7 ms·

I'm genuinely curious do people really want to get (presumably other people's sons) into war over this? I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of R

I'm genuinely curious do people really want to get (presumably other people's sons) into war over this? I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here? And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate Uyghur and Tibet, against North Korea to stop the human rights abuses there, against Afghanistan again to put the previous regime back in power, etc.? I mean what point do you say okay we need to go in shooting, and would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle?

HWR_14 5y ago
If you think Putin's next stop after Ukraine might be another country, then another, until he's planning his victory celebration in Paris, you may want to stop him early. Or maybe instead of sweeping up through NATO he decides owning the worlds oil would be nice and starts cutting down to the Middle East.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > If you think Putin's next stop after Ukraine might be another country, then another, until he's planning his victory celebration in Paris, Well, do you think that? My question was for you but it's fair I answer yours. > you may want to stop him early. What "you" is that? The people of those countries that would be invaded along the way? If I thought that and was a person from one of those other countries, I would probably think it's preferable to build defenses of my country rather than engage in expeditionary warfare in the east near Russian supply lines and air space. Difficult question though I'm certainly no military strategist. On the first question, I do not think Putin's next stop is likely to be that or possibly even the regions of Ukraine where there are fewer Russians/less pro-Russian support. But such things should always be considered and I'm no military or geopolitical analyst. What I can see is that from the amount of money western european states spend on their defenses they do not consider such a risk likely either, and they do employ many such strategists. So as a person not from one of those countries I certainly wouldn't support my country getting involved in military action in the region first.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I don't think Putin is going to stop after Ukraine - he may temporarily stop to rebuild and plan the next war, but my belief is he will keep salami slicing until war is joined because he crosses some line that people stand up to him. Better to do it cheaper. The "you" was, well, everyone in the world. I don't really subscribe to the strange belief that I should only care about human suffering of my countrymen. However, if you do, the bigger the war gets, the worse it will be and the more far afield it will bring in other countries. As far as "far from Russia's supply lines", their old border won't matter, they'll still be close to their bases in what was once Ukraine. Oh, and they'll have more resources from Ukraine. Plus, you won't have the 7th largest army in the world absorbing the brunt of their attack.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      > I don't think Putin is going to stop after Ukraine - he may temporarily stop to rebuild and plan the next war, So far they seem to have occupied heavily pro-Russian areas very close to home that have not put up much resistance. I don't think that's a good indication they would just keep going further. Possibly though. > but my belief is he will keep salami slicing until war is joined because he crosses some line that people stand up to him. Better to do it cheaper. > The "you" was, well, everyone in the world. I don't really subscribe to the strange belief that I should only care about human suffering of my countrymen. However, if you do, the bigger the war gets, the worse it will be and the more far afield it will bring in other countries. That is not my belief. It is my belief that I care about my countrymen more though or at least have more responsibility to them being that I have a vote in how the country is run, and it is also my belief that those with something to lose have to take a stand. I wouldn't want to send solders from my country even if Putin was driving a tank down the Champs-Elysees, if the French were all just sitting there waiting for me. And pretty clearly Western European governments do not consider this a high risk given their military spending. So I just think it's very premature to take action based on the idea you can be so sure such a thing would happen. > As far as "far from Russia's supply lines", their old border won't matter, they'll still be close to their bases in what was once Ukraine. Oh, and they'll have more resources from Ukraine. Plus, you won't have the 7th largest army in the world absorbing the brunt of their attack. It would absolutely stretch supply lines and defenses. Reality isn't like an RTS you can't just keep conquering territory and it turns red and your resources immediately grow.
- thelittleone 5y ago
  So long as Putin says he won't go beyond Ukraine we can just believe him at his word right? /Sarcasm. But sadly this does seem to have been the strategy since Crimea. Assassinations on foreign soil including attempt on opposition leader who now rots in a jail on rediculous charges. Shooting down passenger planes. Putin needs a punch in the face that rattles him to the core such that he fears stepping outside in daylight.
id02009 5y ago
I live in Poland and struggle with this question myself. I don't want to die or kill so the suits on the top can then negotiate new post war order, which would almost certainly perpetuate this BS in the future. On the other hand: appeasement leads to more bullying, and might cause even bigger conflict on the future (we've seen this happen in WW2)
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Thank you for the answer and perspective. Yes, it is a sad, impossible question really.
shmerl 5y ago
You can use World War II as a study case for that. Nazis could have been stopped sooner, instead some tried to appease them until it was too late.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- toolz 5y ago
  Or you could use Dessert Shield as a case study which has turned into pointless and incredibly long-lived war fronts.
  - daveguy 5y ago
    This is more like the desert storm scenario than the desert shield scenario. One country invading another sovereign country. The boundaries were clear. No occupying force necessary. I'm not saying we should jump to boots on the ground war without exhausting other possibilities first, but this is very little like Afghanistan and even less like the second Iraq war.
- slaw 5y ago
  When do you think Germans should be stopped and who was going to stop them?
  - shmerl 5y ago
    After they attacked Poland. Second question is self answered since they eventually were stopped, so start from that list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in_Europe_(1939–40) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in...
