Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Jacob]

The discussion on the last page or two has been extremely depressing.  You'd think that a genocidal invasion would be enough to snap some people out of the instinct to succumb to the shifting of the Overton window, but evidently not.

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is: Russia is a Fascist warmonger, engaging in genocide and a massive number of war crimes. The duty of all right-thinking individuals is to support Ukraine in defeating this aggression.

If Ukraine wants to make concessions for peace, okay fair enough. But until they do we should support them against the complete and utter evil of Putin's regime.

How can you speak of a referendum to determine "the will of the people" in a territory where Russia is carrying out mass killings, organized torture, the murder of children, forced deportations, and rape?

[The Brain]

How is NATO membership a concession? Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and does not need permission from Russia to join NATO, most especially after Russia attacks them, proving that Ukraine needs NATO.

How is a freaking referendum a concession, UN supervised or otherwise? Why would there be a referendum at all? This is like suggesting that there should be a referendum in 1940 to see if the Poles would like to join Germany or the USSR.

NATO membership and referenda are concessions because they are things Russia doesn't want.

There would be a referendum because both parties would agree to it.

They are things Russia maybe doesn't want but they are not things that Russia gives. They are not Russia's to give. In addition, they would mean official Ukrainian acceptance of the basic right of Russia to have a say in Ukrainian affairs, so they wouldn't taste that bad to Russia.

[The Brain]

A tangential thing regarding NATO membership: even a country like the US cannot give NATO membership. Sweden might end up NOT being allowed into NATO, it isn't clear to me that Ukraine would get in any easier.

[Threviel]

A tangential thing regarding NATO membership: even a country like the US cannot give NATO membership. Sweden might end up NOT being allowed into NATO, it isn't clear to me that Ukraine would get in any easier.

Yeah, but given time the US can use soft powers to get anyone in. The reason that Turkey can do the shenanigans it's doing is because of perceived time constraints.

[The Brain]

A tangential thing regarding NATO membership: even a country like the US cannot give NATO membership. Sweden might end up NOT being allowed into NATO, it isn't clear to me that Ukraine would get in any easier.

Yeah, but given time the US can use soft powers to get anyone in. The reason that Turkey can do the shenanigans it's doing is because of perceived time constraints.

There will always be time constraints. Every moment Ukraine isn't in NATO it is open to renewed Russian attack. Every US election means US support for Ukrainian membership can disappear.

[Solmyr]

Ukraine should give things but Russia shouldn't give anything?

NATO membership would be a concession.  UN supervised referenda would be a concession.  Referenda only in those areas would be a concession.

I'll come steal your house, but your family can vote whether you can move back into the cellar. All your neighbors can observe to make sure that vote is fair.

[Josquius]

No, I am curious as to why YOU have flopped sides, actually.

So you cannot answer the question of what number of people is determinant of "self-determination". You say it is a "fluffy" question.

LOL, I see what you're doing there. Trying to present not answering a question that doesn't have a simple answer as merely dodging the question.
It really is something where there is no one size fits all scientific answer of "10 million people and not one less to be a country!".

Apparently, whatever the fluffy answer might be, being invaded gets you past those answers, and straight to a "yep, you get to have a referendum!"

Yes.
Referenda are expensive and awkward to organise and run, they open up a potential can of worms of division and no matter the outcome are a drain.
However when the other option is a war...  the referendum is clearly the least bad of the two options.

You think the people of Des Moines should hold a referendum to see if they want to remain part of Iowa?

Why? Should Iowa have a referendum to see if they want to stay part of the USA?

Sure. If they want to.
I was thinking about this earlier and you're actually hinting at the same sort of thing I was thinking- in response to can some random guy decide to become his own country, I'd say the response should be one of needing to prove you can handle lower stages before moving to higher stages.
Thus a neighbourhood can have a referenda on becoming a municipality, a municipality on becoming a state, a state on becoming a country. And as I know with the way you're going to react here- this is a broad philosophical guideline and not something I'm suggesting happens tomorrow in the US as it stands.

What circumstances, other then being invaded by a foreign power, trigger this need for a referendum to determine the will of the fluffy "maybe majority"?

