9 ms·
So essentially the problem is they're sticking to their "violence is bad" policy when in this specific situation violence is maybe not bad.
by cdot2 5y ago
So essentially the problem is they're sticking to their "violence is bad" policy when in this specific situation violence is maybe not bad.
- sam0x17 5y agoNo, they still allow all the gun-advocacy patreons and things like that. It's more because of regulations that make it harder to exist if your platform materially supports foreign war efforts. Cowardly stance, though.
- colordrops 5y agoOr maybe violence is still bad.
- tgv 5y agoIt's self-defense. Or is that bad too?
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoWe all know the final outcome of this. In the face of the overwhelming force Ukraine faces it seems to me any help we provide is just going to prolong the agony.
- tgv 5y agoThat's not a given. And dragging out the fight gives other forces a chance, too.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoWhat other forces? The West isn't going to intervene directly.
- syshum 5y agoHistory of the world would be very different if people actually believed that.
- drran 5y agoUkraine sees the overwhelming force for 8 years straight.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoThat didn't seem to be the case in Crimea.
- brabel 5y agoThat's all I can think of... I just don't see an outcome where Ukraine receives so much support from the West that it will manage to beat Russia and make it go home without accomplishing any of its goals.... people seem to think that's a possible outcome. I wonder why when Kiev seems to already be surrounded and the USA government (who was right about warning about an imminent invasion!) has already said (correct me if I am wrong) that Kiev is likely to fall within days. Short of actual military action from the West, which is extremely unlikely as that would give grounds to retaliation by Russia, escalating the war outside Ukrainian borders, Russia seems only days away from removing the Ukrainian government... The rational thing to do right now is to start planning for the aftermath: how to get Russia out of Ukraine as soon as possible once they've taken control of the country. IMO there's only one way: to dialogue with Putin and finally accept some kind of terms for their removal from Ukraine. This is not what anyone wanted, but now that we've let Putin get to Kiev, what exactly are the options? Anyone who thinks sending money and weapons to Ukraine will help solve the problem (including, to my horror, the UK government) seems to completely ignore the reality of the situation and is hoping for a delusional outcome, and worse, opening the possibility for things to go wrong and foreign soldiers being killed while trying to reach Ukrainian troops - which may without a doubt trigger a counter-attack by NATO and total escalation of the conflict (which should be priority number one to avoid right now!).
- glogla 5y agoI'm sure you'd also tell someone being raped to not defend themselves so it's over faster? Jesus Christ, how do you people get so callous? What is wrong with you? who hurt you? What made you give up empathy and humanity? I'll never understand you people.
- jacquesm 5y agoAgreed, this is beyond disgusting.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoDo you really think Ukraine has a reasonable chance of resisting this invasion? It doesn't look like it to me. So what are you offering other than prolonging the agony?
- saiya-jin 5y agoOn paper with raw soldier numbers you may be right, but look at the map, and check once again how many troops russians deployed. Its not possible to really conquer country so vast with so few soldiers. Maybe 5x more, maybe 10x. Not if civilians are armed, full of hate and can actually shoot their guns and plan diversions effectively. Yes they can bomb the bases and airports, capture few important points, but if population offers resistance in form of guerilla warfare, russians will bleed and will bleed hard and achieve nothing. Not that russian oligarchs like Putin ever cared about casualties even on their side. I am not claiming its the best approach overall, maybe even the worst in terms of casualties. But there is something in human nature that reacts wildly when oppression comes and freedoms are being taken. Americans should understand this very well. I personally think his game is just to install pro-russian government forever and few military bases and withdraw most of the army. Something like second Belarus. Look at the map - he will have 500km wall from rest of Europe. Now the billion $ question is, what he thinks about baltic states, since they are part of Nato.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cloverich 5y agoDepends on Russia's goals. From this other front page (lengthy) discussion[1], they posit Russia likely made a mistake if their goal is regime change. Insurgency's work, especially when they are legitimate. I expect if Ukraine forces survive, they would recieve long-term and well-financed backing indefinitely from the west. Now if Russia's goals are not regime change but just to destablize / make a mess, or even to just make a statement and leave (if that's politically viable? idk), different story. [1]: https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-war-in-ukraine/ https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-...
- AniseAbyss 5y agoI personally don't expect Russia to conquer all of Ukraine. It's a big country with 40 million people iirc. When Germany invaded Ukraine in 1941 they had 3 million soldiers. I honestly don't know what Putin is expecting to gain from this. The occupation won't pay for itself and Russian economy is already bleak.