    - slaw 5y ago
      I know they period of history well enough. When Germany invaded Poland, Soviet Union was ally to Germany and no country was interested in helping Poland.
lmm 5y ago
> I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here? You've got to draw the line somewhere. If an offensive war like this passes, no-one is safe. > And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate Uyghur and Tibet, against North Korea to stop the human rights abuses there, against Afghanistan again to put the previous regime back in power, etc.? Launching an invasion no, at least not without a very clear UN-like process that gives them multiple opportunities to back down. > I mean what point do you say okay we need to go in shooting, and would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle? Whether I'd have the balls is another question entirely, but I absolutely do believe it. This is not subtle, this is not limited, this is war. If we were talking about unmarked "volunteers" in the "independent states" that Russia recognised a few days ago, you might reasonably argue for a more limited response. But when we have Russian regulars shooting in Kyiv, that is absolutely on the wrong side of anywhere the line can possibly be drawn, unless you're ready to start speaking Russian.
sg47 5y ago
The last time a mad dictator wasn't nipped in the bud, the world lost millions in war.
- MathMonkeyMan 5y ago
  I am sorry to say that there have been many a mad dictator since.
  - EEBio 5y ago
    True, but none of them had that big of a budget nor military technology. There's more than one parallel with the Third Reich efforts here.
627467 5y ago
"This", meaning peace near your border? I'm surprised that everyone considers sanctions a sophisticated hard soft power tool (clearly useless) but don't consider mobilization of troops as hardware (short of firing rounds) as an effective and peaceful tool. What Putin did (mobilize troops within their borders) was also an option for NATO/EU in bordering countries. Matching mobilization would definitely increase the costs of firing the first bullet. But the truth is, despite the talk of solidarity and all this public indignation, Ukraine never really had a partner in NATO/EU/West. And the world saw how uninterested in peace is NATO/EU/West
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  No, "this" meaning the present situation in the region. And I'm not asking about a hypothetical, but the actual reasons are that people who support military action. And what is it exactly you personally hope it would achieve. I would be interested to hear from anybody from Ukraine to USA to Russia. No right or wrong answers, I'm just interested in perspective. For myself since I'm asking the question: I'm in a western country and I don't support sending my countrymen to war. For a number of reasons, primarily I don't think the western neoliberal ruling regime (not talking about one political party or another, but the non-partisan support for wars and interventions by many western governments for many decades) can be trusted with war or interventionism. It has almost always been sold on utter lies and deceit, and almost never turned out for the better of the people involved. It is sold to us on emotion and outrage and urgency and this kind of thing, but very little calm rational and considered arguments and debate of pros and cons and risks and goals ("Putin is like Hitler and must be stopped" type of rhetoric really does not describe a goal of aim of a military action adequately) . Now I have no doubt there are many very good arguments for the people of Ukraine, the country of Ukraine, the containment of bullies and dictatorships, etc., that could help make the case for military action in this case. However I also know that the ruling class have absolutely no interest in the actual well being of the Ukrainian people or the security of the average person in Europe, or a moral duty to stand up to bullies and dictators, or human rights. Because if they did we couldn't explain their actions and inactions with Saudi, Yemen, North Korea, whatever. They are happy to claim they care about those things if by coincidence they might be seen to align with their agenda, but we know they don't care. So we know the warmongers are lying right off the bat, this is not really disputable. This doesn't make the case for war wrong, but it does (to me) make it much harder to see what is going on, and I think caution should be applied in such cases. But I do acknowledge the problem with appeasement and the need for decisive action and the fact that we will never have all the information so again this is not a criticism of others who feel differently. What I would look at for example is Crimea, which of course fell to Russia in a similar way during the Obama administration in which there was also some people calling for war. If there was a major war over Crimea back then, would the situation for Crimea, its people, Ukraine, and everybody else involved with the war be better today than it is now? If Crimea was occupied by Russian forces would it have meant civilian collateral deaths? If many people in Crimea were pro-Russian separatists, would that war have meant bombing the people of Crimea? And what would the end game be? Would we still be there? How many people would be dead? Would it war there have dissuaded Russia from this action? What are the similarities with the regions of Ukraine being occupied now? I have seen almost no analysis of this with hindsight, I'm sure such analysis exists, but it is a concern to me that the warmongers have not taken it and made it front-and-center of the discussion. It would be a very good data point for justification of any action now. Finally I would not support war unless a significant number of Ukrainians particularly from the region take up arms against Russia and start fighting. They are the ones who have the ultimate moral authority about whether force should be used to protect their land, and they have the first responsibility to fight for it. Sounds cruel and it is, but crueler in my opinion is to first send people who have no relationship to the place to fight. EDIT: and when I say warmongers I don't mean people who are pro war in any situation, I believe war is sometimes justified. I was purely talking about those in the ruling class who are warmongers.
matkoniecz 5y ago
I am from Poland and now I need to seriously consider possibility that Poland within 10 years or 20 may be under Russian occupation. Again. That is not a high risk, but becomes a real possibility. Rather than insane rambling and pure fiction. Or something appearing to be a dark pessimism. This is not situation that I like. So, in the end - (1) I may not have option to choose - (2) I would prefer to fight Russians in Estonia (Baltic countries are likely the next target) than in my own country > would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle? I am not going to pretend that I know how I will behave in situation that is extremely beyond what ever happened to me.

