Because Ukraine is supposed to be a democracy.

So we can finally ditch all this bullshit about how it ought to be "up to the Ukrainians" whenever someone brings up some view as to what course of action is best. — Isaac

I don't think it's that simple. It is definitely up to the Ukrainians what course of action Ukraine follows.

I asked what moral weight there was to consulting the citizen of Lvov and not the citizen of Rostov. [...]

I asked why they ought to be - what gives their view greater moral weight than mine, or yours, or the nearby Russian's — Isaac

A priori, nothing. A poll is just not a moral statement.

I suppose one should also consult the opinion of the nearby Russians, the pro-Russian folks in occupied territories, etc. But there's a technicality there: this 15 years jail sentence for criticizing the war in Russia.

Okay so there lies the answer to your question: in a democracy., citizens are expected to have a say.

I don't see any moral argument for why anyone ought not be consulted. — Isaac

So you ought to agree that there is no moral issue in consulting them. In fact, that would be expected in a democracy.

Why should they NOT be consulted?

Define: "have a say".

Why does having the right piece of paper, or worse still, the right 'feelings' confer on a citizen of Lvov the right to have a say in the future of some land 600 miles away that they've never even seen, but denies that right to someone living and working within a stone's throw of its border? — Isaac

The poll in question asked for their opinion and the sampled folks gave it, nothing more. I don;t see the problem.

I don't know of much condemnation of Israel that isn't about methods, not borders. — Isaac

Much of the Isreal-Palestinian conflict for the past half century has been about borders, those of 67 vs those orior 67. I.e. the status of the "occupied territories".

Was that an attempt at humouring me?

How exactly do you propose we identify a 'Ukrainian' in a way that isn't racist? — Isaac

Simple. One could use nationality, or self-identification. Eg anyone with the legal papers, or anyone self identifying as Ukrainian, gets to be seen as Ukrainian.

The nation called Ukraine does exist. It's not a bizarre idea or a fancy or something impossible to delimit.

So why would you need any more specific an answer in the case of Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic? Might the answer not likewise be "various folks"? — Isaac

I answered your question with specific threats for Tajikistan and Armenia. But you and Mikey Mouse here cannot answer my question.

Honestly, the answer is obvious and you know it. Central European states have been oppressed by the USSR and its servants for so long. They joined NATO, an anti-USSR alliance, as soon as they had a chance, and they did so to seek protection from Russia. You know that it is true.

Because they sought some amount of protection against possible aggressions, I suppose.
— Olivier5

From whom? — Isaac

Various folks. To Tajikistan for instance, the greatest threat (since the civil war) is seen as a possible Islamist contagion from Afghanistan. Armenia fears Turkey and Azerbadian. Etc They are not overly concerned that the EU or US will invade them, if that's what you're asking.

Do you have the slightest idea why Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan joined the Collective Security Treaty Organization? — Isaac

Because they sought some amount of protection against possible aggressions, I suppose. It's not clear that Russia is in a position to deliver any security in this space though, as seen now by the currents wars between Azerbadian and Armenia and between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Are you really saying that Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic all joined NATO in order to benefit from humanitarian assistance?
— Olivier5

No. — Mikie

Do you have the slightest idea why Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and the Czech republic all joined NATO, then?

Still, I'm sure all that will change on Ukraine's path to Western enlightenment...

20 Years of Immigrant Abuses — Isaac

'The East' doesn't treat refugees any better than 'the West'.

if Russia was to explode like that, then a good deal of conflict would ensue, at least in the current environment. :/
Don't know if China or NATO would do something, but I imagine so. — jorndoe

If Russia explodes, I would think China could try and take a good chunk if Siberia.

01.22 EDT
Oleksandra Matviichuk has a point she wants to make. The Ukrainian lawyer heads the Centre for Civil Liberties, a human rights organisation that this month jointly won the Nobel peace prize. And she wants to use her platform to call for international action against Russian human rights violations now.

The body she heads has patiently documented more than 21,000 examples of war crimes committed by occupying Russian forces since 2014, including many from after the invasion in February. But, speaking quietly and with controlled emotion, she complains: “I haven’t any legal instrument to stop the Russian atrocities” – no immediate way of bringing perpetrators to court.

