, if moving a border makes the trains run better, move the border. — Isaac

So you'd have no objection to France taking over the UK? That would make trains run better alright....

From the EU's own website:

The European Union (EU) is a unique economic and political union between 27 European countries.

[...]

What began as a purely economic union has evolved into an organisation spanning many different policy areas – from climate, environment and health to external relations and security, justice and migration.

Source: https://op.europa.eu/webpub/com/eu-what-it-is/en/

A governance can be more or less authoritarian. Polity can be more of a cooperative involvement of relatively autonomous people, or a system of coercion executed by less autonomous people. To struggle for that autonomy is not the same as establishing borders. It often involves that dynamic, especially when the coercive authority has no regard for the people they invade.

To view all armed resistance as a fetish ignores the natural revulsion to coercion and degradation. A model of a pragmatic 'modern state' without this being recognized is not very useful.

Though to be expected I guess, I'd find the re-culturation/indoctrination attempts a bit ... embarrassing when exposed.

Russia is here forever. There should be no doubt about this. There will be no return to the past. — Andrey Turchak (May 2022)

In this video from a liberated town in #Kharkiv region, east #Ukraine, Ukrainian soldiers removed a Russian propaganda poster saying “We are one people with Russia”. Only to reveal a poster with national poet Shevchenko’s verse “Fight and you will win”. — Alex Kokcharov (Sep 10, 2022)

Kherson removes pro-Russia signs, puts up pro-Ukrainian ones ^{(via US News)
— Reuters · Nov 22, 2022}

Oleksandr Tkachenko: 'The civilized world must take active measures to prevent the Russian propaganda machine from winning'
^{— Oleksandr Tkachenko · Le Monde · Nov 24, 2022}

AP PHOTOS: Propaganda billboards embodied Russian occupation
^{— Bernat Armangue · The Independent · Dec 2, 2022}

I have no objection to the modern nation state. I think it's an excellent, pragmatic way to organise governance. I object to the ludicrous notion that it has some moral value. It has none. If moving a border saves lives, move the border. Hell, if moving a border makes the trains run better, move the border. It's a nothing, a trivial bit of bureaucracy. It's absolute insanity to reify it to something worth dying in the thousands for. — Isaac

Not quite "the modern nation state". Maybe some day?

, not a defense/military club, though. With NATO around, that would be a bit odd (or redundant to some extent) I guess.

if the premise is true, that doesn’t logically prove the definition. — neomac


Nope. Indeed it doesn't.

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


It is, yes.

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


That's right..

Other irrelevant facts about my post are that it contained 114 words and doesn't once use the letter 'j'... if you're starting a collection . — Isaac

The facts I listed are relevant to establish whether your argument is fallacious. Your stats aren’t.

The argument is that control over the people of Ukraine is in the hands of the Ukrainian government.

The idea of a group of people literally controlling a 'territory' is absurd (what are they going to to do control it's geography?). What is controlled is people not land , and the way people control people is primarily via a government making laws. So the only matter in consideration is what government controls which people, and by what means. — Isaac

The expression “controlling a territory” was more clear before you tried to clarify it. Indeed what your clarification misses is that the idea of “controlling a territory” suggests a geographic perimeter for people’s or government’s controlling activity. Not surprisingly you talk about “government of Ukraine” to refer to a government meant to rule over the territorial entity called “Ukraine” and not “Botswana”.
Besides “primarily” doesn’t mean exclusively nor necessarily. But, most importantly, a government controlling a territory doesn’t need to be one that represents people’s will in a democratic way, which is a more relevant point to @Olivier5’s argument as far as I understood it.
See clarification is very important for rational people debating over complex topics. Unfortunately you spectacularly suck at it.

The argument is that there's no 'natural unit' of people who all have some single homogeneous set of needs so the grouping used has no bearing on the life of any given member. — Isaac

No bearing?! If one is Australian, then she doesn’t need a permit to enter and live there, while non-Australians do, so the grouping based on citizenship has a bearing on people’s life.

Each individual ukrainian might be better off sharing their control over their government with other Ukrainians, or New Yorkers, or Parisians. — Isaac

Not sure what you can infer from such a random hypothetical.

There's nothing about the border of Ukraine which makes the people within it better off sharing control with each other than with people outside that border. — Isaac

It sounds like claiming: “There is nothing about the walls of a flat which makes the family members within it better off sharing control with each other than with people outside those walls” which, if it has a meaning, is likely a preposterous one.

