8 ms·

Arming Ukraine to the teeth, is that in the best interest of Ukraine?

by random_upvoter 5y ago

mvc 5y ago
Ukraine will not exist if Putin wins this war.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Ukraine as an idea, sure. Ukraine as a place won't exist if he loses it. Carpet bombing will be starting soon.
  - phoe-krk 5y ago
    If he does, neither will Russia. The new iron curtain has already risen, and committing mass murder and destruction of Ukraine will solidify it for the decades to come.
  - yetihehe 5y ago
    There will be help. Warsaw was carpet-bombed too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Warsaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Warsaw With current levels of UE funding, Ukraine may be even better off financially than Poland at that time. We just need to tell them to skip building another Palace of Culture and Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science.
- random_upvoter 5y ago
  There's different ways of not existing, either relatively unscathed or as a pile of rubble. I'm afraid the West for all its rhetoric is still in denial about the seriousness of Russia's intentions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%931995) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%9...
mjburgess 5y ago
Nope. It's interesting how the west has lost it's mind here, clearly the goal is regime change in Russia. We're using Ukraine to do it; by the time regime change is even on the table, Ukraine will be flattened. And we haven't established Putin is even likely to be deposed; it seems incredibly unlikely. This is just a gamble with ukrainian lives dressed up in noble regalia, provided by the west.
- mrleinad 5y ago
  I'm still trying to historically find one country where regime change was achieved by applying economic sanctions.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    Putin sees NATO as an existential threat, vastly more significant than any economic threat. From this premise, he is operating ruthelessly rationally, not "crazy". The western narrative of "crazy putin" is in part just a delusional misunderstanding (Germany), an in part a strategy of getting western domestic buy in for beating up Russia (UK/USA). The West (USA & UK primarily) want russia bogged down in Ukraine as much as possible, and are using this opportunity to goad russia into a regieme-destabalisng move -- i suspect it's hoped that when putin levels Kyiv, they'll be a coup. This delusional domestic propaganda about ukrainian resistance is playing right into the strategic hands of, largely, the UK. It's a dangerous game for Europe to play, and it's a luxury the USA can't afford -- which needs russia to contain china. The UK here is hoping europeans will come to depend on it more explicitly for security, germany arming itself here is an unexpected turn of events. The USA is still not focused on china enough to see what a silly nightmare this is going to be.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      This really is getting old and has been debunked over and over again.
    - smcl 5y ago
      > Putin sees NATO as an existential threat That would make him crazy though, or at least extremely deluded. I don't think any NATO member had (or has!) any intention of entering into conflict with Russia - otherwise we would've seen an escalation back in 2014. I think you are giving him too much credit and are taking his words at face value. I think he probably sees NATO or the EU as contributing to the shrinking Russian of influence. This is definitely true, but it doesn't in any rational world justify military action and certainly isn't an existential threat to either Russia or Putin. Hence the popular "crazy Putin" narrative ... because it really kind of is.
phoe-krk 5y ago
Who's the person who is responsible for saying what's in the best interest of Ukraine? I'd day it's the elected president and government of that country and the people who give them close to 90% support according to recent polls.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- random_upvoter 5y ago
  Not so sure what your argument is here. Ukraine is in control of its policy, the West is in control of their policy.
  - phoe-krk 5y ago
    Not sure what's the argument of the original post, then. How did the West come into the equation? It seems that both West and Ukraine want to arm Ukraine and think this is the right thing to do.
onion2k 5y ago
Yes. There seems to be a feeling among some people that fighting is only worthwhile if you win, and if there's even the slightest chance that you'll lose you should immediately give up. That's not how you remain free. In the short term Ukrainians can fight for their country. If they win, great. They've kept their country. If they lose, then there will be a long war until Russia decides to withdraw. Ukraine is a huge country with long borders and plenty of places to hide. Russia holding it against a well-equipped guerrilla army will be impossible. It'll be like the US and British in Afghanistan, except Russia has nowhere near the resources to fight for decades.
- random_upvoter 5y ago
  That's all very easy for you to say. I can only speak for myself but if I saw a convoy of tanks and artillery approaching the city where I live I would wave a white flag, gladly hand over the keys to the city, let the enemy occupy whatever administrative building they want to occupy, then go home and live to see another day with my children my wife and my parents.
  - shrikant 5y ago
    This mirrors so closely what someone else in my Indian circles said that I had to go through your comment history to check if you were him! The logical conclusion to what you're saying is: once a larger, more powerful nation (relatively speaking) decides to do a land grab, the target should surrender right away. Don't you think this will just embolden said large nation (and other slavering observers) so just do more of the same? Once Ukraine surrenders, what's to stop Russia from going after, say, Moldova? Or any of the non-NATO former Soviet nations really?
    - random_upvoter 5y ago
      If I decide not to resist an invasion of a stronger military force out of concern for my personal safety and that of my family and friends, and I do not really consider the interests of Moldova. That's just another foreign nation, like Russia. If the Russian army arrives in Moldova, they too can make the decision whether to fight or to surrender. Incidentally, one million Ukranians have already voted with their feet on staying and fighting. The odds are that they will never see their home again. You have to pause and think about that. How is surrendering a worse outcome than abandoning your country to the invader?