Democracy?
Victory for political parties wanting referenda in the relevant level of elections, petitions from a sizable enough chunk of the population, long standing disagreements that have called in mediators, etc...

Russia has some pretty clear war goals now that they've given up on their initial goal - to destroy and annex Ukraine. Now they want to hang on to the territories they're currently occupying while they build up strength to finish the job.

Any settlement that gives gives them their current war aims when they're otherwise losing is in fact rewarding them.

I'm suggesting nothing about letting them hang onto their territories?
For a referendum to be fair a Russian withdrawal is a clear precondition- best case in this never gonna happen theoretical, replaced by UN peace keepers- .

Slovakia's nationhood was determined after the Nazis were defeated. You're proposing making a deal with the Nazi equivalents before they're defeated.

Complete overthrow of Putin would be nice but calling for this isn't great PR and damages Ukraine's position as an innocent in all this.
The neutral position is a simple one of Russians go home and do your own thing and let the people who actually live in the area decide their own fate.

And you're also assuming - apparently - the people of the occupied parts of Ukraine have a distinct national identity and a yearning for nationhood that exists outside the schemes of paid FSB agents.

Quite the opposite. I'm assuming this doesn't exist at all. I also assume that Russia knows fine well that things wouldn't go their way hence they wouldn't agree to it. A 'no' is just as valid an answer as a 'yes.

Great. So your proposal is something that neither Russia nor Ukraine wants. What is this supposed to accomplish?

Nothing much. Its a idle discussion on the internet.
However I do think there could be legs in Ukraine/a mediator proposing this as a peace deal- it is giving Russia its surface demands, taking at face value Russia's claims of the poor Russian speakers yearning for the motherland needing protection... However doing this in such a way where they can't just use force to manufacture proof, instead leaving it up to the actual people concerned to go "Russia's idea is wrong".
Its a free win for Ukraine in cementing itself as the progressive democracy it aims to be, whilst Russia rejecting a deal which gives them so much of their claimed demands will provide further evidence that they're talking from their arse and its nothing but a war of conquest.

[Tamas]

I am going to try and not fly off my handle over this whole referendum appeasement nonsense raised here by several of you people which just fundamentally fails to grasp the severity of what Russia has been doing, the amount of lives ruined by it, and the staggeringly horrible implications  it is going to have on ALL of our lives if it does not end up as a total and catastrophic failure with zero of its objectives achieved and zero compromises made with them. For real, people, get a grip.

[Threviel]

A tangential thing regarding NATO membership: even a country like the US cannot give NATO membership. Sweden might end up NOT being allowed into NATO, it isn't clear to me that Ukraine would get in any easier.

Yeah, but given time the US can use soft powers to get anyone in. The reason that Turkey can do the shenanigans it's doing is because of perceived time constraints.

There will always be time constraints. Every moment Ukraine isn't in NATO it is open to renewed Russian attack. Every US election means US support for Ukrainian membership can disappear.

Yes, but when the war is over and Ukraine might be asked to join, Russia will in all probability not have much of an army left to go around picking fights with. Will give a decade or two for Ukraine to join.

[Legbiter]

Regarding the grain deal which Russia just cancelled, Turkey and Ukraine will continue the Black Sea grain convoy system despite Russia pulling out. Turkey is basically throwing down the gauntlet to Russia to attack it's navy if it wants to blockade Ukraine.

[alfred russel]

I think I can count on the Russians to be motivated to end sanctions.

Sanctions have to be kept in place, or the Russians will just attack again when they feel strong enough.

Furthermore, if a GOP-dominated Congress is seen as pressing Ukraine to end the war we can kiss the Non Proliferation Treaty goodbye. In the absence of credible US support every Russian and Chinese neighbor will need The Bomb.

Of course.

Everyone will need a nuclear deterrent if the West decides to concede to Russian threats.

That is painfully stupid.

There are only two countries on earth that have thousands of nuclear warheads: Russia and the USA. There are only a handful of countries in the world that could develop and maintain the arsenal of Russia.

