2000–2005: The Second Intifada, a continuation of the First Intifada, between Palestinians and Israel.
2000: The bloodless Bulldozer Revolution, first of the four colour revolutions (in 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2005), overthrows Slobodan Milošević's régime in Yugoslavia.
2001: The 2001 Macedonia conflict.
following the 2001 war in Afghanistan which overthrew Taliban rule.
2001: The 2001 EDSA Revolution peacefully ousts Philippine President Joseph Estrada after the collapse of his impeachment trial.
2001: Supporters of former Philippine President Joseph Estrada violently and unsuccessfully stage a rally, so-called the EDSA Tres, in an attempt of returning him to power.
2001: Cacerolazo in Argentina. Following mass riots and a period of civil unrest, popular protests oust the government and two additional interim presidents within months. December 2001 riots in Argentina
2003–2005: Bolivian gas conflict.
2003: The Rose Revolution, second of the colour revolutions, displaces the president of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, and calls new elections.
2003–2011: The Iraqi insurgency refers to the armed resistance by diverse groups within Iraq to the U.S. occupation of Iraq and to the establishment of a liberal democracy therein.
2004–2004: The Shi'ite Uprising against the US-led occupation of Iraq.
2004–2005: The Orange Revolution in Ukraine. After pro-Russian prime minister Viktor Yanukovych was declared the winner of the presidential elections, people took to the streets in protest against mass fraud and vote falsification. Eventually, the country's Supreme Court ordered a recount, in which pro-Western opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko was declared the winner. This was the third colour revolution.
2005: A failed attempt at popular colour-style revolution in Azerbaijan, led by the groups Yox! and Azadlig.
2004–present: The Naxalite insurgency in India, led by the Communist Party of India (Maoist).
2005: The Cedar Revolution, triggered by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, asks for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
2005: The Tulip Revolution (a.k.a. Pink/Yellow Revolution) overthrows the President of Kyrgyzstan, Askar Akayev, and set new elections. This is the fourth colour revolution.
2005: Paraguayan People's Army insurgency.
2005: 15 April Intifada – Arab uprising in the Iranian province of Khuzestan.
2005: Ecuador experiences a nationwide and countrywide revolution, consisting of rallies and demonstrations, rioting and protests in March–April 2005 from indigenous tribes that started with a protest that mushroomed into a widespread uprising and popular movement that led to the overthrow of the government.
2006: 2006 democracy movement in Nepal was a revolution against Undemocratic rule of King Gyanendra.
2006: The 2006 Oaxaca protests demanding the removal of Ulises Ruiz Ortiz, the governor of Oaxaca state in Mexico.
2006–present: The Mexican Drug War.
2007: The Lawyers' Movement in Pakistan emerged to restore a judge but eventually moved to rebel against the military dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf.
2007–2009: The Second Tuareg Rebellion in Niger.
2007: The Burmese anti-government protests, including the Saffron Revolution of Burmese Buddhist monks.
2008: 2008 Armenian presidential election protests.
2008: 2008 Kashmir Unrest.
2008: A Shiite uprising in Basra.
2008: Attacks in Lanao del Norte in the Philippines by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front led by Kumander Bravo and Umbrfa Kato.
2008: Anti-austerity protests in Ireland
2008: 2008 Tibetan unrest.
2009: 2009 Iranian presidential election protests, leading to development of Iranian Green Movement
2009: 2009 Bangladesh Rifles revolt took place in Dhaka, Bangladesh killing 57 army officers.
2009–2011: A civil uprising popularly known as the Kitchenware Revolution brought down the Icelandic government after the collapse of the country's financial system in October 2008.
2009: The 2009 Malagasy political crisis in the Madagascar.

