A number of prominent persons, such as Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell and Mahatma Gandhi, called on governments to proceed further by taking gradual steps towards forming an effectual federal world government

Maybe it was a good idea but it is not a current one, outside of the extreme right's paranoid fear of the Jews, George Soros, and the alien lizards controlling the whole world.

How do you describe your own politics? You're one of those crackpots who's so fucking afraid of them world-dominating leftists?

The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life (self-defense) or the lives of others, including – in certain circumstances – the use of deadly force.[1]

If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defense" justification. — Wikipedia

:chin:

In terms of people's well-being, it matters little if they're governed by Russia or Ukraine. — Isaac

This is the big mistake that the "peace lovers" here are making, in my view: they assume it's all for nothing, that there is no difference between living in a free country and being a subject of a brutal dictatorship. But if the Russian army wins, it will not stop killing Ukrainians. Why should they? Did they stop in Bucha?

If the Russians win, chances are they will kill more Ukrainians, not less. Check the 'Holodomor', when Stalin set out to kill millions of Ukrainians by way of hunger so as to replace them by other ethnicities.

Ahimsa

Right. So you are making the argument that the Russian government (even in peacetime) is morally worse than the Ukrainian government? On what grounds?

If something Stalin did counts, then are we going to invoke the massacre of Poles by the Ukrainian Insurgents back in WWII? It's as ridiculous to suggest that Stalin's atrocities are a good measure of current Russian internal policy. Gods, it really shows the paucity of your arguments. Only a few pages ago I was being reprimanded for assuming the situation in Ukraine now was similar to that in 2014 and here you are invoking Stalin as representative of Russian policy!

Ukraine is not a 'free country'. By every single measure of freedom and well-being it ranks similar (or even below) Russia. Here, for example are the 2021 figures on corruption https://risk-indexes.com/global-corruption-index/

Belarus (undoubtedly a Russian puppet state) ranked 53 on the United Nations Human Development. Ukraine, ranked 74.

What actual evidence (ie from less than half a century ago!) have you got that Ukraine is so much better than Russia (in peacetime) that we ought to support the sacrifice of thousands of lives the cause?

I am making the argument that the Russians have no particular reason to stop killing Ukrainians, even after they sign a potential peace deal, and that in actual fact, they do kill, torture, rape and rob a lot of civilians wherever they occupy Ukraine. The only way to stop these killings is to push the Russians back into Russia.

Interesting (anonymous) article from one of the last independent Russian news outlets, on the movie "Occupant" edited by a Ukrainian journalist from videos of a Russian soldier's phone.

https://holod.media/2022/05/24/okkupant_movie/

... Lieutenant Shalaev is just one of the results of this work to deprive Russian citizens of their subjectivity. Working at the headquarters and watching his colleagues leave the army on the eve of the war, he could not even think about quitting himself and did not go into the possible reasons for the quitting of others.

... During an hour-long interview with Zolkin, we can observe how Lieutenant Shalaev begins to awaken his natural curiosity. Like most of the prisoners in these videos, at first he is depressed and passive, but towards the end of the conversation, he asks the journalist twice, almost passionately: “How did you [Ukrainians] understand that you want to be in Europe?”

In this question, there is the genuine amazement of a Russian at a meeting with the subjectivity of a neighboring people, who not only managed to formulate their desired identity for themselves, but also to agree within themselves on ways to move towards it. This very subjectivity is so hated by the control-obsessed Russian authorities that it is subject to destruction from the ground and the air. This very subjectivity, without which a person turns into a material object, and never becomes a subject, an author of his own life.

I am making the argument that the Russians have no particular reason to stop killing Ukrainians, even after they sign a potential peace deal, and that in actual fact, they do kill, torture, rape and rob a lot of civilians wherever they occupy Ukraine. The only way to stop these killings is to push the Russians back into Russia. — Olivier5

No, you're not 'making the argument' at all, you're just asserting it. You've given no evidence, or reason to believe that "The only way to stop these killings is to push the Russians back into Russia". The argument is that ceding territory would have the same effect (with a smaller loss of life). You've offered no counter to that argument at all beyond some spurious allusion to Stalin's genocides.

Have you taken into consideration the behavior of Russian troops in occupied Ukraine?