The criminality appears vast when listed. “After the large-scale invasion, we every day documented different kinds of war crimes, like intentional shelling of residential buildings, churches, hospitals, schools, the shelling of evacuation corridors,” Matviichuk says. “We received requests for help from people in the occupied territories because they were abducted, tortured; we recorded sexual violence, extrajudicial killings.”

Staff from the Centre for Civil Liberties were among those who travelled through Irpin, Bucha and towns and villages north-west of Kyiv after Russia abandoned its attempt to seize the city in March. “I will remind you,” she says, that bodies were found lying uncollected in the streets, or dumped in mass graves. “And what was Putin’s response? He provided medals to the army unit that was staying in Bucha.”

Russia, as governed now, shows a “genocidal character,” she argues.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/oct/26/russia-ukraine-war-live-news-russian-forces-battle-kherson-kyiv

The benefits of NATO membership include more than just security benefits and collective defense but also disaster relief, humanitarian aid, and scientific collaboration through the NATO Science for Peace and Security Program. — Mikie

Are you really saying that Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic all joined NATO in order to benefit from humanitarian assistance?

What kind of evidence prove an "imperialist bent"? — neomac

Let me answer this one on behalf of the Putinistas. It's quite simple: an American imperialist bent is true by definition, without the need for any particular evidence. But a Russian imperialist bent cannot be true because anything Russian is holy.

A Russian journalist propagandist went a bit too far, even for Russia Today, and was sacked as a result:


RT Host Suspended for Calls to ‘Drown, Burn’ Ukrainian Children
The Moscow Times

Anton Krasovsky, a host at Russia’s state-funded broadcaster RT, was suspended Sunday after he made calls on the air to “drown or burn” Ukrainian children who viewed Russia as an occupier.

Anton Krasovsky’s remarks on his RT show broadcast Thursday sparked widespread outrage over the weekend. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba accused the Kremlin-controlled channel of “aggressive genocide incitement” and advocated for a global ban of RT.

Krasovsky, a pro-war presenter under EU sanctions, said Ukrainian children should be “thrown straight into a river with a strong current” or “burned in a hut” for calling Russians occupiers.

His comments came in response to an account by his guest, Russian science fiction author Sergei Lukyanenko, of his encounter with anti-Russian children during his visit to Ukraine in the 1980s.

The segment containing Krasovsky’s remarks has since been deleted from RT’s social media accounts.

RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan distanced the broadcaster from Krasovsky’s “disgusting” comments and said she was “stopping our collaboration for the moment.”

“Perhaps Anton will explain what temporary insanity caused” the controversial statement, Simonyan wrote on the Telegram messaging app.

Krasovsky later issued an apology, saying early Monday that he “got carried away on the air.”

“I apologize to everyone who was freaked out, I apologize to Margarita, to everyone who thought [the comments] wild, unthinkable and insurmountable,” he wrote on Russia’s VKontakte social network.

Simonyan’s rare punishment of an on-air personality for remarks on Ukraine stands in contrast to regular anti-Ukrainian rhetoric on Russian state television.

Kremlin-controlled broadcasters including RT actively support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and echo the Kremlin’s denials of war crime allegations.

Russia’s top investigative body, the Investigative Committee, said Monday that its chairman Alexander Bastrykin has ordered a report into Krasovsky’s statements after receiving a complaint from an online user.

In a since-deleted post, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denounced what she called a “targeted information attack” against Krasovsky, calling the RT host a “fantastically talented” commentator of “obvious and truthful” information.

:yawn:

Then you'll have to prove it. — Tzeentch

I did already, but you failed to understand it.

There are all kinds of reasons for joining NATO. — Mikie

Please give ONE.

There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that. — Mikie

I quite precisely claimed that, otherwise you would not be arguing against it. Logic, anyone?

There was Hungary, Tchekcoslovakia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia...

The reasons for membership were not some imperialist threat from Russia. No one made that claim. — Mikie

Oh really? What were the reasons for Ukraine and Georgia and all the others to seek NATO membership, oh wise one?They wanted to visit Brussels?

And I suppose this reaction to China's involvement -- as inexcusable as it would be -- would somehow prove that the US had "imperial ambitions" there all along, despite there being no evidence of it prior to China's actions? Nonsense.

