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

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.

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

... Therefore Ukrainian lives are a price you're willing to pay (or support Zelensky paying) as a blood price to retake the territory that Russia currently has?

Am I missing something?

Am I missing something? — boethius

Decency?

Decency? — Olivier5

The decency of supporting a policy (or supporting other people with those policies) that results in thousands of people dying but ... shhh ... we do not say so?

We focus only on the glory.

That's what I was missing? The "decorum" of the elites?

The decency of supporting a policy (or supporting other people with those policies) that results in thousands of people dying but ... shhh ... we do not say so? — boethius

We can say so, of course. We must. An enormous sacrifice is being paid by Ukraine for the common good, which must be recognised.

We can say so, of course. We must. An enormous sacrifice is being paid by Ukraine for the common good, which must be recognised. — Olivier5

Ok, there you go, price is worth it so far.

Assuming it's 100 000 lives to get this far, would you sacrifice (or support Zelensky sacrificing) 300 000 more lives to complete their mission for the common good?

In this context, common good being the reconquering of the territory in question.

I don’t know what the Ukrainians would be willing to endure. My country sacrificed 2 millions men in WW1. The USSR sacrificed 9 million men in WW2.

↪boethius I don’t know what the Ukrainians would be willing to endure. My country sacrificed 2 millions men in WW1. The USSR sacrificed 9 million men in WW2. — Olivier5

That's what we're discussing.

However, you're only argument here is "Ukraine business!", and it would be Ukraine business and mere academic interest for us, if we weren't sending them weapons.

First, if we're sending them weapons knowing it is not enough to win anyways would that be a price worth paying (or telling Zelensky to pay)? Having Ukrainian sacrifice so much and still lose?

And if you're talking about France as an example maybe honest to mention ... France capitulated in WWII, precisely to avoid damages once it seemed the war could not be won.

So, if your position is "courage les gas, mais si vous abondonne ... c'est la vie!!" That would be more coherent as following the French example.

But I get it, you won't actually take a position, just defer to the Ukrainians, deny any criticism of the freedom of that choice they are apparently fighting for, and evaluating our arms shipments is off limits, how confident we should be it can and will result in an good outcome for the "common good", or then if it's not enough, certainly tanks are in short supply ... can't spare them at the moment, sorry Ukraine, but we thank you for your sacrifice.

Is there a better way to paraphrase your position?

, it consists in their justification to wage war, rationalizations to ramp things up, riling people up with a sense of urgency and righteous hate, all that, taken together (already in the thread). They were/are put forth by the autocrat circle, government officials, for Russians to consume, despite allegations having been shown the door independently/coherently. By the way, you don't see similar actions against the Netherlands, Texas, Greece, Argentina, Stockholm, Italy, Mexico — they're not "Nazi regimes" in need of deNazifying cleansing either. UN charter, votes. What others typically want to see with respect to problems is willingness to change, moves toward transparency, showing bona fides goodwill, those sorts of things. And so we're back to the truth of the matter: It mattered/matters less than what you can make people believe. (Suppression and state broadcasts help.) As an aside, homosexuals have been targeted by some of the same people (attempts to create a certain kind of momentum). Right up there with ...
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' (Ewen MacAskill · The Guardian · Oct 7, 2005)
... well, except for the (attempted) land grab.

For that matter, there has been past resentment/animosity between Poland and Ukraine, yet Poles have been quite helpful to Ukrainians in the present crisis. Things change. (Also, I'm sure Poles have little patience with Nazism.) What might the reasons be? — Oct 13, 2022

By intensity of hatred, nations create in themselves the characters they imagine in their enemies. Hence it is that all passionate conflicts result in the interchange of characteristics. — George William Russell

Don't become what you hate. — Akiroq Brost

Passing the buck on, Putin's Russia has been and is in a (dehumanizing) systematic process of creating a Ukraine of more hate, which, in time, I'm sure they would/will use to justify more (given the chance), perhaps with the help of some questionable friends.

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.

And so we're back to the truth of the matter: It mattered/matters less than what you can make people believe. — jorndoe

You're talking about everyone here?

And that's your preferred form of government, what actually matters, and you're just a loyal patriot willing to believe?

But otherwise, I fail to see your point.

Things changed between the Poles and Ukrainians ... for now ... so presumably they could also change back? Or things change between the Poles and Ukrainians so presumably will change with the Russians too ... they'll remake the USSR after all?

With all the talk about what negotiations might look like or made necessary by the limits of combat, the role of the Russians is what is most obscure. No hint has been given yet what they are willing to give in exchange for peace. The notion that they are a reasonable set of blokes, willing to compromise with others, is something they will have to offer to offset the strong impression they are giving that they are only interested in total 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.

But I get it, you won't actually take a position, just defer to the Ukrainians, deny any criticism of the freedom of that choice they are apparently fighting for, and evaluating our arms shipments is off limits, how confident we should be it can and will result in an good outcome for the "common good", or then if it's not enough, certainly tanks are in short supply ... can't spare them at the moment, sorry Ukraine, but we thank you for your sacrifice.