HWR_14 5y ago

If you think Putin's next stop after Ukraine might be another country, then another, until he's planning his victory celebration in Paris, you may want to stop him early. Or maybe instead of sweeping up through NATO he decides owning the worlds oil would be nice and starts cutting down to the Middle East.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> If you think Putin's next stop after Ukraine might be another country, then another, until he's planning his victory celebration in Paris, Well, do you think that? My question was for you but it's fair I answer yours. > you may want to stop him early. What "you" is that? The people of those countries that would be invaded along the way? If I thought that and was a person from one of those other countries, I would probably think it's preferable to build defenses of my country rather than engage in expeditionary warfare in the east near Russian supply lines and air space. Difficult question though I'm certainly no military strategist. On the first question, I do not think Putin's next stop is likely to be that or possibly even the regions of Ukraine where there are fewer Russians/less pro-Russian support. But such things should always be considered and I'm no military or geopolitical analyst. What I can see is that from the amount of money western european states spend on their defenses they do not consider such a risk likely either, and they do employ many such strategists. So as a person not from one of those countries I certainly wouldn't support my country getting involved in military action in the region first.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I don't think Putin is going to stop after Ukraine - he may temporarily stop to rebuild and plan the next war, but my belief is he will keep salami slicing until war is joined because he crosses some line that people stand up to him. Better to do it cheaper. The "you" was, well, everyone in the world. I don't really subscribe to the strange belief that I should only care about human suffering of my countrymen. However, if you do, the bigger the war gets, the worse it will be and the more far afield it will bring in other countries. As far as "far from Russia's supply lines", their old border won't matter, they'll still be close to their bases in what was once Ukraine. Oh, and they'll have more resources from Ukraine. Plus, you won't have the 7th largest army in the world absorbing the brunt of their attack.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > I don't think Putin is going to stop after Ukraine - he may temporarily stop to rebuild and plan the next war, So far they seem to have occupied heavily pro-Russian areas very close to home that have not put up much resistance. I don't think that's a good indication they would just keep going further. Possibly though. > but my belief is he will keep salami slicing until war is joined because he crosses some line that people stand up to him. Better to do it cheaper. > The "you" was, well, everyone in the world. I don't really subscribe to the strange belief that I should only care about human suffering of my countrymen. However, if you do, the bigger the war gets, the worse it will be and the more far afield it will bring in other countries. That is not my belief. It is my belief that I care about my countrymen more though or at least have more responsibility to them being that I have a vote in how the country is run, and it is also my belief that those with something to lose have to take a stand. I wouldn't want to send solders from my country even if Putin was driving a tank down the Champs-Elysees, if the French were all just sitting there waiting for me. And pretty clearly Western European governments do not consider this a high risk given their military spending. So I just think it's very premature to take action based on the idea you can be so sure such a thing would happen. > As far as "far from Russia's supply lines", their old border won't matter, they'll still be close to their bases in what was once Ukraine. Oh, and they'll have more resources from Ukraine. Plus, you won't have the 7th largest army in the world absorbing the brunt of their attack. It would absolutely stretch supply lines and defenses. Reality isn't like an RTS you can't just keep conquering territory and it turns red and your resources immediately grow.
thelittleone 5y ago
So long as Putin says he won't go beyond Ukraine we can just believe him at his word right? /Sarcasm. But sadly this does seem to have been the strategy since Crimea. Assassinations on foreign soil including attempt on opposition leader who now rots in a jail on rediculous charges. Shooting down passenger planes. Putin needs a punch in the face that rattles him to the core such that he fears stepping outside in daylight.