Arming Ukraine to the teeth, is that in the best interest of Ukraine?

mvc 5y ago

Ukraine will not exist if Putin wins this war.

mjburgess 5y ago
Ukraine as an idea, sure. Ukraine as a place won't exist if he loses it. Carpet bombing will be starting soon.
- phoe-krk 5y ago
  If he does, neither will Russia. The new iron curtain has already risen, and committing mass murder and destruction of Ukraine will solidify it for the decades to come.
- yetihehe 5y ago
  There will be help. Warsaw was carpet-bombed too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Warsaw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Warsaw With current levels of UE funding, Ukraine may be even better off financially than Poland at that time. We just need to tell them to skip building another Palace of Culture and Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture_and_Science.
random_upvoter 5y ago
There's different ways of not existing, either relatively unscathed or as a pile of rubble. I'm afraid the West for all its rhetoric is still in denial about the seriousness of Russia's intentions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%931995) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%9...

mjburgess 5y ago

Nope. It's interesting how the west has lost it's mind here, clearly the goal is regime change in Russia. We're using Ukraine to do it; by the time regime change is even on the table, Ukraine will be flattened. And we haven't established Putin is even likely to be deposed; it seems incredibly unlikely. This is just a gamble with ukrainian lives dressed up in noble regalia, provided by the west.

mrleinad 5y ago
I'm still trying to historically find one country where regime change was achieved by applying economic sanctions.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Putin sees NATO as an existential threat, vastly more significant than any economic threat. From this premise, he is operating ruthelessly rationally, not "crazy". The western narrative of "crazy putin" is in part just a delusional misunderstanding (Germany), an in part a strategy of getting western domestic buy in for beating up Russia (UK/USA). The West (USA & UK primarily) want russia bogged down in Ukraine as much as possible, and are using this opportunity to goad russia into a regieme-destabalisng move -- i suspect it's hoped that when putin levels Kyiv, they'll be a coup. This delusional domestic propaganda about ukrainian resistance is playing right into the strategic hands of, largely, the UK. It's a dangerous game for Europe to play, and it's a luxury the USA can't afford -- which needs russia to contain china. The UK here is hoping europeans will come to depend on it more explicitly for security, germany arming itself here is an unexpected turn of events. The USA is still not focused on china enough to see what a silly nightmare this is going to be.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    This really is getting old and has been debunked over and over again.
  - smcl 5y ago
    > Putin sees NATO as an existential threat That would make him crazy though, or at least extremely deluded. I don't think any NATO member had (or has!) any intention of entering into conflict with Russia - otherwise we would've seen an escalation back in 2014. I think you are giving him too much credit and are taking his words at face value. I think he probably sees NATO or the EU as contributing to the shrinking Russian of influence. This is definitely true, but it doesn't in any rational world justify military action and certainly isn't an existential threat to either Russia or Putin. Hence the popular "crazy Putin" narrative ... because it really kind of is.

phoe-krk 5y ago

Who's the person who is responsible for saying what's in the best interest of Ukraine? I'd day it's the elected president and government of that country and the people who give them close to 90% support according to recent polls.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
random_upvoter 5y ago
Not so sure what your argument is here. Ukraine is in control of its policy, the West is in control of their policy.
- phoe-krk 5y ago
  Not sure what's the argument of the original post, then. How did the West come into the equation? It seems that both West and Ukraine want to arm Ukraine and think this is the right thing to do.

onion2k 5y ago

Yes. There seems to be a feeling among some people that fighting is only worthwhile if you win, and if there's even the slightest chance that you'll lose you should immediately give up. That's not how you remain free. In the short term Ukrainians can fight for their country. If they win, great. They've kept their country. If they lose, then there will be a long war until Russia decides to withdraw. Ukraine is a huge country with long borders and plenty of places to hide. Russia holding it against a well-equipped guerrilla army will be impossible. It'll be like the US and British in Afghanistan, except Russia has nowhere near the resources to fight for decades.

random_upvoter 5y ago
That's all very easy for you to say. I can only speak for myself but if I saw a convoy of tanks and artillery approaching the city where I live I would wave a white flag, gladly hand over the keys to the city, let the enemy occupy whatever administrative building they want to occupy, then go home and live to see another day with my children my wife and my parents.
- shrikant 5y ago
  This mirrors so closely what someone else in my Indian circles said that I had to go through your comment history to check if you were him! The logical conclusion to what you're saying is: once a larger, more powerful nation (relatively speaking) decides to do a land grab, the target should surrender right away. Don't you think this will just embolden said large nation (and other slavering observers) so just do more of the same? Once Ukraine surrenders, what's to stop Russia from going after, say, Moldova? Or any of the non-NATO former Soviet nations really?
  - random_upvoter 5y ago
    If I decide not to resist an invasion of a stronger military force out of concern for my personal safety and that of my family and friends, and I do not really consider the interests of Moldova. That's just another foreign nation, like Russia. If the Russian army arrives in Moldova, they too can make the decision whether to fight or to surrender. Incidentally, one million Ukranians have already voted with their feet on staying and fighting. The odds are that they will never see their home again. You have to pause and think about that. How is surrendering a worse outcome than abandoning your country to the invader?