- nuccy 5y agoNo, because Russian soldiers get demoralised the longer they stay or fight: noone waits them in Ukraine with hugs, its not their land. Not just Ukrainian soldiers fight with them, but also civilian people resist, especially those who sign for local (in-city, in-town, in-village) defence groups.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoPlease fix your comment, you're basically saying that Ukraine should just roll over. What happens next? Think before replying, you may come across as a Russia apologist. the Taliban and IS dragged out the conflict in the middle east for 20 years and came out victorious against an army that spent trillions on that conflict. That was after said army was defeated in Vietnam as well.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago>the Taliban and IS dragged out the conflict in the middle east for 20 years At what cost? America and their allies would have left a long time ago without the Taliban.
- Tostino 5y agoReally think this through...if the Taliban had rolled over and let the US win, then there would be a more "stable" western influenced government in place, which is exactly what they were fighting against the whole time.
- anothernewdude 5y ago
- pfortuny 5y agoThere is an important but subtle difference between violence and force, and people use both terms as if they were the same. They are not. Violence is exaggerated force. You can kill a man and not be exerting violence (like in self-defence).
- mschuster91 5y agoThe only party committing violence here is Putin and his cronies, the guy doesn't even have the backing of the Russian society - he's been ruling by fear for many years now. To stand aside and claim "violence is bad" while someone is attacked is supporting the attacker, not the innocent attacked.
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
- Sebb767 5y ago> when in this specific situation violence is maybe not bad. I'm pretty sure Russia would say the same thing if you ask them about their situation. That's the problem once you bring in subjectivity. That being said, tolerating the account for a few more days would've probably been a better play. EDIT: Just to be very clear, I'm not condoning Russian aggression in any way. My point is that not funding a war is an acceptable choice, since it's very easy to be wrong and a sure way to bring human suffering.
- jacquesm 5y ago
- Sebb767 5y agoWell, from their point of view, a military pact with the explicit goal of keeping them under control has first taken their land and is now threatening to get even closer to their border and encircle them. Just take a look at the Cuban missile crisis to see how the US reacted in a comparable situation and in that case, the distance from the missiles to the capital was a lot longer. For Russia, this is more like the missiles are already in Cuba and now Mexico is considering to join the Warsaw pact. Everyone thinks they're on the right side. Now, obviously I think we (as in EU+US) are the good guys here, but it's quite clear that a lot of people were both very convinced and very wrong about this and I don't consider us unfailable.
- jacquesm 5y ago> Everyone thinks they're on the right side. In this case that has been made pretty easy to see. Even large numbers of Russians agree with that. > Now, obviously I think we (as in EU+US) are the good guys here, but it's quite clear that a lot of people were both very convinced and very wrong about this and I don't consider us unfailable. Indeed. But this isn't the Cuban missile crisis (which was provoked by the USSR to begin with) and the Ukraine isn't anything like Cuba. Note that Cuba was - in spite of everything - never actually invaded with the intent to occupy, and it's not as if the US couldn't have done that if they had wanted to do so.
- basisword 5y agoThis is called "sticking to your principles". It's a rare thing these days.
- croes 5y agoThe problem is there will be situations where it is less clear if it's bad or not. Next step would be all kind of groups trying to get military funding.
- Y-bar 5y agoWhy not cross that bridge when those less clear situations happen rather than throwing about the false neutrality principle[1] as a defense now? [1] Thinking about this https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/99574-we-must-take-sides-neutrality-helps-the-oppressor-never-the https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/99574-we-must-take-sides-ne...
- croes 5y agoIt's not about neutrality, it's about doing it the right way. In the end they only become a target of russia's cyber warfare. There are better channels and ways of helping without making a civilian platform a war target.
- user-the-name 5y agoThat problem is a lot, lot smaller than the problem of people dying in Ukraine as they typed out that statement.
- croes 5y agoOfficially supported funding would make them a legitimate target in war.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agolike how the US was supposed to send them $400 million in military aid? [0] Or the EU is sending them €1.2 billion? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Tr... [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/02/21/council-adopts-1-2-billion-assistance-to-ukraine/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022...
- lawn 5y agoThese black and white policies that discard nuance always run into these problems. Similar to how the "zero violence policies" in schools means they punish the bullied because they're defending themselves.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoWho would take up the role of morality police though? I mean would you still support it if the Ukranian military capture a Russian soldier and torture them? What if it's not the Ukranian military but IS? Or the US army, which is also guilty of war crimes [0]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base