2010s
Tahrir Square protest during the Arab Spring in Egypt.
A line of riot police in the city of Kyiv during the 2014 Ukrainian revolution.
YPJ fighters during the Rojava Revolution.
The sentencing of nine Catalan independence leaders in a 2019 trial triggered protests in Catalonia.
2019–20 Hong Kong protests

2010 Thai political protests.
2010–2011: 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis.
2010–2012: Tajikistan insurgency.
2010: Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010.
2010: Kashmir Unrest 2010.
2010–2012: Anti-austerity movement in Greece
2010–2012: Arab Spring:
The Tunisian Revolution (2010–2011) forces President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to resign and flee the country, and sets free elections.
The 2011 Egyptian revolution brings down the regime of President Hosni Mubarak.
2011 Post-civil war violence in Libya.
Bahraini uprising of 2011.
2011 Yemeni Revolution, the revolt that led to the eventual resignation of Ali Abdullah Saleh as President of Yemen.
2011–present: Sinai insurgency.
2011: Cherán uprising.
2011: Wukan protests in China.
2011–present: Sudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile.
Iraqi insurgency (2011–2013).
2011–12 Maldives political crisis: Public protests and police mutiny lead to resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed.
2011–2012: Occupy movement.
2012–present: Rojava Revolution in Syrian Kurdistan.
2012–2015: Northern Mali conflict.
2012–2012: 2012 Tuareg rebellion.
2012–present: Central African Republic conflict–François Bozizé, president of the Central African Republic, is overthrown by the rebel coalition Seleka, led by Michel Djotodia.
2012–2013: M23 rebellion.
2012–2015 unrest in Romania.
2013: 2013 Protests in Brazil
2013 Eritrean Army mutiny.
2013: Gezi Park protests in Turkey.
2013–present: Turkey–ISIL conflict.
2013 South Sudanese political crisis.
2013–14 Tunisian protests against the Ennahda-led government.
RENAMO insurgency (2013–2019).
2013–2014: Euromaidan.
2014 Ukrainian Revolution.
2013–14 Thai political crisis.
2013–14 Cambodian protests.
2014–present: 2014 Protests in Venezuela.
Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017).
2014: Abkhazian Revolution.
2014: The Umbrella Revolution of Hong Kong
2014 Burkinabé uprising.
2014: Ferguson unrest in Missouri
2015–present: Yemeni Civil War (2015–present).
Burundian unrest (2015–18).
2015–present: Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present).
2015–present: ISIL insurgency in Tunisia.
2015: 2015 Baltimore protests
2016–present: 2016 Niger Delta conflict.
2016 Ethiopian protests.
2016 Mong Kok civil unrest, also known as "Fishball Revolution" in Mong Kok, Hong Kong
2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, a failed military coup.
2016–17 South Korean protests, or Candlelight Revolution, in South Korea.
2016–17 Kashmir unrest.
2016–17: United States election protests – protests challenging the outcome of the 2016 United States presidential election.
2017 Ivory Coast mutiny.
2017: 2017 Military Police of Espírito Santo strike in Espírito Santo, Brazil.[184][185][186]
2017–18 Spanish constitutional crisis.
2017–2018 Romanian protests.
2017–2018 Iranian protests.
2018–present: 2018–19 Arab protests:
2018 Jordanian protests.
2018–2019: Sudanese Revolution, which resulted in the ouster of the President.
2019–2020 Algerian protests, also called Revolution of Smiles or Hirak Movement.
2019–present: 2019 Iraqi protests, also nicknamed the October Revolution, and 2019 Iraqi Intifada.
2019–present: 2019–20 Lebanese protests, also referred to as the Lebanese revolt.
2018 Armenian Velvet Revolution, which resulted in the ouster of the Prime Minister.
2018–2019 Gaza border protests, also referred to by organizers as the "Great March of Return".
2018–2020: 2018–20 Nicaraguan protests.
2018–2019: 2018–2019 Haitian protests.
2018–2019 Ingushetia protests
2018–present: Yellow vests protests.
2019–2020: 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests
2019 Papua protests.
2019 Indonesian protests and riots.
2019 Puerto Rico Anti-Corruption / Chat scandal Protest.
2019–present: Dutch farmers' protests.
2019 Ecuadorian protests.
2019–2020 Catalan protests.
2019–2022 Chilean protests, also called "Estallido social".
2019–2020 Iranian protests.
2019–2020: Citizenship Amendment Act protests, in India.

