“Hybrid regime” is just a fancy name for oligarchy, and the argument that Ukrainian state cherishes the lives of its military aged men is a bit silly. Democratic states and authoritarian states are equally as capable of using human lives as currency when they view a war as existential. They weigh that against demographic and economic concerns. That’s all.
You said Ukraine values its manpower more than Russia.
I agreed with you, and added that it is because they have less manpower.
You then brought up some democracy index like that was relevant to the topic.
I inferred from this that you were explaining that you believe they value manpower more due to their hybrid regime versus Russia’s authoritarian regime and disagreed with you on that cause.
You called my inferrence a “strawman” and then asked for evidence against your first claim, that I agreed with.
I read your responses carefully. This is you apparently agreeing with me and adding that it’s because they have less manpower.
Only because they have fewer men. Have you seen the draft gangpress measures? People are being sent to be cannon fodder, under-equipped and underprepared.
I bought up the democracy index to illustrate that the Ukrainian government requires support from the Ukrainian population more than the Russian government requires support from their population. The Ukrainian government does not value their manpower just because they have less of it, the Ukrainian government is also more accountable to their population (as they are not an authoritarian regime). That is why I brought up the democracy index as it is a quantifiable measure of government accountability to their populations.
And I was disagreeing with you on that point, so I don’t know why you challenged me on the very first point you made, which I agreed with.
I don’t agree that the democracy index is really a quantifiable measure as it has several arbitrary criteria, but you could just assert that Ukraine is more democratic than Russia anyways, which is a matter of common sense.
Your argument that “democratic accountability” has something to do with it doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t follow. Ukraine has a draft. Drafts are drafts, there is no “democratic” objection to being drafted for war. Russia also drafts men as needed and the process looks quite similar sometimes, but in Ukraine it has become a severe social phenomenon.
I’m attempting to align so that we can move our discussion forward. I’m just going to assume that you agree with the following statement.
The Ukrainian government is more accountable to it’s population than the Russian government.
Both democracies and authoritarian regimes have drafts. The difference is that democracies can not continue an unpopular draft because the government will be voted out.
The more accountable a government is to their population, the less that government can afford to enact unpopular policies.
You seem hung up on the fact that Ukraine has a draft. What’s actually important is, does Ukraine have a draft that is supported by the population? If lots of drafted individuals become casualties then the Ukrainian government risks losing the support of the population and being replaced.
This is less of an issue for authoritarian regimes. That is my point and that is a major reason the Ukrainian government values it’s manpower more than the Russian government, there are larger consequences for casualties.
You’re asking questions we have answers to and you seem to have totally missed some key facts.
Ukraine is under martial law and has been since the invasion. There are no elections, they’ve been cancelled due to the needs of the state. There is no concern of the government being replaced.
Ukraine isn’t a proper democracy but a “hybrid”, e.g an oligarchy anyways. The popularity or unpopularity of policies doesn’t translate into political outcomes so easily or transparently.
But your argument about authiritarian regimes is faulty. We just saw the complete opposite of that in Syria. Authoritarian regimes do not necessarily command loyalty and they also live in constant fear of popular unrest or dissatisfaction. In fact, there are many analysts who point to Putin’s current domestic policy choices as desparate attempts to placate the Russians that have lost something due to the war.
“Hybrid regime” is just a fancy name for oligarchy, and the argument that Ukrainian state cherishes the lives of its military aged men is a bit silly. Democratic states and authoritarian states are equally as capable of using human lives as currency when they view a war as existential. They weigh that against demographic and economic concerns. That’s all.
Don’t strawman, my argument is
Do you have any evidence or arguments to counter my initial claim?
This is how it went:
You said Ukraine values its manpower more than Russia.
I agreed with you, and added that it is because they have less manpower.
You then brought up some democracy index like that was relevant to the topic.
I inferred from this that you were explaining that you believe they value manpower more due to their hybrid regime versus Russia’s authoritarian regime and disagreed with you on that cause.
You called my inferrence a “strawman” and then asked for evidence against your first claim, that I agreed with.
Please read more carefully.
I read your responses carefully. This is you apparently agreeing with me and adding that it’s because they have less manpower.
I bought up the democracy index to illustrate that the Ukrainian government requires support from the Ukrainian population more than the Russian government requires support from their population. The Ukrainian government does not value their manpower just because they have less of it, the Ukrainian government is also more accountable to their population (as they are not an authoritarian regime). That is why I brought up the democracy index as it is a quantifiable measure of government accountability to their populations.
And I was disagreeing with you on that point, so I don’t know why you challenged me on the very first point you made, which I agreed with.
I don’t agree that the democracy index is really a quantifiable measure as it has several arbitrary criteria, but you could just assert that Ukraine is more democratic than Russia anyways, which is a matter of common sense.
Your argument that “democratic accountability” has something to do with it doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t follow. Ukraine has a draft. Drafts are drafts, there is no “democratic” objection to being drafted for war. Russia also drafts men as needed and the process looks quite similar sometimes, but in Ukraine it has become a severe social phenomenon.
Do you agree that the Ukrainian government is more accountable to it’s population than the Russian government?
I’d prefer you respond to my arguments instead of rehashing what’s already been discussed. Or we could just stop here.
I’m attempting to align so that we can move our discussion forward. I’m just going to assume that you agree with the following statement.
Both democracies and authoritarian regimes have drafts. The difference is that democracies can not continue an unpopular draft because the government will be voted out.
The more accountable a government is to their population, the less that government can afford to enact unpopular policies.
You seem hung up on the fact that Ukraine has a draft. What’s actually important is, does Ukraine have a draft that is supported by the population? If lots of drafted individuals become casualties then the Ukrainian government risks losing the support of the population and being replaced.
This is less of an issue for authoritarian regimes. That is my point and that is a major reason the Ukrainian government values it’s manpower more than the Russian government, there are larger consequences for casualties.
You’re asking questions we have answers to and you seem to have totally missed some key facts.
Ukraine is under martial law and has been since the invasion. There are no elections, they’ve been cancelled due to the needs of the state. There is no concern of the government being replaced.
Ukraine isn’t a proper democracy but a “hybrid”, e.g an oligarchy anyways. The popularity or unpopularity of policies doesn’t translate into political outcomes so easily or transparently.
But your argument about authiritarian regimes is faulty. We just saw the complete opposite of that in Syria. Authoritarian regimes do not necessarily command loyalty and they also live in constant fear of popular unrest or dissatisfaction. In fact, there are many analysts who point to Putin’s current domestic policy choices as desparate attempts to placate the Russians that have lost something due to the war.