Your comment here makes no sense at all. Nowhere is the word 'clarified' clarified., nor what you mean by 'supposed to mean'. In fact your whole post is just garbage. What do you mean by "make any sense" in the first sentence. You've not provided any measure of what 'making sense' would constitute, nor a method for how we'd judge it. And "play any other role" is ambiguous. What is a 'role' here, how do we determine whether something is or is not 'playing a role', your argument is just nonsensical unless you can define these terms and how we'd measure them. Then there's "arguably more plausible". How are we going to judge if something is, in fact, arguable? Or plausible? Without these things defined first we can't possibly make any sense at all of what you've written. "Likely". How likley? You've got to be specific here otherwise we can't judge. Is 80% enough? Baysian or frequentist likelihood? How will we measure it?
It seems you've got a ton of work to do before anyone can make any sense whatsoever of your post. Alternatively, we could act like reasonably intelligent adults and accept that although some terms have fuzzy definitions we need not clarify every single one in advance of making any point. — Isaac

I agree about your claim marked in bold. But here you are clearly abusing it, and playing dumb is making things look even worse. Indeed you spontaneously proposed a definition of “Ukrainian” and a clarification of “controlling a territory”, namely two very ordinary notions that so far the interlocutors you are dealing with managed to use intelligibly and correctly without your proposals (luckily so, since they are ineffective). Yet you don’t feel the need to define nor clarify the locution “morally 'correct' unit of government” which sounds pretty esoteric (google reports zero results for “morally 'correct' unit of government”), indeed nobody has used it so far, except you, and despite sounding very important to you since you keep framing your thoughts on this war in moral terms?! And then you dare lecturing me if I protest about it?! Are you crazy?!

But then it seems absent of asking for definitions, you've nothing to say. — Isaac

It hurts, I know. Sorry, but not sorry.

Since the ;deadly' we'd be avoiding by concession is also war, I can't see much in it either way. at least war later can be mitigated, war now is killing people right away. — Isaac

Like "mitigation" is working out for "war now"?
Concession would mean strategic victory for an aggressor who used nuclear weapons to achieve their aim. Nuclear weapons already have excellent utility as a deterrent; if they are proven useful by Russia as a weapon of aggression, everyone will take note. Nuclear powers will all see new opportunities to settle regional scores, and non-nuclear powers will be further incentivized to join the club. At some point an aggressive nuclear power will have to be confronted. Does the west do it now, following the first such use of nuclear weapons, when the enemy is already reeling, or later, in the context of a new, terrifying global nuclear arms race? Hell, we (the USA) may be that aggressive nuclear power. Either way, your ".000001%" chance is a pure fiction.

The west is already walking the tightrope, unwilling to fall one way into possible Armageddon, or the other into handing an aggressively nuclear Russia victory. It's a poor position, and it is not clear what the alternative is.

Why not? — Isaac

Domestically, it is a show of extreme weakness by the leadership. It makes people feel humiliated and insecure, as they may be next. Opposition parties will seize on this. An administration which passively cedes its land will be replaced by one which does not, one way or another.

Regionally, if the aggressor is not contested and punished, they or others will seize more, threatening the existence of the state itself. In fact exactly this happened, Russia was hardly chastised in 2014, and look where we are now.

Putin’s decree on constitutional amendments to complete accession process for new regions
^{— TASS · Oct 4, 2022}

Putin calls for integrating the four annexed Ukrainian regions into the Russian judicial system
^{— Daniel Stewart · News360 · Nov 29, 2022}

Land grab. Veiled in rhetoric, masked by misdirection.

Exclusive: India asked by sanctions-hit Russia for parts for key sectors
^{— Aditi Shah, Aftab Ahmed. Gleb Stolyarov · Reuters · Nov 29, 2022}

The sanctions are apparently having some effect.

Heusgen: 'Russia is playing games all over the place'
^{— Sabina Fati · DW · Nov 29, 2022}

The Romanian president is right. Over the last years, NATO hasn't concentrated enough on the Black Sea. We had all our eyes on the Baltic Sea, where we also see Russian aggression, but the Russian war against Ukraine has now put the Black Sea in the center of our attention. Yes, we have to be much more active in the region, but I think that it's a signal that we're having the NATO Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Bucharest, also the Munich Security Conference is hosting the Munich Leaders Meeting here for the first time. I think that the president's wish to draw more attention to the region is actually now being heard by partners. — Christoph Heusgen

They are trying to blackmail, they are trying to regain Moldova in its sphere of influence and that's why we have to support Moldova by all means, but particularly now, by economic means. — Christoph Heusgen

I guess the Black Sea and Moldova might get more eyes-on.