From the perspective of the small countries that may get invaded, very few of them are at risk of invasion by a nuclear power. But to the extent that they may be encouraged to get a nuclear weapon, that ship sailed long ago--at least with the invasion of Iraq if not sooner. Just from Russia/Ukraine, it was long ago shown that countries in the position of Ukraine needed nuclear weapons for defense. 2014 and the de facto annexation of Crimea is one example, but even if Ukraine ultimately prevails with no territorial concessions, they will have suffered dead in the six figures, millions at least temporarily displaced, and an incredible amount of physical destruction of infrastructure.

[mongers]

Regarding the grain deal which Russia just cancelled, Turkey and Ukraine will continue the Black Sea grain convoy system despite Russia pulling out. Turkey is basically throwing down the gauntlet to Russia to attack it's navy if it wants to blockade Ukraine.

A good move; Erdogan playing a helpful role in international affiars

[Berkut]

A tangential thing regarding NATO membership: even a country like the US cannot give NATO membership. Sweden might end up NOT being allowed into NATO, it isn't clear to me that Ukraine would get in any easier.

Indeed.

NATO is an organization of sovereign nations.

You don't get to join unless they agree to let you in, which seems rather unlikely before, less so now.

But this entire idea that we should be dictating to Ukraine on this is contemptible. It validates a core concept behind Russia's claims about Ukraine - that they aren't really an actual sovereign nation at all.

[Berkut]

I think I can count on the Russians to be motivated to end sanctions.

Sanctions have to be kept in place, or the Russians will just attack again when they feel strong enough.

Furthermore, if a GOP-dominated Congress is seen as pressing Ukraine to end the war we can kiss the Non Proliferation Treaty goodbye. In the absence of credible US support every Russian and Chinese neighbor will need The Bomb.

Of course.

Everyone will need a nuclear deterrent if the West decides to concede to Russian threats.

That is painfully stupid.

There are only two countries on earth that have thousands of nuclear warheads: Russia and the USA. There are only a handful of countries in the world that could develop and maintain the arsenal of Russia.

From the perspective of the small countries that may get invaded, very few of them are at risk of invasion by a nuclear power. But to the extent that they may be encouraged to get a nuclear weapon, that ship sailed long ago--at least with the invasion of Iraq if not sooner. Just from Russia/Ukraine, it was long ago shown that countries in the position of Ukraine needed nuclear weapons for defense. 2014 and the de facto annexation of Crimea is one example, but even if Ukraine ultimately prevails with no territorial concessions, they will have suffered dead in the six figures, millions at least temporarily displaced, and an incredible amount of physical destruction of infrastructure.

Very few are at risk of invasion now because there has been an established precedent that using nukes is not an acceptable way to engage in diplomacy. 

The damage done to Ukraine is considerable of course, but that damage is being done, now, in what is clearly a failed effort. Absent Russia using nukes, the lesson to be learned from this debacle will be "Wow, invading another country sucks and maybe is a pretty bad idea". If Russia uses its nuclear umbrella as a effective tool to blackmail the West from continued support, and hence gets some of their goals met, then in fact the lesson will be that every country must get nukes of their own in order to deter larger nuclear armed countries.

If Ukraine had a dozen nukes, and could credibly threaten to take out Moscow if Russia uses a nuke, Russia isn't going to use a nuke. Hell, probably doesn't invade to begin with, for that matter, but that is a separate issue. You don't need a thousand nukes to deter Russia, or China, or even the US for that matter.

[Berkut]

No, I am curious as to why YOU have flopped sides, actually.

So you cannot answer the question of what number of people is determinant of "self-determination". You say it is a "fluffy" question.

LOL, I see what you're doing there. Trying to present not answering a question that doesn't have a simple answer as merely dodging the question.
It really is something where there is no one size fits all scientific answer of "10 million people and not one less to be a country!".

What I am doing is pointing out that statements like "People, all people everywhere, deserve self determination." are quite obviously not true.

You've just agreed with me, by throwing in about a hundred various other conditions that make it pretty clear that in fact not all people, not anywhere, have any kind of right to self determination, but rather such a thing is radically contingent on a huge number of other factors.

I am still confused as to the utility of establishing that invading another country and murdering as many of them as possible ought to be established as an overriding factor though.