it should be looked just how likely this would be. — ssu
That is where nuclear weapons work: deterrence. If this would be a non-nuclear armed country attacking Ukraine, it is likely that a no-fly zone would have been enforced.
And it works both ways: Russia doesn't dare to attack the countries supplying arms to Ukraine or training Ukrainian troops. — ssu
Why ought Russia have the right to take it from a sovereign state, whose territories it has accepted on several occasions? Why ought violence, aggression and straightforward imperialism justified?Why ought Ukraine have control over Crimea/Donbas? There's no god-given right to any piece of land, there's no racial-biological link to Ukraine, there's no harm-reduction principle... There's no grounds at all been offered as to why they ought have that land. — Isaac
Why ought Russia have the right to take it from a sovereign state, whose territories it has accepted on several occasions? — ssu
Why ought violence, aggression and straightforward imperialism justified? — ssu
for you it doesn't matter if Putin is control of Ukraine or the Ukrainians are in control of Ukraine, hence this conversation has utterly no meaning. — ssu
But for you it doesn't matter if Putin is control of Ukraine or the Ukrainians are in control of Ukraine, hence this conversation has utterly no meaning. — ssu
Russia is simply upholding its right to exist and to develop freely. — Putin · Oct 27, 2022
If nothing else, it fits the signature of Putin's Russia. Other than that, I'd take it with a grain of salt. — jorndoe
Without such grounds there's no reason we ought take even a 0.000001% risk of nuclear war to help them get it back. — Isaac
interesting to keep an eye on, since not only Russia is reluctant to return the occupied Kuril Islands to Japan but it also started militarizing them: https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-are-russia-and-japan-gridlocked-on-the-question-of-the-kuril-islands-58074 — neomac
What about Ukraine being under the control of Ukrainians? Is that totally out of question? — Olivier5
The United States will never agree to that, since the whole point of this crisis was to expand the US sphere of influence into Ukraine. A neutral Ukraine would be a defeat for the US and a nullification of billions of dollars spent over the course of at least a decade. — Tzeentch
What about Ukraine being under the control of Ukrainians? Is that totally out of question? — Olivier5
Doesn’t make any sense. Since’Ukrainian' is not a natural kind, it's not a subspecies, or a genetic type, Ukrainians will always be controlled by Ukraine since the definition of ’Ukrainian' is 'person under the rule of the government of Ukraine’.
There's no difference between a citizen of Donetsk having to accept power sharing with a citizen of Lvov, than that same citizen having to accept power sharing with a citizen of Rostov, or New York, or Paris. They're all miles away. No magic connects Lvov and Donetsk more than New York and Donetsk that somehow magically renders the former a morally 'correct' unit of government, but the latter not. — Isaac
Russia may have blundered themselves into a position where their terrorist threats of nuclear war is the only reason they should get to keep Crimea and the Donbass. How to put that genie back in the bottle? There are no easy answers, but submitting to the threat would set a deadly precedent. — hypericin
no state can afford to let the seizure of their territory go uncontested. — hypericin
if the premise is true, that doesn’t logically prove the definition. — neomac
that premise is compatible with other arguably more plausible definitions like “Ukrainian is a person with Ukrainian passport”, incompatible with the definition you provided: indeed not all persons under the rule of the government of Ukraine are Ukrainians, likely the non-Ukrainian foreign professional, tourists or residents located in Ukraine. — neomac
the claim “Ukrainians will always be controlled by Ukraine” doesn’t logically follow from your definition of “Ukrainian” unless “Ukraine” in your conclusion is understood NOT as a territorial entity but as the government of Ukraine. — neomac
if Olivier5’s claim has to do with control of territorial entity (Ukraine) by a group of people (the Ukrainians), as it seems to me, then your argument is irrelevant, because your argument deals with the control of a government (the government of Ukraine) over a group of people (the Ukrainians). — neomac
nowhere is clarified what “morally 'correct' unit of government” is supposed to mean — neomac
It is likely the United States orchestrated the sabotage of Nord Stream — Tzeentch
The idea of a group of people literally controlling a 'territory' is absurd (what are they going to to do control it's geography?). — Isaac
As a matter of financial gain? (Russia and the UK blame each other) — jorndoe
EU membership should be fine. — Olivier5
"I'll nuke you if you join the wrong trading group" sounds rather absurd. — Olivier5
Maybe? I'm not sure what the Russian stance is on EU membership. Their gripe seems mostly with NATO membership. — Tzeentch
people do control geography to a degree, by building infrastructure or destroying them. Think of how a dam affects the landscape. BTW, humans share that property with many other species, like beavers. — Olivier5
You seem to be against the idea of a modern nation state. Fine with me but what's the alternative? — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.