9 ms·

Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.

by kashkhan 4y ago

mike-the-mikado 4y ago
Arguably the war is happening because we had prepared for it insufficiently.
- the_af 4y ago
  It's hard to understand how "we" could not have prepared sufficiently. This conflict in Europe isn't a spur of the moment thing. Arguably it could have been in the making since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but even if you don't go that far back, then at least from 2014. It certainly didn't come out of the blue! I'll make my comment more assertive: I think "we" (for almost any value of "we") prepared for this. Some assumptions were proven wrong, like it often happens with war. But a lot of it is playing out like many assumed it would, or at least, it's playing out so that some factions can observe what modern war fought with modern weapons looks like.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    I think EU specifically dropped it's defense and R&D budgets and became too weak, making land grabs by Russia possible. There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland. When did that happen?
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory-steps-if-finland-joins-nato.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory... https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-uk-finland-if-nato-expands/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-... https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nato-ukraine-invasion-1682715 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nat... This was major news and carried by almost every outlet. It is almost certainly just bluster, but escalatory bluster for sure.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    If war was the predictable outcome, Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.
    - the_af 4y ago
      Let's just say I find your comment very on point. I would like to discuss this, but I don't think this is the best venue, and also this is a very sensitive topic and people are likely to be upset. And I wouldn't blame them. I did want to say your observation is astute.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Russian language isn't banned anywhere in Ukraine. Indeed, 5 minutes of combat footage from the Ukrainian side will quickly show that the majority of their armed forces speak Russian. Even Russians themselves reflected on this, noting that most volunteer forces they have faced so far come not from the Western (majority-Ukrainian-speaking) regions of Ukraine, but rather from Kharkiv, Dnipro etc. Their explanation is that all those people are "brainwashed by Ukrainian Nazis". There is some real contention with the status of Russian as 1) the official government language, and 2) the official education language in schools. But I don't think it's fair to phrase that as "banning Russian".
      - notahacker 4y ago
        And anyway, the Ukrainian population did take those steps when most of them voted for a political outsider from a Russian speaking background seen as sympathetic to Russian speaking culture and somewhat willing to negotiate better relations with the "independent Republics". Putin interpreted that as a sign of weakness...
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        It is illegal to have government communication in Russian or to have a Russian language radio station in Ukraine. I would call that banning Russian language from some aspects of public life.
  - cestith 4y ago
    Ukraine has, in fact, been partly occupied and claimed by a foreign power since 2014.
malwrar 4y ago
What do you propose instead? A state is always going to need a military to defend its stability and continuity from existential threats. Despite what the internet would have you believe, the world is a massive place with a vast diaspora of peoples with tons of different contradictory policy preferences. I don’t think we could give up preparing for the next fight if we wanted to.
- bnralt 4y ago
  What was the last successful offensive war? When was the last time American tanks were successful in creating a positive outcome for United States citizens (which, theoretically, is the entire reason they're built)? You could make an argument for 30 years ago, but you'd need to go back closer to 70 years for a strong case. The other poster raises a valid point that war, as it is typically been envisioned, might be far less prominent than people realize. The argument is that the tank has a task on the battlefield, but we should ask ourselves how much that battlefield matters in this day and age.
  - kashkhan 4y ago
    Right. When did the US last win a war? Even with unlimited weapons, nobody wins any more. Sure you can destroy governments like Saddam and Gaddafi, but you don't win the hearts and minds, and eventually you lose.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      So do what Russia does. Deport the unfavorable people to Siberia. Then import the willing population into Ukraine. Given the Russian "tactics" and "strategy" for its war in Ukraine, it is clearly a threat of cultural genocide. Russia aims to destroy the Ukrainian people and their history, and disperse them into Siberia where they won't be able to become a threat. --------- USA tries to "win hearts and minds" because we've convinced ourselves that we're the "good guys", and want to win under certain conditions. Without hearts and minds, we lose and we're willing to accept that. When Russia fights, they're not aiming for that at all. Its just destruction. Even against "brother Slavs", its better for Ukraine to be destroyed than for it to play nice with NATO (or so they want to believe). Under these circumstances, the only solution is to arm the Ukrainians and give them a fighting chance. Otherwise, the Ukrainians will be completely, and utterly, annihilated as a people. ---------- Russia has the will and the right strategy here in broad strokes. They fortunately, don't seem to have the right tactics or approach. So it looks like the Russians will fail. But even as they fail, they will cause hundreds-of-billions, maybe trillions of dollars worth of damages, and likely cause the largest famine event the world has ever seen. Better weapons and a better defense could have prevented the Ukrainians from losing their coastland. Better weapons could have allowed Ukraine to continue their grain exports. Better weapons and defenses could have protected Ukrainian's grain silos, which are being blown up and pillaged.
