6 ms·

Or maybe violence is still bad.

by colordrops 5y ago

tgv 5y ago
It's self-defense. Or is that bad too?
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  We 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 ago
    That's not a given. And dragging out the fight gives other forces a chance, too.
    - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      What other forces? The West isn't going to intervene directly.
  - syshum 5y ago
    History of the world would be very different if people actually believed that.
  - drran 5y ago
    Ukraine sees the overwhelming force for 8 years straight.
    - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      That didn't seem to be the case in Crimea.
  - brabel 5y ago
    That'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 ago
      I'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 ago
        Agreed, this is beyond disgusting.
        tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        Do 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 ago
    On 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 ago
    Depends 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 ago
      I 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 ago
    No, 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.
    - nuccy 5y ago
      Plus it is hard to call "agony" a defense of your land, your way of life (and I mean freedom here) and people you live with and love.
    - castis 5y ago
      > its not their land I have my suspicions that a few of them believe the opposite.
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    Please 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 ago
        Really 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 ago
  There 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 ago
The 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.

Or maybe violence is still bad.

tgv 5y ago

It's self-defense. Or is that bad too?

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
We 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 ago
  That's not a given. And dragging out the fight gives other forces a chance, too.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    What other forces? The West isn't going to intervene directly.
- syshum 5y ago
  History of the world would be very different if people actually believed that.
- drran 5y ago
  Ukraine sees the overwhelming force for 8 years straight.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    That didn't seem to be the case in Crimea.
- brabel 5y ago
  That'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 ago
    I'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 ago
      Agreed, this is beyond disgusting.
      - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        Do 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 ago
  On 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 ago
  Depends 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 ago
    I 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 ago
  No, 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.
  - nuccy 5y ago
    Plus it is hard to call "agony" a defense of your land, your way of life (and I mean freedom here) and people you live with and love.
  - castis 5y ago
    > its not their land I have my suspicions that a few of them believe the opposite.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  Please 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 ago
      Really 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 ago
There 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 ago

The 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.