There's no evidence of US "imperialist ambitions" in Canada today. I don't think that's controversial. — Mikie

Which is precisely why Canada has nothing to fear from the US, and is not seeking protection elsewhere....

Russian military incompetence ... — boethius

Stop changing the subject.

The annexion of Crimea, Dombass and Kherson are evidence of imperialist ambitions. We are not talking of just beating Ukraine into Belarusian-type submission here, but of land and people grab.

They snatch children too. Thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted, deported, and forcibly adopted to the Russian Federation. The United Nations has declared that allegations are "credible", and that Russian forces have sent Ukrainian children to Russia for adoption as part of a large scale program.

You see, Russia has a big demographic problem. Many young people of both sexes have left the country. And yet the new Czar needs children for his future conquests.

it is incompatible with the "pure imperialism" or "crazy" or whatever narrative imparted to Russia. — boethius

It is not incompatible with imperialism. In fact prehemmptively invading a neighbor because said neighbor is cozying up with rivals is precisely what a militaristic, imperialist regime would do.

Picture if China was taking the same actions in Canada or Mexico, despite US warnings. Would we say they were taking those warnings seriously? After all, it could be argued, China didn’t annex Canada or incorporate it into a defensive alliance — it was only talking about it.

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere. — Mikie

Note that in this scenario, the US would annex large parts of Canada, just as Putin is doing in Ukraine. Therefore, it would be a land grab, a manifestation of imperialism

Your endless NATO caca arguments fail to account for the annexion of Crimea, Dombass and Kherson. This is the proof of imperial ambitions, which you have conveniently decided to ignore because it undermines your narrative...

Personally, I'm talking of the invasion of Ukraine. What are you talking about?

And then there is the question just how this war was managed and fought. — ssu

Yes, very poorly.

Yet a fundamental difference with Iraq in my view, and respective to the argument I was making on precedent-setting, is that the war in Afghanistan was sanctioned by the Security Council.

No, clearly we don't agree. — Tzeentch

So what exactly do you disagree with?

they were about power — Tzeentch

Power over land and people. So we agree that this is just a land grab.

I believe that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them, that it was part of the plan, which would be why they did not surrender Osama Ben Laden.

You may be right that a police operation would have been appropriate and might have worked better in the end. But IMO, you cannot compare 9/11 with prior terrorist attacks. Close to 3000 people burnt alive in downtown Manhattan.

In any case, the war in Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN Security Council, including China and Russia. It did not make a mockery of our collective security system, and did not create a precedent for Crimea or other land grabs. The war in Iraq did that.

, was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan necessary? — ssu

It was legit I think, and it started really nicely. I travelled all over the country in 2002 and a lot of people were upbeat. It started to go sour when most US forces left for Iraq in 2003.

Speaking of Bush, you understand that what we're looking at today is a direct result of his administration's policy, starting in 2008? Since you don't seem to hold a high opinion of the man, perhaps it is time to reconsider this idea of the United States' pure intentions surrounding Ukraine. — Tzeentch

Of course the US doesn't have pure intentions, but this discussion was about are the intentions of Russia, not the US. And evidently those intentions are about land and people grabbing.

The main crime assignable to Bush is the invasion if Iraq in 2003. This alienated the whole world, and provided a precedent for the invasion of Crimea.

The last thing I would want is to be taken seriously by people who take seriously a criminal's excuses for his crimes.

Did you believed Bush Junior when he said Iraq had WMD? :-)

None of that is logically absurd, or paranoid, or wrong. It's just the facts. — Mikie

And yet, your interpretation of these facts is absurd and paranoid. Just because a guy said something to another in a 2008 meeting, doesn't mean hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians should die today. Try and maintain a sense of proportion, if you can.

"I robbed the bank because I needed money for drugs." — Mikie

A closer metaphor would be: "I robbed the bank because they were considering getting better protection against robbery, so I had to rob it before they could get that in place".

Can you see now how absurd the NATO caca argument is? Or at least, can you understand that it looks absurd to me, from my perspective?

. I wonder at what point do we get past it to the point where it's no longer a "possibility"? The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward. — Mikie

It is not just completely wrong, simplistic to the extreme, logically absurd and paranoid, it is also a tone deaf argument, akin to finding excuses to a criminal while he is still committing his crime. So the more you bring up that ridiculous NATO caca argument, the more suspicion you generate.