4 ms·

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 w

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?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > How is surrendering a worse outcome than abandoning your country to the invader? I suspect Jews who fled Europe during WWII might have a compelling answer to that question.
    - random_upvoter 5y ago
      The equation changes if you are invaded by a nation with a clear agenda of genocide. I don't think this is the case now.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        OK, so we've found one case. How about the non-genocidal Afghan war, where it's probably better being a resettled refugee in the West than having to sell your kidneys? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/world/asia/selling-buying-kidneys-afghanistan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/world/asia/selling-buying...
simonh 5y ago
There's no guarantee any of you would live to see another day. That's the problem with wars and military occupations, especially when town centres and other civilian areas are being targeted. Even if you and your family survive, you will sit there watching your neighbours and compatriots die. The relatively free lives we all live are founded on the bravery and sacrifice of millions of people in past world wars and conflicts all over the world. They're worth fighting for, in my opinion. It's why I was an army reservist in the past, and if I was 30 years younger I'd find the need to go out there and do something to help incredibly hard to resist. I still find a deep visceral need to do something to help these people. This is the defining conflict of our lifetimes, far more so than the gulf wars or Afghanistan. I feel bad saying that, clearly it was defining for people in those regions, but for Europe this is existential. That's not because the rest of Europe is actually in direct danger, we could just let Ukraine rot, but because this conflict will define what Europe is and whether it's worth defending. Do we actually measure up to our ideals and principles? History will judge.
spacemanmatt 5y ago
Appeasement worked out so well during WWII.

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?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > How is surrendering a worse outcome than abandoning your country to the invader? I suspect Jews who fled Europe during WWII might have a compelling answer to that question.
  - random_upvoter 5y ago
    The equation changes if you are invaded by a nation with a clear agenda of genocide. I don't think this is the case now.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      OK, so we've found one case. How about the non-genocidal Afghan war, where it's probably better being a resettled refugee in the West than having to sell your kidneys? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/world/asia/selling-buying-kidneys-afghanistan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/world/asia/selling-buying...

simonh 5y ago

There's no guarantee any of you would live to see another day. That's the problem with wars and military occupations, especially when town centres and other civilian areas are being targeted. Even if you and your family survive, you will sit there watching your neighbours and compatriots die. The relatively free lives we all live are founded on the bravery and sacrifice of millions of people in past world wars and conflicts all over the world. They're worth fighting for, in my opinion. It's why I was an army reservist in the past, and if I was 30 years younger I'd find the need to go out there and do something to help incredibly hard to resist. I still find a deep visceral need to do something to help these people. This is the defining conflict of our lifetimes, far more so than the gulf wars or Afghanistan. I feel bad saying that, clearly it was defining for people in those regions, but for Europe this is existential. That's not because the rest of Europe is actually in direct danger, we could just let Ukraine rot, but because this conflict will define what Europe is and whether it's worth defending. Do we actually measure up to our ideals and principles? History will judge.

spacemanmatt 5y ago

Appeasement worked out so well during WWII.