msla 4y ago
> We've had enough of the european way of war. So trying another region's way of war would be an improvement, then?
- kashkhan 4y ago
  Not many continents imposing war on europe past millennium. Europe imposed war on everyone and tried to exterminate everyone else. Do better.
  - kansface 4y ago
    Ignoring Africa, Asia and North America more recently, sure!
echelon 4y ago
There will never be peace. If there are resources held without power, someone will take them. The fact that the world is as peaceful as it is now is remarkable. It's because of MAD and the high cost of war. What we revolt at is the industrial scale of modern war. But war has been with us since prehistory. Our ancestors killed, raped, and pillaged. Far enough back in time, and they even ate one another. Look to nature. It evolved thousands of types of killing machines to harness the energy of other creatures. Lions eat wild prey alive. Hornets lay their larva inside live hosts so that they can feed. Orcas play with their food for sport. Just imagine what happens when we get AGI or BCI. It's easy to be pacifist and condemn war. And we should hope for that. But we also have to protect our sovereignty and safety, and that means maintaining an adequate defense with weapons, food, energy, and supply chain. Our comfort comes at great cost.
aetherson 4y ago
What would your current advice be for the Ukraine?
- kashkhan 4y ago
  Getting more tanks ain't it. More war also not it. Russian empire needs to be dismantled. But unlikely UKR waging war on russia will do it.
  - brokencode 4y ago
    So basically you have put no thought into this except that you don’t like war. I think most people will agree with you that war is bad. But if you get attacked, then all you can do is either give up or defend yourself. Afghanistan chose to give up to the Taliban, and now their rights are being taken away. Ukraine chose to defend themselves, and the jury is still out on whether they’ll be successful and what the cost will be. But there is no third option where you simply will war out of existence. Diplomacy works with certain enemies, and that will hopefully be the outcome in Ukraine too, but that too will come with a heavy price, such as giving up major amounts of territory.
    - kashkhan 4y ago
      Plenty of people have put thought into what to do to end war. You don't need original thoughts from me. The natural corollary of someone attacking you is not to get into an arms race. Afghanistan didn't choose Taliban. Pakistan and Saudi chose Taliban and armed them enough to take over. War obviously works. What's going to happen in UKR is that the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the locals. Exactly like in Afghanistan. You can arm them as much as you like, but they will not turn into gandhis with an excess of guns. My point is not that war doesn't work. My point is that we should all be fighting against war.
      - vel0city 4y ago
        > My point is that we should all be fighting against war. By what, asking nicely?
dageshi 4y ago
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
- pizzachan 4y ago
  That’s what I tell people about politics.
  - I-M-S 4y ago
    OP is paraphrasing a quote by Leon Trotsky which originally refers to politics.
bombcar 4y ago
> I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. As long as there are conflicting desires, there will be conflict, and it can break out into war. However, it's possible that war can be reduced, but it may require things we're not quite ready for, such as the end of Westphalian states.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  I'm ready
skylanh 4y ago
This is sort of my reference point from a salient and personal perspective on why government's have departments of defense. TEDxAmsterdam: Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0 Link to TED profile: https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm "Peter van Uhm [was from 17 April 2008 until 28 June 2012] the Netherlands' chief of defense" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm
- kashkhan 4y ago
  A government needs to wage war at some level to exist. To eliminate war the motives for war created by governments need to be addressed. There is only one logical outcome, once you decide you don't want war.
  - phillc73 4y ago
    Dispense with the government?
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Governments are fine. It's states that are the problem. Nation-states (whether ethnic or civic) especially, because they have motivations to wage war that are connected to the fiction that forms their core: "this territory is historically ours", and "you're treating our people poorly". Both are in full display in Ukraine today, but just look at any "Greater ..." article in Wikipedia to see numerous other examples.
      - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
        Unless you somehow achieve global equality in all things, there's always going to be one group that wants something another group has. Combine that with democracy and you get a government that's happy to assist them with taking it.
gorgoiler 4y ago
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.” Armed conflict is driven by foreign policy which itself is, ultimately, politics. (Unless it’s a crusade.)

Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.

mike-the-mikado 4y ago

Arguably the war is happening because we had prepared for it insufficiently.

the_af 4y ago
It's hard to understand how "we" could not have prepared sufficiently. This conflict in Europe isn't a spur of the moment thing. Arguably it could have been in the making since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but even if you don't go that far back, then at least from 2014. It certainly didn't come out of the blue! I'll make my comment more assertive: I think "we" (for almost any value of "we") prepared for this. Some assumptions were proven wrong, like it often happens with war. But a lot of it is playing out like many assumed it would, or at least, it's playing out so that some factions can observe what modern war fought with modern weapons looks like.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  I think EU specifically dropped it's defense and R&D budgets and became too weak, making land grabs by Russia possible. There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland. When did that happen?
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory-steps-if-finland-joins-nato.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory... https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-uk-finland-if-nato-expands/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-... https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nato-ukraine-invasion-1682715 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nat... This was major news and carried by almost every outlet. It is almost certainly just bluster, but escalatory bluster for sure.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  If war was the predictable outcome, Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Let's just say I find your comment very on point. I would like to discuss this, but I don't think this is the best venue, and also this is a very sensitive topic and people are likely to be upset. And I wouldn't blame them. I did want to say your observation is astute.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Russian language isn't banned anywhere in Ukraine. Indeed, 5 minutes of combat footage from the Ukrainian side will quickly show that the majority of their armed forces speak Russian. Even Russians themselves reflected on this, noting that most volunteer forces they have faced so far come not from the Western (majority-Ukrainian-speaking) regions of Ukraine, but rather from Kharkiv, Dnipro etc. Their explanation is that all those people are "brainwashed by Ukrainian Nazis". There is some real contention with the status of Russian as 1) the official government language, and 2) the official education language in schools. But I don't think it's fair to phrase that as "banning Russian".
    - notahacker 4y ago
      And anyway, the Ukrainian population did take those steps when most of them voted for a political outsider from a Russian speaking background seen as sympathetic to Russian speaking culture and somewhat willing to negotiate better relations with the "independent Republics". Putin interpreted that as a sign of weakness...
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      It is illegal to have government communication in Russian or to have a Russian language radio station in Ukraine. I would call that banning Russian language from some aspects of public life.
- cestith 4y ago
  Ukraine has, in fact, been partly occupied and claimed by a foreign power since 2014.

malwrar 4y ago

What do you propose instead? A state is always going to need a military to defend its stability and continuity from existential threats. Despite what the internet would have you believe, the world is a massive place with a vast diaspora of peoples with tons of different contradictory policy preferences. I don’t think we could give up preparing for the next fight if we wanted to.