Is there a better way to paraphrase your position? — boethius

Oh, you lost the plot again! You can evaluate or criticise everything you want. Even Putin, if you ever wanted to…. Ha ha ha. It’s no skin off my nose. You keep on trying to make it personal, trying to hurt. But the war is not fought here on TPF and there is no point in using violence against other posters. Go fight in Dombass if you want to kill other human beings. Here, you will not succeed. You can yell at me at the top of your lungs, I don’t care and I won’t mind. I’m not the one calling the shots.

So you think NATO countries should hand over tanks to Ukraine? They’ve taken thousands of them from Russians already. Ukraine now boasts the largest panzer army in Europe. What they really need is an airforce.

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

A lot has changed 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. — Isaac

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

You've rejected every option for making a better life for the people of the region that isn't war... — Isaac

No, I have proposed plenty of options for that. It is you who never proposes anything but submission.

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.

Yes, really yes…

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

Nazis are not a race. They are just folks like you, who despaired too much.

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.

Russians are, and you just likened them all to Nazis. — Isaac

Where did I do that?

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.

I said Russians could reform — Isaac

Russians cannot reform their being Russian -- so this is not about race -- but they can reform their polity, their government -- so it is about politics. This much is obvious, even to you.

The current Russian government has a lot to see with the Nazis: nationalistic, violent, sadistically cruel, sexist and racist, dominating, destructive, and relying on big-man worship to replace rational administration and make do for the lack of individual agency. These sorts of regimes do not reform from within. Why should they? How could they? They just rotten slowly, and then crumble at some point, like the USSR did after 75 years in existence.

The only way to transform Russia would be a revolution.

So if you are serious about Russians changing for the better, that's what you should call for: a revolution, like the Ukrainians did at Maidan. And Putin losing the Ukraine war could trigger a revolution in Russia, so logically speaking, if you care about Russians, you should hope for Ukraine to win this war.

all those non-war solutions you've apparently put forward — Isaac

Option 1. Russian unconditional surrender would be a great outcome, avoiding a lot of unnecessary suffering. This would probably be the best option for everyone involved, except perhaps for Mr Putin.
Option 2. Dombass and Crimea could be administered by the UN or something similar until such a time when all their original population can freely come back to their birthplace, so that a fair referendum can be organized. This option would take forever -- like half a century or so, see for instance what happened in Cyprus -- but it would also avoid a lot of unnecessary suffering.
Option 3. A revolution in Russia, and/or the decapitation of the Russian regime by Kiev forces or by Kremlin insiders, could lead to a political transition in Moscow and ultimately to a peace deal based on some classic qui-pro-quo: e.g. land given back, war crime prosecuted, but no war reparations.

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.

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

Yep. — Isaac

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

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

Logic, anyone?

:up:

Interesting piece on Kherson, on the conundrum people faced there under the occupation and on some's divided allegiances.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/22/kherson-city-sympathies-russia-complicate-reintegration-into-ukraine/

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...

Nazis are not a race.
— Olivier5

Russians are, and you just likened them all to Nazis. — Isaac

"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.

And 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. 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.

Is this that hard to understand? Or are you deliberately using these obvious rhetorical tactics to once again produce low-quality arguments and bloat this thread with useless noise?

"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.

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

What? "Race" is about genetic lineage, it has nothing to do with what nation you are in or which citizenship you have. Look it up in a dictionary if you're so uneducated on the matter that you think that this definition is a "personal meaning" and factual.

The fact 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.

You're 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. — Isaac

No, I'm not factually wrong. You are cherry-picking the Equality Act without even caring to understand what comparison is in place in the first place. It's a dishonest way of arguing with your interlocutor. If citizens, brainwashed by a state, are being criticized with a comparison to how Nazis were brainwashed, then that is a valid comparison. You are trying to play the racism card in order to defend a rational and valid criticism of how many Russians are indoctrinated into the Russian state worldview. You are also straw-manning through this race card by corrupting the argument to be about "all Russians". If, say, 80% of Russians were indoctrinated into the Russian/Putin worldview, then 80% are indoctrinated, and that 80% of Russians can be criticized for it, just like we criticized the citizens of Germany looking the other way during the holocaust. If 30% of these 80% are also active in war crimes and actual acts of violence, then they can be criticized in comparison to the Nazi soldiers and SS officers doing the same.

The rest you wrote is just noise that doesn't have to do with what I objected against. The problem is that if you corrupt the definitions and corrupt others' arguments with strawmen before you continue to argue a conclusion, you are building your argument upon a ground that isn't honestly and factually established.

The way you play the racism card in this is dishonest and makes discussion impossible with you. Understand other people's points before you continue. No one is criticizing the "Russian race", that's your fucking strawman.