2020s

This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:List of revolutions and rebellions. Please help improve this section by clarifying or removing indiscriminate details. If importance cannot be established, the section is likely to be moved to another article, pseudo-redirected, or removed.
Find sources: "List of revolutions and rebellions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic – a series of protests around the world against various governments' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly lockdowns.
Strikes during the COVID-19 pandemic – strikes against wages or low hazard pay, insufficient workplace hazard controls such as a lack of personal protective equipment or social distancing, high rents or evictions, and the pandemic's general economic impact.
2020–2022 United States racial unrest – a series of protests against racial inequality and police brutality in the United States, sometimes in favor of abolishing or defunding the police.
George Floyd protests.
Breonna Taylor protests.
Kenosha unrest.
2020–2022 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest.
2020–2021 Bulgarian protests – protests against Boyko Borisov's government.
2020–2021 Belarusian protests – protests against Alexander Lukashenko's government.
2020–2022 Thai protests – pro-democracy protests for reform to the Thai monarchy and against the 2017 Thai Constitution and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's government.
2020 Malian protests, also called "Malian Spring".
2020 Inner Mongolia protests
2020–2021 women's strike protests in Poland – protests against a Constitutional Tribunal ruling restricting abortion.
End SARS protests – protests to abolish the Special Anti-Robbery Squad in Nigeria.
2020 Kyrgyz protests, also called the Kyrgyz Revolution of 2020.
Indonesia omnibus law protests – protests against the Omnibus Law on Job Creation.
2020 Peruvian protests – protests against the removal of Martín Vizcarra.
2020 Guatemalan protests
2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest – protests against the 2020 Indian agriculture acts.
2020 United States election protests – protests challenging the legitimacy of the results in the 2020 United States presidential election.
2021 storming of the United States Capitol
Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election
2021 Boğaziçi University protests
2021 Tunisian protests
2021 Russian protests
2021–2022 Myanmar protests, also called the Spring Revolution.
2021 Greek protests
2021 Bangladesh anti-Modi protests
2021 Northern Ireland riots
2021 Colombian protests
2021 Senegalese protests
2021 Eswatini anti-monarchy protests
2021 South African unrest
2021 Brazilian protests
2021 Cuban protests, also called the Cuba Libre movement.
2021–2022 Iranian protests
Panjshir conflict, started on August 2021
2021–2022 Afghan protests
2021 Solomon Islands unrest
2021–2022 Serbian environmental protests
2022 Kazakh unrest, also called Bloody January, known originally in Kazakhstan as Zhanaozen22.
2022 Freedom Convoy
2022 Sri Lankan protests
2022 Corsica unrest
2022 Argentinian protests
2022 Azadi march
2022 Karakalpak protests
2022 Ecuadorian protests
2022 Peruvian protests
2022 Iranian food protests
2022 Iranian protests
2022 Brazilian election protests
2022 Azadi March-II

Seriously? You're asking if there's any other route to freedom other than war?

Did the South Africans have a war to get rid of Apartheid?

Which war overthrew the Ceaușescu regime?

I must have missed America's second civil war which brought about full emancipation for Blacks in the 60s

Or England's which gave women the vote

Or the full on invasion currently being executed by a bunch of school girls in Iran.

What a fucking stupid question.

Are there? — Olivier5

Are there what?

What is the difference between experiencing a red apple and the identical but green apple? The experience of redness and greenness, about which we can say no more. — hypericin

No. There's simply no evidence to support such a notion. The parts of the brain which process colour are way back on the chain of processing they're not even consulted by the time we're constructing the difference between a red apple and green apple. We might later abstract the notion of a colour from two similar objects to describe what's changed and what's remained the same, but this would be a construction (a socially mediated one at that, therefore bound up with language). It's not an 'experience' in any sense.

Why? What's wrong with all the other routes to freedom?

It's a simple question. Ought the Ukrainians fight this imperial aggressor to regain their lost territory? Not "will they?", "ought they?"

Ukrainians will fight an imperialist aggressor, which in the end will likely lose just like it lost in the Russo-Japanese war or in Afghanistan. — ssu

Yep. Ought they?

No one can say anything about the experience of red. It is ineffable. — hypericin

No one can say anything about the experience of red, not because it's ineffable, but because it doesn't exist. Experiences are constructed by the brain post hoc, way, way after any processing associated with the wavelength of light reflected off an object. The 'experience' of red is a nonsense. We experience a red postbox, a red car, a red rose. No one experiences just 'red'.

People have their freedom restricted either way. — Isaac


The difference would be that you and I wouldn't be complicit in it. — Tzeentch

So?

What in "as long as it takes - for the territory to be intact" do you not understand? — ssu

Nothing.