id02009 5y ago

I live in Poland and struggle with this question myself. I don't want to die or kill so the suits on the top can then negotiate new post war order, which would almost certainly perpetuate this BS in the future. On the other hand: appeasement leads to more bullying, and might cause even bigger conflict on the future (we've seen this happen in WW2)

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Thank you for the answer and perspective. Yes, it is a sad, impossible question really.

shmerl 5y ago

You can use World War II as a study case for that. Nazis could have been stopped sooner, instead some tried to appease them until it was too late.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
toolz 5y ago
Or you could use Dessert Shield as a case study which has turned into pointless and incredibly long-lived war fronts.
- daveguy 5y ago
  This is more like the desert storm scenario than the desert shield scenario. One country invading another sovereign country. The boundaries were clear. No occupying force necessary. I'm not saying we should jump to boots on the ground war without exhausting other possibilities first, but this is very little like Afghanistan and even less like the second Iraq war.
slaw 5y ago
When do you think Germans should be stopped and who was going to stop them?
- shmerl 5y ago
  After they attacked Poland. Second question is self answered since they eventually were stopped, so start from that list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in_Europe_(1939–40) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in...
  - slaw 5y ago
    I know they period of history well enough. When Germany invaded Poland, Soviet Union was ally to Germany and no country was interested in helping Poland.

lmm 5y ago

> I hope this doesn't sound flippant or taking light of Russia's actions because it's not intended to be. But what is the decision process behind supporting a choice to start sending other people to kill and die for your desired outcome here? You've got to draw the line somewhere. If an offensive war like this passes, no-one is safe. > And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate Uyghur and Tibet, against North Korea to stop the human rights abuses there, against Afghanistan again to put the previous regime back in power, etc.? Launching an invasion no, at least not without a very clear UN-like process that gives them multiple opportunities to back down. > I mean what point do you say okay we need to go in shooting, and would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle? Whether I'd have the balls is another question entirely, but I absolutely do believe it. This is not subtle, this is not limited, this is war. If we were talking about unmarked "volunteers" in the "independent states" that Russia recognised a few days ago, you might reasonably argue for a more limited response. But when we have Russian regulars shooting in Kyiv, that is absolutely on the wrong side of anywhere the line can possibly be drawn, unless you're ready to start speaking Russian.

sg47 5y ago

The last time a mad dictator wasn't nipped in the bud, the world lost millions in war.

MathMonkeyMan 5y ago
I am sorry to say that there have been many a mad dictator since.
- EEBio 5y ago
  True, but none of them had that big of a budget nor military technology. There's more than one parallel with the Third Reich efforts here.

