Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[The Minsky Moment]

All human rights, whether deemed natural or otherwise, have meaning and content only in the context of human society.  The right to free speech, for example, is meaningless in abstract, or is simply trivial in the absence of some human community which could have the power and the inclination to control and regulate speech. 

Making a distinction between economic and non-economic rights doesn't work either, both because those boundaries are very blurry and because traditional core Western "natural" rights include property rights, such as those reflected in the US constitutional guarantee against takings of property without fair compensation.

In the context of modern affluent Western societies, I think it is meaningful and appropriate to speak of rights to the basic conditions for sustaining life. I believe to do so is consistent with the traditional conception of natural right, with social contractual theories of rights, and with more recent theories of human rights.  While it is true that such rights have coherent meaning only within that particular social context, that is true to one degree or another for all rights. 

[Berkut]

Nah, not buying that Minsky.

Just because the lines between categories are not perfectly delineated doesn't mean those lines don't exist, or there isn't meaningful differences in how things are approached when addressing those differences.

[The Minsky Moment]

Nah, not buying that Minsky.

Just because the lines between categories are not perfectly delineated doesn't mean those lines don't exist, or there isn't meaningful differences in how things are approached when addressing those differences.

Lines can always be drawn, the question is what lines, where to draw them, and what justifications to make for them. 

[The Minsky Moment]

As an example, and at great risk of veering further off topic.

Some folks on the US right are libertarians who think that women should be free to do what they want with their bodies but they shouldn't be required to pay to support those choices.  Others oppose any right to abortion on the grounds of fetal (or embryonic) right to life, but would support meaningful social support for the forced births. 

Those are coherent philosophical positions, but they are very much in the minority in the US right today. The dominant position is to demand a ban on abortion to protect the right of fetus to live, but at the same time to gut the social programs that would sustain that life in birth and afterwards.  That to my mind is an incoherent philosophical position, as well as an immoral one.

For "right to life" to be meaningful it can't be limited to merely the right not to have one's life extirpated by active agency.  Life requires not merely the absence of dangerous conditions but the presence of sustaining ones.  The sharp distinction between negative and positive right can't be sustained without depriving the right of meaningful content.

It's one example, but any analysis of rights is going to reveal the same issues.  E.g., a person living in anarchic conditions like early 90s Somalia can be said to have property rights in the negative sense that there is no government authority to invade them but in reality, there are no rights to speak of under those conditions.  Property rights entail not only the negative right to be free from invasion or expropriation but the positive right to invoke the aid and coercive power of the state to secure those rights against others who would infringe them.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the West should advise Ukraine, if necessary, to leave NATO membership out of any agreement with Russia. Because 1) including it would mean acceptance of Russian suzerainty over Ukraine, and more importantly 2) there is no way to guarantee that Ukraine will be allowed into NATO, so Russia may end up getting the advantage of accepted suzerainty without the negatve of Ukrainian NATO membership.

You've made this point before and I didn't get it then.  Please explain how Ukrainian membership in NATO creates Russian suzerainty over Ukraine.

[Zoupa]

I think his point is that whether Ukraine joins NATO is up to Ukraine, they don't need russia's ok. Just putting that in a treaty implies that Moscow somehow gets a say in Ukraine's affairs.

[Josquius]

But its one of those things were people start with their conclusion (people in Quebec and Scotland ought to be able to secede!) then try to create foundational principles to support that conclusion (ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION!) so you can avoid hard arguments about the practical reality, and then suddenly find yourself arguing for how the Southerners were right and maybe Putin has a point....

I think this is it right here. As a matter of policy I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude a specific polity, in a specific country, for specific cultural/historical/practical/etc etc reasons should be allowed to hold a referendum on leaving or not. I personally don't think it wise for Scotland or Quebec to secede, but I think if the national governments of those countries make a determination that allowing the option is in the best interests of their country, it's fine to do so. It's also fine for people to advocate for and lobby for that to happen, that's part of the process.

I think you can hold views like that, specific to a situation, without having to do what Josq does, which is create an ideal that has never been a norm and frankly would likely cause far more harm, misery, death, etc than the current norm--which is that sovereign states get to decide for themselves if it is appropriate to allow secession.

So basically put the factoryowners in charge of deciding health and safety regulations for workers?
There's a pretty clear flaw in this thinking.

[The Brain]

I think the West should advise Ukraine, if necessary, to leave NATO membership out of any agreement with Russia. Because 1) including it would mean acceptance of Russian suzerainty over Ukraine, and more importantly 2) there is no way to guarantee that Ukraine will be allowed into NATO, so Russia may end up getting the advantage of accepted suzerainty without the negatve of Ukrainian NATO membership.

You've made this point before and I didn't get it then.  Please explain how Ukrainian membership in NATO creates Russian suzerainty over Ukraine.

Russia giving Ukraine permission to join NATO is only required in a situation where Russia has suzerainty over Ukraine. If Ukraine includes such a permission in a deal then they have accepted that such suzerainty exists.

[The Brain]

I think his point is that whether Ukraine joins NATO is up to Ukraine, they don't need russia's ok. Just putting that in a treaty implies that Moscow somehow gets a say in Ukraine's affairs.

Exactly.

[Admiral Yi]

Russia giving Ukraine permission to join NATO is only required in a situation where Russia has suzerainty over Ukraine. If Ukraine includes such a permission in a deal then they have accepted that such suzerainty exists.

So in the future if Russia tells Ukraine "because we gave you permission to join NATO, you are now our vassal, and you must not do X, Y, or Z" Ukraine will agree?

[OttoVonBismarck]

So basically put the factoryowners in charge of deciding health and safety regulations for workers?
There's a pretty clear flaw in this thinking.

A country is not a factory, is where this breaks down.

[Zoupa]

Russia giving Ukraine permission to join NATO is only required in a situation where Russia has suzerainty over Ukraine. If Ukraine includes such a permission in a deal then they have accepted that such suzerainty exists.

So in the future if Russia tells Ukraine "because we gave you permission to join NATO, you are now our vassal, and you must not do X, Y, or Z" Ukraine will agree?

No. Perceptions and words matter, especially on the world stage.

[Admiral Yi]

No. Perceptions and words matter, especially on the world stage.

Then how will this suzerainty manifest itself?

[Zoupa]

No. Perceptions and words matter, especially on the world stage.

Then how will this suzerainty manifest itself?

By keeping alive the myth of a russian sphere of influence.

[Admiral Yi]

By keeping alive the myth of a russian sphere of influence.

It's turtles all the way down.

Is there any way this thesis can be subjected to proof?  Is there any empirical test that one can conduct to see whether or not this suzerainty exists?

I personally think this is on the level of an internet meme.  *If* Ukraine were to include membership in a peace treaty then people who opposed this provision can say that Ukraine has been OWNED, that Ukraine is now Russia's BITCH.  And in the real world nothing would change.