Third time. Where in that speech does it contradict the view that Ukraine are unlikely to regain their lost territory? I get that the US aim to support their attempt. That's obvious, it earns the hawks millions.

The question is whether it's worth it. It's no different question, it's the same one I've been asking for 300 pages and getting nothing but a fascinating range of ways of dodging the question.

Is the chance of Ukraine regaining their lost territories worth the cost? It's a simple question. How many lives is that region's choice of governance worth?

Where does he say that the Ukrainians are likely to win back their lost territory?

Where is the conclusion of swift analysts contradicted?

Where is any expert evidence at all that regaining the disputed territory is sufficiently likely?

Where is any expert opinion that Ukraine needn't cede territory as part of any deal?

The question is whether continued war is worth the cost. That question is answered by

1. What difference will it make to the lives of the population in that region being under Russian rule or Ukrainian rule?

2. What cost, in human lives and well-being, will it cost to regain the region.

Answering (1) requires an analysis of Ukraine's governance of the region.

Answering (2) requires an analysis of how long it will take, if ever, for Ukraine to regain the territory (assuming the costs of war increase with time).

Milley's comments speak to the latter, suggesting a long and costly war. So the benefits at 1 have to be even higher now. That's the conclusion these analyses yield.

To support your position in the light of them you need to show either that the benefits of 1 are even higher than previously thought, or that Milley et al. are wrong. You've done neither.

The costs of regaining the territory are too high relative to the gains.

My response would be, don't try to control people against their will. — Tzeentch

So the person who does do that gets to do so with impunity? We're powerless to stop him?

I don't see how that helps. People have their freedom restricted either way.

Link to the source ? — neomac

I've already cited the source. I'm not playing this "let's wait a few pages and then pretend there's no citations" game. It's dull and transparent. Find a new game.

And?

Any evidence at all that victory is likely? Anything whatsoever? One, even passing mention that contradicts the analysis by the Swift center?

It's even in bold, so you could notice it. (But again, too much to assume you would read what people say or write) — ssu

That doesn't even mention likelihood. Christ!

The point is that Ukraine are unlikely to win back their lost territory militarily.

in terms of probability, the probability of a Ukrainian military victory, defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine, to include what they claim is Crimea…is not high — Milley

"world renowned" Swift analysts put that "not high" probability at 4%.

Your evidence that it's likely?

Nowhere to be seen.

Where in any of that does it say that Ukraine are likely to win back Crimea?

Nowhere.

The assessment of every single expert I've read (and cited) is that it is very unlikely that Ukraine will win back the territory they have lost. That's the issue.

It's not a question of whether they'll fight, or whose decision it is, or how many battles they've won. It's a question of whether they should include ceding territory on their negotiations.

Not a single expert thus far has suggested they didn't ought to, as you are.

I call them putinistas. — Olivier5

From barely two pages back...

Just because folks have opinions and share them here, does not make those a form of "parroting" of anyone. ...You guys don't like it when we disagree with you, fair enough, but we are not parroting the enemies of the folks you are parroting. — Olivier5

Or simply...

What is it with your obsession with little me? This war is not about me — Olivier5

But of course, anyone not toeing the media-sanctioned line must be demonised with aplomb.

Still waiting for a shred of evidence to support your position. Anything? The slightest mention will do, just anything we can actually discuss other than your uninformed ad hoc reckons.

Hardly surprising that that you are living in an alternative reality. — ssu

Well. I'm all ears. Just quote from the expert opinion you're using to counter those I've cited who put Ukraine's chances of success very low. Then we can have a discussion.

You just muttering about alternative realities without a shred of expert evidence is not a discussion, it's just your ill-informed opinion.

a leftist tankist — ssu

How ironic. you know tankies were the ones willing to use tanks to achieve their political objectives. Not the ones opposed to doing so.

I assume you have a totally different view on 'experts on the matter' are. — ssu

No, just the normal view. I cited General Mark Miley, I cited Swift analysts, I cited Christopher Chivvis, Nicholas Wheeler, Princeton University... Is there some good reason why these are the 'wrong' experts other than that they disagree with you?

is that it's YOU who change the meaning to fit your own narrative, not me, so don't even try to dismiss this just because it doesn't fit your argument. — Christoffer

I've literally cited the legal definition of race. I've zero interest in your personal version.