Short footage from the ground ...

Kherson residents evacuate while those who stay struggle to survive
^{— Matthew Chance · CNN · Nov 29, 2022 · 2m:57s}



Bring in the NASAMS and such. :up:

So you'd have no objection to France taking over the UK? That would make trains run better alright.... — Olivier5

None whatsoever. And if I did (was the sort of person who cared what flag flew over my parliament) I would be a monster to expect thousands of people to die bringing my personal preferences as to flag colour about.

None whatsoever. And if I ... was the sort of person who cared what flag flew over my parliament — Isaac

It'd be about more than flag color. There's also the language. French is hard to learn.

I would be a monster to expect thousands of people to die bringing my personal preferences as to flag colour about. — Isaac

You are already a monster in my book due to your despicable posting manners and content here. Whatever you expect is not going to worsen that much.

A governance can be more or less authoritarian. Polity can be more of a cooperative involvement of relatively autonomous people, or a system of coercion executed by less autonomous people. To struggle for that autonomy is not the same as establishing borders. It often involves that dynamic, especially when the coercive authority has no regard for the people they invade.

To view all armed resistance as a fetish ignores the natural revulsion to coercion and degradation. A model of a pragmatic 'modern state' without this being recognized is not very useful. — Paine

It's not ignoring it. It's drawing out the assumptions. The border as national perimeter is irrelevant. You're pointing to the fact that some forms of governance are worse than other and so people might legitimately have (and fight for) preferences. But these judgements (better or worse) are either moral judgements (universal, humanitarian ones), or aesthetic judgements (personal preference). I don't see how they can be any third type.

If the former (humanitarian) then it is possible for the Ukrainians to be wrong, since these values are universal. they may wrongly prefer one government over another, incorrectly assessing the humanitarian gains. Thus the argument that it's morally "up to the Ukrainians" is flawed.

If it's personal preference, then it is indeed "up to the Ukrainians" what they sacrifice for what ends. But under that understanding, it has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else. We've no moral obligation to help them achieve their preferred style of governance.

So we're back to the question that this whole diversion about national borders was proffered to avoid. Russia's governance of Crimea. What evidence is being presented to show that Russia's eight year occupation of Crimea was a significantly worse governance than Ukraine's would have been?

Concession would mean strategic victory for an aggressor who used nuclear weapons to achieve their aim. Nuclear weapons already have excellent utility as a deterrent; if they are proven useful by Russia as a weapon of aggression, everyone will take note. Nuclear powers will all see new opportunities to settle regional scores, and non-nuclear powers will be further incentivized to join the club. At some point an aggressive nuclear power will have to be confronted. — hypericin

You were arguing about Russia being able to use the mere threat of nuclear weapons to achieve it's ends, no? About a nation, simply by virtue of being a huge nuclear superpower, getting it's way and the dangerous ramifications of this...?

Ringing any bells yet? Anything getting through the soup of propaganda you're clearly drowning in.

Like the fact that the US - a nuclear superpower - the only one to have ever actually used nuclear weapons, has been waging a near constant war across half the world since 1945. Did Iraq avoid getting it's own back on America because it was too far away? Is Afghanistan merely waiting for the SatNav to show them the way? Somalis, Libya, Syria, Kosovo, Serbia, Venezuala, Cuba,... You're seriously suggesting that all the countries America have fucked over haven't even thought about America's massive nuclear arsenal when considering whether they 'let them get away with it'?

It's already happened. It's been happening every single years since the second world war. a nuclear power has been using it's nuclear threat to invade other countries and impose their preferred governments there.

The choice has been between Russia or the United States to control Ukraine. — Tzeentch

Think for a while about it.

Is the US annexing parts of Ukraine?
Does the US think Ukraine is an artificial state and should belong to American culture and English be spoken and taught in schools?
Does the US want to demolish Ukraine?
Is the US forcing people to transfer to the US?

And Ukraine would want to join the EU. Wouldn't the EU then "control" Ukraine far more than the US?

The idea of the US being in control in similar fashion than Putin is simply absurd. Ukraine is really fighting for it's existence to be a sovereign state.

