4 ms·

Unfortunately, I agree. We are standing by as a bully dominates another country, its culture and people. It's understandable why we'd do this, as they are a nu

by lhnz 5y ago

Unfortunately, I agree. We are standing by as a bully dominates another country, its culture and people. It's understandable why we'd do this, as they are a nuclear power. But what signal does it send Moscow and the world and where will it end? That we won't fight even when a country that is our friend is razed? Does he even believe that we'll defend ourselves if he decides to conquer Europe? Perhaps we will lay down our arms in order to avoid nuclear war.

zozbot234 5y ago
The West is definitely not standing by, they have issued unprecedented sanctions. Of course we're clearly not facing a rational actor, so there's no telling when intervention will be "enough". But sanctions are not necessarily worse or less impactful than the alternative being proposed here.
- lhnz 5y ago
  The question is: will sanctions stop Putin from conquering Ukraine? If not, then I don't think you can say we're doing anything to help them. I'm not saying that Kasparov is necessarily correct in his thinking. The military option of the US/EU/NATO sending a joint communication telling Russia to lay down their arms or face war is incredibly dangerous. But openly considering it does seem necessary to me and it might be inevitable. Is Putin an irrational actor? Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ianleeclark 5y ago
    > Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions Out of curiosity have you volunteered to fight in Ukraine? They're taking volunteers.
    - lhnz 5y ago
      Of course not; I don't want to die! But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war. If that were the case, it would be soldiers themselves that voted to take us to war.
      - ianleeclark 5y ago
        > But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war. If someone is pro war, they should see their convictions through. But don't worry: you don't need convictions here on the internet. You can just impotently post, make all the insinuations you want, and then go back to Netflix. The internet is great because you don't have to actually do the hard work of following a belief through, and can instead adopt styles of posting while they're relevant.
        lhnz 5y ago
        I'm trying to respond seriously and you're being quite irritating. Decisions to go to war aren't only taken by people that directly put their lives at risk. This has never been the case and it wouldn't be a good idea if it were the case. Also, I don't agree that your decision to impotently post on the internet is somehow more dignified than my own because it better aligns with your default behaviour (in-action, passivity towards violence, etc). Neither of us are doing hard work to follow our beliefs. I simply disagree that "appeasement" or "detente" policies are necessarily better in the long-run. We don't know this and should seriously consider the possibility that they aren't, even if in this case, not going to war is still the best option (which should be our assumption by default).
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
tjansen 5y ago
I don't think it sends much of a signal, because it has always been communicated that attacking a NATO member is the red line. That's why Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Attacking Ukraine, without crossing the red line, doesn't mean that Putin doesn't respect the red line. We just don't know.
- lhnz 5y ago
  There is truth to this but I worry that we're the frog being slowly boiled alive, and that we're acting amorally because of our fear of the consequences of standing up to him.
jmclnx 5y ago
I agree, plus all this proves is one thing: If a country has nukes, the dictator can stay in power and do whatever he wants. North Korea knows this and so doesn't Iran. SO some method that really works need to be found and employed. Starving the dictators Country does nothing since all he needs to do is keep his military happy. Happy military, happy life for the dictator.
another_why 5y ago
> We are standing by as a bully dominates another country, its culture and people. What signal do all these wars send, i wonder. Why dont we see a hysteria in the news about them? Questions, questions.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
- lhnz 5y ago
  They are generally further away and less western. Also, the countries involved are less powerful -- I suspect that if China were to attack another country, there would be similar hysteria because people apppreciate that they could be dangerous to us, too.
  - another_why 5y ago
    War in Ukraine is ongoing from 2014 and Russia was there all the time, it's not a secret. I dont see any changes besides stocks falling down since November and promises to stop QE.
    - lhnz 5y ago
      You don't see anything different between the extent of Russia's military action between now and in 2014?
      - another_why 5y ago
        In world size? No, another military clash. The difference is in hysteria around it and gas/oil jumping to 2x, that's for sure.

by lhnz 5y ago

zozbot234 5y ago

The West is definitely not standing by, they have issued unprecedented sanctions. Of course we're clearly not facing a rational actor, so there's no telling when intervention will be "enough". But sanctions are not necessarily worse or less impactful than the alternative being proposed here.

lhnz 5y ago
The question is: will sanctions stop Putin from conquering Ukraine? If not, then I don't think you can say we're doing anything to help them. I'm not saying that Kasparov is necessarily correct in his thinking. The military option of the US/EU/NATO sending a joint communication telling Russia to lay down their arms or face war is incredibly dangerous. But openly considering it does seem necessary to me and it might be inevitable. Is Putin an irrational actor? Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ianleeclark 5y ago
  > Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions Out of curiosity have you volunteered to fight in Ukraine? They're taking volunteers.
  - lhnz 5y ago
    Of course not; I don't want to die! But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war. If that were the case, it would be soldiers themselves that voted to take us to war.
    - ianleeclark 5y ago
      > But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war. If someone is pro war, they should see their convictions through. But don't worry: you don't need convictions here on the internet. You can just impotently post, make all the insinuations you want, and then go back to Netflix. The internet is great because you don't have to actually do the hard work of following a belief through, and can instead adopt styles of posting while they're relevant.
      - lhnz 5y ago
        I'm trying to respond seriously and you're being quite irritating. Decisions to go to war aren't only taken by people that directly put their lives at risk. This has never been the case and it wouldn't be a good idea if it were the case. Also, I don't agree that your decision to impotently post on the internet is somehow more dignified than my own because it better aligns with your default behaviour (in-action, passivity towards violence, etc). Neither of us are doing hard work to follow our beliefs. I simply disagree that "appeasement" or "detente" policies are necessarily better in the long-run. We don't know this and should seriously consider the possibility that they aren't, even if in this case, not going to war is still the best option (which should be our assumption by default).
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

tjansen 5y ago

I don't think it sends much of a signal, because it has always been communicated that attacking a NATO member is the red line. That's why Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Attacking Ukraine, without crossing the red line, doesn't mean that Putin doesn't respect the red line. We just don't know.

lhnz 5y ago
There is truth to this but I worry that we're the frog being slowly boiled alive, and that we're acting amorally because of our fear of the consequences of standing up to him.

jmclnx 5y ago

I agree, plus all this proves is one thing: If a country has nukes, the dictator can stay in power and do whatever he wants. North Korea knows this and so doesn't Iran. SO some method that really works need to be found and employed. Starving the dictators Country does nothing since all he needs to do is keep his military happy. Happy military, happy life for the dictator.

another_why 5y ago

> We are standing by as a bully dominates another country, its culture and people. What signal do all these wars send, i wonder. Why dont we see a hysteria in the news about them? Questions, questions.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...

lhnz 5y ago
They are generally further away and less western. Also, the countries involved are less powerful -- I suspect that if China were to attack another country, there would be similar hysteria because people apppreciate that they could be dangerous to us, too.
- another_why 5y ago
  War in Ukraine is ongoing from 2014 and Russia was there all the time, it's not a secret. I dont see any changes besides stocks falling down since November and promises to stop QE.
  - lhnz 5y ago
    You don't see anything different between the extent of Russia's military action between now and in 2014?
    - another_why 5y ago
      In world size? No, another military clash. The difference is in hysteria around it and gas/oil jumping to 2x, that's for sure.