I'm just discussing an idea. — Tzeentch

I think the problem is that you're discussing only part of an idea. It's like if I offered you tea or coffee and you replied "I don't much like coffee". Apart from the contextual implication I would draw, it doesn't help much because if you dislike tea even more, the coffee would be your best choice still.

The problem is what to do about those whose 'free choice' is to harm others, or restrict their freedom. If we allow them, then we're sacrificing our own freedom for the sake of theirs. If we deny them, then we're imposing our will against their's and we're likely to need some threat to support such an imposition.

It's not ideal that such violence-supported impositions are needed, but its being non-ideal is irrelevant unless there's a better alternative.

So do we just let those who want to harm others, or restrict their freedom, do so? Or do we act, with force if necessary, against their will to prevent them?

"Russians" aren't a race. You can be a citizen of a nation and that does not mean you are a race of that nation, that just means being part of a national system, a state in which you are a "member". I'm not the "race" of Swedes, I'm a Swedish resident and citizen, a member of this state. — Christoffer

I don't really care about your personal meanings for words.

In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality (including your citizenship). It can also mean your ethnic or national origins, which may not be the same as your current nationality. For example, you may have Chinese national origins and be living in Britain with a British passport.

Race also covers ethnic and racial groups. This means a group of people who all share the same protected characteristic of ethnicity or race.

A racial group can be made up of two or more distinct racial groups, for example black Britons, British Asians, British Sikhs, British Jews, Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers.

You may be discriminated against because of one or more aspects of your race, for example people born in Britain to Jamaican parents could be discriminated against because they are British citizens, or because of their Jamaican national origins. — https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/race-discrimination

Discrimination on the grounds of nationality or citizenship is racism according to the law. If you don't agree you can take it up with them.

if the state programs you to hate, loot, rape, murder, and conduct war crimes on a systematic scale, that can be compared to how the Nazis programmed people to hate and murder people on a systematic scale. — Christoffer

Yep. IF that was the case then you would be right.

Criticizing the people who follow a state doctrine that clearly conducts war crimes and systematically murder, rape, and torture civilians in a nation that the state invaded is not criticizing "the race of Russians" by comparing these citizens and the state to the Nazis. — Christoffer

True. The discussion was about the chances of Russians overthrowing Putin. It was not limited to the subset of Russians who follow state doctrine.

Is this that hard to understand? — Christoffer

No, it's not hard to understand, you're just factually wrong. Race does cover nationality, it is not the case that all Russians are indoctrinated and it is not the case that all Russians follow state doctrine, therefore the fact that the Nazis did not reform has no bearing on whether Russians will. Germans did reform their system. Russians can reform their system. Nazis in both cases are far less likely to do so, but since we're not discussing Nazis in either case, the comparison is irrelevant.

Beside which, the options were being compared to a continued war. No one has given a single military analysis which rates the chances of Ukraine winning as anything more than slim.

What I'm saying is that compared to those chances, Russia divesting itself of Putin's regime is no less likely. Ousting them from Donbas and Crimea first has yet to be demonstrated as necessary.

There are two possible outcomes for the people of the region being considered here.

1. Ukraine successfully oust Russia from Donbas and Crimea and continue their moves toward greater freedoms.
2. Ukraine cede Donbas and Crimea to Russia and the people there help (together with the millions of dissatisfied Russians) push Russia toward greater freedoms.

Either way gains greater freedoms for the people of the region. Option 2 has way fewer lives lost, is more likely to succeed, and results in releasing a greater number of people from oppression.

Option 1 is unlikely according to leading military analysts, but it earns the world's largest lobbying industry several billion dollars whilst it is failing. It is therefore heavily promoted in social media.

Then why did you object when I called for a revolution in Russia? — Olivier5

Where?

And why don't you hope for a Ukrainian victory, which would likely trigger a revolution in Russia? — Olivier5

Because the chances of a victory are very, very small, thousands of people will die in the meantime, and Russia can have a revolution without a Ukrainian victory just as well.

You've not cited a single expert saying that Ukrainian victory is likely, let alone more likely than an overthrow of Putin's regime without it.

Logic, anyone? — Olivier5

It's nothing to do with logic, it's to do with disagreement.