The US controls NATO. NATO countries are vassals of the US, because they rely completely on the US to keep them safe.

The EU demands an even greater sacrifice of autonomy, because it also gets legislative power inside EU countries. It's purpose is/was to become a "United States of Europe", essentially, of course still completely dependent on the United States for protection.

So lets not harbor illusions about countries in NATO or the EU being sovereign. They are lapdogs of the United States (or Brussels, which is again a lapdog of the United States), just like Belarus is Russia's lapdog.

That one may prefer the US over Russia is fine. I never said their overlordship would be the same, but that the choice Ukraine has now is overlordship either by the US or Russia.

You're seriously suggesting that all the countries America have fucked over haven't even thought about America's massive nuclear arsenal when considering whether they 'let them get away with it'? — Isaac

Yeah, that's exactly what I am suggesting. These are all countries that faced an adversary with overwhelming conventional force, nuclear was the last of their worries. How exactly are you suggesting they would otherwise have not 'let them get away with it'? Whereas the invasion of Ukraine would be impossible without nuclear weapons, since it would otherwise almost certainly trigger engagement with NATO.

But then what's your argument? It seemed to be that if we allowed a country to use the threat of nuclear weapons to get it's way then all hell would break loose because other countries would follow suit, but that argument seem to hold exactly the same for conventional forces. "If we allow a country to use the threat of massive conventional defence to get its way then all hell would break loose because other countries would follow suit". Why would allowing the threat of nuclear weapons to work cause any more disruption than allowing the threat of massive conventional weapons to work.

America can, and did, flatten a country like Iraq without even touching it's stock of nuclear warheads. It can get any non-nuclear nation to do it's bidding on the strength of conventional forces alone. So why's that not a problem, but Russia doing exactly the same with nuclear weapons would be?

What if, hypothetically, Russia didn't have any nuclear weapons, but had an amazing military, the biggest and best the world has ever seen. They invade Ukraine with it. Would your position then be "that's fine, we can let them get away with that because it's only conventional forces"?

the invasion of Ukraine would be impossible without nuclear weapons, since it would otherwise almost certainly trigger engagement with NATO. — hypericin

Where are you getting this information from?

That's rather theoretical. Look at Orban from Hungary: he is aligned with Moscow, in disagreement with the rest of the block.

That's rather theoretical. — Olivier5

It's essentially the mission statement of the EU. The fact that the entire EU trips over Hungary and Orban says enough.

he US controls NATO. NATO countries are vassals of the US, because they rely completely on the US to keep them safe.

The EU demands an even greater sacrifice of autonomy, because it also gets legislative power inside EU countries. It's purpose is/was to become a "United States of Europe", essentially, of course still completely dependent on the United States for protection.

So lets not harbor illusions about countries in NATO or the EU being sovereign. — Tzeentch

You can utilize what kind of discourse of vassalization whatever about the EU or being in NATO, but it totally falls to be similar with the case of an autocratic dictatorship where speaking of a war as a war can get one long prison sentences... and a country which has either gone to war or created frozen conflicts with three of it's neighbors.

Just to give an example, the vast majority of the people in this country wanted to join NATO and the Parliament heard their calls and voted to join NATO (with far larger majority than EU) as everybody understood that neutrality was meaningless for Russia's ambitions. Countries have joined voluntary both NATO and EU. And the reason seems to be confusing for some here.

The case where the US has imposed it's force, the result has been utter failure (Afghanistan) and extremely bad and tense relations (Iraq). Somehow you don't get friends by bombing the people first.

But don't let such facts hinder your logic of the West being "vassals of the US" and the straightforward comparison then to the empire building with war, violence and annexations as Putin's Russia is doing.

It says that there is an aspiration to democracy and human rights in the EU project, which conflicts with reality here or there. Note however that such an aspiration is just as hard to oppose formally by Russia as the aspiration to join a trade group. Putin cannot say: "I will nuke you if you aspire to human rights and democracy", not anymore than he can say "I will nuke you if you join the wrong free trade area". So in my view, Russian opposition to a potential Ukraine's EU membership -- if any -- cannot be expressed.

.. , but it totally falls to be similar with the case of an autocratic dictatorship ... — ssu

I never said they were similar. I said one shouldn't harbor illusions about Ukraine being a sovereign, independent state if it enters the EU or NATO, like none of the member states of those institutions are.