Are you taken into consideration the behavior of Russian troops in occupied Ukraine? — Olivier5

That's the war we're trying to stop (or ought to be). The treatment of Ukrainian resistance during the Russian invasion has been monstrous. That's why we're trying to put an end to the Russian invasion as quickly as possible.

I could ask you exactly the same question. In advocating the policy of pushing Russian forces out of Ukraine (no matter how long that takes) have you taken into consideration the behavior of Russian troops in occupied Ukraine? All of which will be worsened the longer the war continues.

Compare how the Ukrainians dealt with pro-Russian elements in Donbas with how Russia dealt with pro-Ukrainian elements in Crimea. Any major differences you know of? Those would constitute a basis for an argument about the likely outcome of ceding territory.

That's why we're trying to put an end to the Russian invasion as quickly as possible. — Isaac

I agree. The sooner the Russians go back to Russia, the better, including for them Russians. I think that's obvious.

Yeah, ignoring the argument doesn't make it go away.

You made an argument???
:party: :clap: :party:

You made an argument — Olivier5

Not me, people like Kissinger. If you're having trouble spotting which the argument is, it's the bit after the words "The argument is..."

Ah, yeah, I should have known that you can't possibly put forth any positive argument. You're too much of a coward for that.

I should have known that you can't possibly put forth any positive argument. — Olivier5

I've put forward an argument. I'm just not going to pretend I came up with it out of the blue. I read it.

The argument is that ceding territory to Russia will be a less harmful strategy overall than continuing to push them out of Ukraine.

The main points used to support it are;

1. Ukraine are unlikely to be able to push Russia out easily, so such any such strategy will lead to a very long war, the damage from which would be considerable.

2. To have any chance at all, Ukraine would have to indebt itself massively to the US and Europe, neither of whom have loan terms which are friendly to the debtor.

3. Ukraine is neither a stable, nor a particularly free country so life under Russian puppetry is not likely to be meaningfully different to life under Ukrainian rule.

4. Any remaining problems are less harmfully solved by economic and diplomatic pressure than by war.

I could also add, from separate sources;

5. Ukraine has a serious far-right problem and is a major illegal arms trader, flooding it with weapons could lead to far more civilian deaths in the long term than would be saved.

We have discovered in the Disunited Kingdom that the the right of self-determination of "the people" is extremely problematic, for at least 2 reasons. The first is the problem of the border. The border identifies "the people" who then establish the border by declaring their independence. Scotland, or The Donbas, or Crimea, or wherever has to already exist as a defined place in order for "the people" to have a defined limit such that they can decide their fate. It is not sufficient for this border to be clear, it has to be recognised as significant for self-determination by those on each side of it. Thus unenlightened cannot declare the independence of his house and garden, because the fences are not recognised as significant in that particular way, though they are in other ways. The second problem is the right of the other side of the border not to recognise it. It is not altogether clear, for example, that Scotland has the right to self-determination and thence independence, against the wishes of England to remain united.

Personally, I do not see it as my duty to argue for or against a particular renegotiation of the borders with respect to this thread's subject, but I want to at least point to some of the reasons why borders are always disputable, especially in relation to the right to self-determination, which governments claim for themselves by virtue of their existence , but do not necessarily respect the claims of other governments. And if the rights in such matters cannot be determined but are always debatable, then the morality of the disputants in terms of attack and defence is also indeterminate. An agreement is reached or there is a civil or uncivil war, or a separatist movement or a unification movement.

Only by ignorant outsiders. — Jamal

Not necessarily.

I don't know where you're from but, historically, the term "Russia" has been applied to the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union (USSR), and, currently, to the Russian Federation, in everyday language.

As far as I’m aware, people said, and continue to say, "Russia" instead of "Russian Empire", "Soviet Union", or "Russian Federation". The latter terms tend to be used in more formal political or academic contexts.

“Russia” and “Soviet Union” are certainly used interchangeably in the press:

Russia Under Stalin 1924-1953 – New York Times, March 8, 1953

Israel Fears Russia Is Preparing For War – The Times (London), Jan. 25, 1953

Ministers To Propose Talks With Russia – The Times (London), July 12, 1953

How do you describe your own politics? You're one of those crackpots who's so fucking afraid of them world-dominating leftists? — Olivier5

Well, I appreciate your sense of humor, but I don't see how being against world government and advocating a multipolar world order is "crackpot".