627467 5y ago

"This", meaning peace near your border? I'm surprised that everyone considers sanctions a sophisticated hard soft power tool (clearly useless) but don't consider mobilization of troops as hardware (short of firing rounds) as an effective and peaceful tool. What Putin did (mobilize troops within their borders) was also an option for NATO/EU in bordering countries. Matching mobilization would definitely increase the costs of firing the first bullet. But the truth is, despite the talk of solidarity and all this public indignation, Ukraine never really had a partner in NATO/EU/West. And the world saw how uninterested in peace is NATO/EU/West

throwawaylinux 5y ago
No, "this" meaning the present situation in the region. And I'm not asking about a hypothetical, but the actual reasons are that people who support military action. And what is it exactly you personally hope it would achieve. I would be interested to hear from anybody from Ukraine to USA to Russia. No right or wrong answers, I'm just interested in perspective. For myself since I'm asking the question: I'm in a western country and I don't support sending my countrymen to war. For a number of reasons, primarily I don't think the western neoliberal ruling regime (not talking about one political party or another, but the non-partisan support for wars and interventions by many western governments for many decades) can be trusted with war or interventionism. It has almost always been sold on utter lies and deceit, and almost never turned out for the better of the people involved. It is sold to us on emotion and outrage and urgency and this kind of thing, but very little calm rational and considered arguments and debate of pros and cons and risks and goals ("Putin is like Hitler and must be stopped" type of rhetoric really does not describe a goal of aim of a military action adequately) . Now I have no doubt there are many very good arguments for the people of Ukraine, the country of Ukraine, the containment of bullies and dictatorships, etc., that could help make the case for military action in this case. However I also know that the ruling class have absolutely no interest in the actual well being of the Ukrainian people or the security of the average person in Europe, or a moral duty to stand up to bullies and dictators, or human rights. Because if they did we couldn't explain their actions and inactions with Saudi, Yemen, North Korea, whatever. They are happy to claim they care about those things if by coincidence they might be seen to align with their agenda, but we know they don't care. So we know the warmongers are lying right off the bat, this is not really disputable. This doesn't make the case for war wrong, but it does (to me) make it much harder to see what is going on, and I think caution should be applied in such cases. But I do acknowledge the problem with appeasement and the need for decisive action and the fact that we will never have all the information so again this is not a criticism of others who feel differently. What I would look at for example is Crimea, which of course fell to Russia in a similar way during the Obama administration in which there was also some people calling for war. If there was a major war over Crimea back then, would the situation for Crimea, its people, Ukraine, and everybody else involved with the war be better today than it is now? If Crimea was occupied by Russian forces would it have meant civilian collateral deaths? If many people in Crimea were pro-Russian separatists, would that war have meant bombing the people of Crimea? And what would the end game be? Would we still be there? How many people would be dead? Would it war there have dissuaded Russia from this action? What are the similarities with the regions of Ukraine being occupied now? I have seen almost no analysis of this with hindsight, I'm sure such analysis exists, but it is a concern to me that the warmongers have not taken it and made it front-and-center of the discussion. It would be a very good data point for justification of any action now. Finally I would not support war unless a significant number of Ukrainians particularly from the region take up arms against Russia and start fighting. They are the ones who have the ultimate moral authority about whether force should be used to protect their land, and they have the first responsibility to fight for it. Sounds cruel and it is, but crueler in my opinion is to first send people who have no relationship to the place to fight. EDIT: and when I say warmongers I don't mean people who are pro war in any situation, I believe war is sometimes justified. I was purely talking about those in the ruling class who are warmongers.

matkoniecz 5y ago

I am from Poland and now I need to seriously consider possibility that Poland within 10 years or 20 may be under Russian occupation. Again. That is not a high risk, but becomes a real possibility. Rather than insane rambling and pure fiction. Or something appearing to be a dark pessimism. This is not situation that I like. So, in the end - (1) I may not have option to choose - (2) I would prefer to fight Russians in Estonia (Baltic countries are likely the next target) than in my own country > would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle? I am not going to pretend that I know how I will behave in situation that is extremely beyond what ever happened to me.