Still waiting on those solutions you apparently mentioned...

if you are serious about Russians 'reforming', that's what you should call for: a revolution, like the Ukrainians did at Maidan. — Olivier5

Yep. That'll be why I said...

It could be the case that Russia gets it's way at first, but solid pressure from exactly the kinds of groups who liberalised Ukraine bring about a better Russia. — Isaac

Fucksake. Read first, reply second. If you want to argue with a 'putinista' figment of your imagination do it on a blog. If you want to argue with me read what I fucking write first.

Where did I do that? — Olivier5

It could be the case that Russia gets it's way at first, but solid pressure from exactly the kinds of groups who liberalised Ukraine bring about a better Russia. — Isaac


The odds for that are minuscule. The Nazis did not reform from within. — Olivier5

I said Russians could reform. You said it was unlikely because the Nazis didn't.

So if Russians are not like the Nazis then why would the Nazis' failure to reform have any impact whatsoever on the Russian's likelihood of reforming?

Still waiting on all those non-war solutions you've apparently put forward, by the way.

Nazis are not a race. — Olivier5

Russians are, and you just likened them all to Nazis. But, hey, they're Russian, so doesn't matter I suppose. Even raise the spectre of any Ukrainians being Nazis however, and all hell breaks loose...

Those 'solutions' you mentioned...? Still working on them? With the entire Russian race condemned as irredeemable Nazis, it's hard to see where you go from there.

A lot has changed in Crimea. — Olivier5

Not really, no.

The odds for that are minuscule. The Nazis did not reform from within. — Olivier5

So Russians are Nazis now? Your anti-russian racism is getting ever more disgusting.

I have proposed plenty of options for that. — Olivier5

I must have missed them. Cite me an example of a proposal for improvements to the lives of people in Dombas that isn't more war.

No hint has been given yet what they are willing to give in exchange for peace. — Paine

From before the war
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato

From March
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/

Late March
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/16/zelenskyy-says-russia-ukraine-peace-talks-more-realistic

Developments in April
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-ukraine-presented-unacceptable-draft-peace-deal-2022-04-07/

Up to October
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/21/much-softer-is-russia-eyeing-a-way-out-of-the-ukraine-war

An article from Professor Kupchan about the situation as it stands currently
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/opinion/russia-ukraine-negotiation.html

Notice how Putin's demands have, if anything, got more substantial as the war progresses. The idea of Ukraine gaining a 'better negotiating position' through war doesn't seem to be playing out. Demands before the war were limited to NATO down-scaling, then independence for Donbas, then much bigger swathes of Ukrainian territory.

The more committed Putin becomes, the less he seems to feel able to walk away with. A catastrophic miscalculation on the part of the allies, at best. A callous disregard for human life at worst.

I compare it with the alternative, which is Russia getting its way in Ukraine, which would result in attrocious consequences for both Ukrainians and Russians. — Olivier5

Nonsense, you've been given plenty of alternatives, the two options you're considering are not mutually exclusive.

It could be, for example, that Russia gets its way and very little changes, as is the case in Crimea.

It could be the case that Russia gets it's way at first, but solid pressure from exactly the kinds of groups who liberalised Ukraine bring about a better Russia. Saving millions from oppression.

You've rejected every option for making a better life for the people of the region that isn't war... The one option that just so happens to be pushed by one of the largest lobbying organisations the world has ever seen.

Are you asking us to believe that's just a coincidence? That their lobbying power was all for naught because you just happened to agree with them anyway?

Just like on Covid, where you just happened to agree with the next largest lobbying power the world has ever known. Another coincidence?

These behemothic lobbying groups sure are wasting billions of dollars pushing narratives that people just happen to believe anyway. They're going to be furious when they find out.

I’m not in the business of putting price tags in human blood over territories — Olivier5

Then by what metric do you determine your support for, say, continued drip-feed arms to Ukraine?

On what grounds do you agree with Zelensky's uncompromising position on negotiations?

"I agree with Zelensky because..."

...ends how?

True. — frank

Right. So your comment was meaningless.

If Zelensky's actions were proportionate to the harm being mitigated, then they were justified.

If Zelensky's actions were not proportionate to the harm being mitigated, then they were not justified.

So what matters is whether Zelensky's actions were proportionate to the harm being mitigated...

...which is exactly what we were discussing before your mindless interjection.