As for being "afraid", it sounds very much like you're afraid of some imaginary "extreme right". But that only means that you're afraid of your own politics as Natoism is definitely a form of Nazism (it even sounds similar) as well as being a manifestation of US imperialism! :grin:

American imperialism – Wikipedia

I contend point 3. Ukrainians have shown a certain resolve and interest is staying independent. I guess they don't want to go the way of the Uighurs.

I contend point 3. Ukrainians have shown a certain resolve and interest is staying independent. I guess they don't want to go the way of the Uighurs. — Olivier5

On what basis. I've provided the latest official measurements of political freedom, corruption, well-being... Ukraine doesn't come out significantly higher than Russia on any measure. So what information do you have to the contrary?

And even if we were to put (3) as more uncertain, does that then outweigh 1, 2, 4, and 5?

How do you describe your own politics? You're one of those crackpots who's so fucking afraid of them world-dominating leftists?
— Olivier5

Well, I appreciate your sense of humor, but I don't see how being against world government and advocating a multipolar world order is "crackpot".

As for being "afraid", it sounds very much like you're afraid of some imaginary "extreme right". — Apollodorus

The extreme right is not a fancy of mine. It does exist and it pollutes the minds of many, including yours.

Some of these other points are stuff that I have drawn attention to, ie point 5 on the risk of Ukraine becoming as fascist as Russia in the long term. I agree it's a risk. Points 1 and 2 are debatable; the EU will most probably be extremely generous with Ukraine, and the Russians could be persuaded to call it a day sooner than you think. Their forces too are fast eroding. They could collapse too. Point 4 is to wooly for discussion.

You seem to be confused.

How exactly is being for a multipolar world order and against imperialism and world government "extreme right"???

I think what is extreme right is your advocacy of world government, American imperialism, and Natoism!

BTW, if you're afraid of the "extreme right", then surely it's in YOUR mind, not mine! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:shade: :starstruck: :grimace: :point: :wink: :razz: :brow: :fear: :gasp: :scream:

Ukrainians have shown a certain resolve and interest is staying independent. I guess they don't want to go the way of the Uighurs. — Olivier5

To be fair, the Russians also have shown a certain resolve and interest in staying independent from America and its NATO Empire.

As for your "guess", (1) a guess is NOT the same as established fact and (2) you haven't demonstrated that there was any prospect of Ukrainians "going the way of the Uighurs".

As expected. Raise any actual points and you just dismiss them all with bald assertion and vague handwaving...

Shall we just go back to insulting each other?

Europeans do what Americans tell them. — Streetlight

Should Europeans do what Russians tell them? Or you tell them?

Oh well that makes it OK then. — Streetlight

Only if it makes it OK for you that Russians are bombing, killing, raping their Ukrainian "brothers" and "sisters".

Besides it's not uncommon to have fascist/ultra-nationalists in the national armies: https://www.vice.com/it/article/5989xx/fascismo-para-folgore-esercito-italiano , https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/03/17/une-enquete-de-mediapart-devoile-la-presence-de-militaires-neonazis-dans-l-armee-francaise_6073486_3224.html
Not to mention the Russian ultra-nationalists very friendly to Putin.
What do you want to do about that, boss?

Should Europeans do what Russians tell them? — neomac

Christ, your brain is so rotted by treating this as a team-sport to cheer-lead to that your question is: which non-European entity should tell Europe what to do?

Not to mention the Russian ultra-nationalists very friendly to Putin. — neomac

See, this is why you are an idiot not worth paying attention to. The Nazis who pushed Zelensky to war did so because they were Ukrainian nationalists who did not want any compromise with Russia - including ratifying Minsk, or say, not shelling the ever-living daylights out of Russian-speaking Ukraine.

But please, continue your defense of Nazis.

Raise any actual points and you just dismiss them all with bald assertion and vague handwaving... — Isaac

And when that fails, he resorts to name-calling and hurling abuse. Are you sure he isn't related to @ssu? I for one seem to detect a striking resemblance of ideology, attitude, and language.

you haven't demonstrated that there was any prospect of Ukrainians "going the way of the Uighurs". — Apollodorus

I cannot demonstrate the future. But certainly, the Ukrainians are angry by the massive war crimes committed against them and they fear more is to come if ever Russia takes over any part of Ukraine. That's the legacy of Bucha. They are not going to let themselves be slaughtered like the Tchechens were.