If you want to make the case that American overlordship is preferable that's fine.

It doesn't really matter, since if the new status quo doesn't in some way satisfy the Russians, it's going to lead to war again sooner or later.

More countries are moving towards authoritarianism - report
^{— Héloise Urvoy · Euronews · Nov 30, 2022}
International democracies are weakening as authoritarianisms deepen their shortcomings.
^{— Daniel Stewart · News360 · Nov 30, 2022}
Global State of Democracy Report 2022: Forging Social Contracts in a Time of Discontent
^{— The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)}

I'll take the tedious task of ruling with an iron fist.
Just need some compensation, like a new PC, a new furnace.
And enough of this crap already:

Russia says it will focus on building nuclear arms infrastructure in 2023
<sup>— Reuters · Nov 30, 2022


↑ Source: Democracy Tracker</sup>

↪Olivier5 It doesn't really matter, since if the new status quo doesn't in some way satisfy the Russians, it's going to lead to war again sooner or later. — Tzeentch

If we're talking Stalinesque borders + control from Moscow, then it's looking grim.

vassals — Tzeentch

even greater sacrifice of autonomy — Tzeentch

lapdog — Tzeentch

overlordship — Tzeentch

overlordship — Tzeentch

↑ this is propaganda'ish'esque, hyperbolic spin (on one page alone, like on a mission)

But that's fine, just have to take the verbiage for what it is.

The true anarchist is always outnumbered.
Will it be by organized thugs or a democratic majority? — Nov 19, 2022

I guess wants are of some relevance.

Think for a while about it. — ssu

:up:

↑ this is propaganda'ish'esque, hyperbolic spin (on one page alone, like on a mission) — jorndoe

You got me, I'm a Kremlin propagandist. :rofl:

No, but in all seriousness, people in this thread need to understand the actual situation instead of this fantasy in which the United States is some spreader of peace and love, and the foolish notion that countries in the EU and NATO are sovereign.

They are not. When the US says jump, they jump. They have no choice. There's not a country in Europe that has a military capable of defending itself, and people should have no illusions about what that means for the power relation between the US and its "allies" (vassals).

Illusions sometimes need to be dispelled using harsh words.

this fantasy in which the United States is some spreader of peace and love — Tzeentch

Can you quote anybody here talking about the US as "some spreader of peace and love"?

the foolish notion that countries in the EU and NATO are sovereign — Tzeentch

Maybe it's your notion of "sovereignty" which is foolish. Indeed its normative usage in international relations is more nuanced than you might think, for example it shouldn't be confused with the notion of "independence" nor "autarchy" nor with "territorial control": Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign body possesses no territory or its territory is under partial or total occupation by another power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty#External

You got me, I'm a Kremlin propagandist. :rofl: — Tzeentch

Not what I meant. Look at the quotes'n'comments again.

Zelenska (visiting the UK), von der Leyen (fronting the EU), and UN are on the same page regarding war crimes ...

Zelensky’s wife given standing ovation by MPs while urging UK to be ‘leader’
^{— Liam Coleman · Metro News · Nov 29, 2022}

EU seeks tribunal to probe possible Russian war crimes in Ukraine
^{— Bart Meijer, Andrew Heavens · Reuters · Nov 30, 2022}

It's more doubtful what they can effectively do, though.
What could they do?
(Limit Putin's vacation spots some?)

French is hard to learn. — Olivier5

It's a fairly simple language and has many root words in common with English, because the last invasion of the French was never repelled. Far from being hard, it is one of the easiest languages for an English-speaker to learn, and far easier than the reverse, because spelling and pronunciation and even grammar are so very inconsistent in English.

And of course the Welsh, The Scottish, The Northern Irish are expected to learn English and be grateful.
And this attitude (that everything not English is difficult and a huge imposition) does much to explain the appalling government that the UK suffers.


All of which is by the fucking by, to the point that the borders have to be drawn before you even know who to ask about who they want to be ruled and exploited by. This is a necessary and unavoidable democratic deficit: the UK apparently has an unassailable right to independence from the EU based on an internal referendum, but Scotland has no such unassailable right because [made up waffle]. So we now apply "made up waffle" to Donbas, Crimea, Ukraine, or whatever other region we like, citing the split up of Czechoslovakia , or the break up of Yugoslavia to taste. Shit happens, and then, with luck, we get a semblance of democratic control, or at least the illusion of it.