bnralt 4y ago
What was the last successful offensive war? When was the last time American tanks were successful in creating a positive outcome for United States citizens (which, theoretically, is the entire reason they're built)? You could make an argument for 30 years ago, but you'd need to go back closer to 70 years for a strong case. The other poster raises a valid point that war, as it is typically been envisioned, might be far less prominent than people realize. The argument is that the tank has a task on the battlefield, but we should ask ourselves how much that battlefield matters in this day and age.
- kashkhan 4y ago
  Right. When did the US last win a war? Even with unlimited weapons, nobody wins any more. Sure you can destroy governments like Saddam and Gaddafi, but you don't win the hearts and minds, and eventually you lose.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    So do what Russia does. Deport the unfavorable people to Siberia. Then import the willing population into Ukraine. Given the Russian "tactics" and "strategy" for its war in Ukraine, it is clearly a threat of cultural genocide. Russia aims to destroy the Ukrainian people and their history, and disperse them into Siberia where they won't be able to become a threat. --------- USA tries to "win hearts and minds" because we've convinced ourselves that we're the "good guys", and want to win under certain conditions. Without hearts and minds, we lose and we're willing to accept that. When Russia fights, they're not aiming for that at all. Its just destruction. Even against "brother Slavs", its better for Ukraine to be destroyed than for it to play nice with NATO (or so they want to believe). Under these circumstances, the only solution is to arm the Ukrainians and give them a fighting chance. Otherwise, the Ukrainians will be completely, and utterly, annihilated as a people. ---------- Russia has the will and the right strategy here in broad strokes. They fortunately, don't seem to have the right tactics or approach. So it looks like the Russians will fail. But even as they fail, they will cause hundreds-of-billions, maybe trillions of dollars worth of damages, and likely cause the largest famine event the world has ever seen. Better weapons and a better defense could have prevented the Ukrainians from losing their coastland. Better weapons could have allowed Ukraine to continue their grain exports. Better weapons and defenses could have protected Ukrainian's grain silos, which are being blown up and pillaged.

msla 4y ago

> We've had enough of the european way of war. So trying another region's way of war would be an improvement, then?

kashkhan 4y ago
Not many continents imposing war on europe past millennium. Europe imposed war on everyone and tried to exterminate everyone else. Do better.
- kansface 4y ago
  Ignoring Africa, Asia and North America more recently, sure!

echelon 4y ago

There will never be peace. If there are resources held without power, someone will take them. The fact that the world is as peaceful as it is now is remarkable. It's because of MAD and the high cost of war. What we revolt at is the industrial scale of modern war. But war has been with us since prehistory. Our ancestors killed, raped, and pillaged. Far enough back in time, and they even ate one another. Look to nature. It evolved thousands of types of killing machines to harness the energy of other creatures. Lions eat wild prey alive. Hornets lay their larva inside live hosts so that they can feed. Orcas play with their food for sport. Just imagine what happens when we get AGI or BCI. It's easy to be pacifist and condemn war. And we should hope for that. But we also have to protect our sovereignty and safety, and that means maintaining an adequate defense with weapons, food, energy, and supply chain. Our comfort comes at great cost.

aetherson 4y ago

What would your current advice be for the Ukraine?

kashkhan 4y ago
Getting more tanks ain't it. More war also not it. Russian empire needs to be dismantled. But unlikely UKR waging war on russia will do it.
- brokencode 4y ago
  So basically you have put no thought into this except that you don’t like war. I think most people will agree with you that war is bad. But if you get attacked, then all you can do is either give up or defend yourself. Afghanistan chose to give up to the Taliban, and now their rights are being taken away. Ukraine chose to defend themselves, and the jury is still out on whether they’ll be successful and what the cost will be. But there is no third option where you simply will war out of existence. Diplomacy works with certain enemies, and that will hopefully be the outcome in Ukraine too, but that too will come with a heavy price, such as giving up major amounts of territory.
  - kashkhan 4y ago
    Plenty of people have put thought into what to do to end war. You don't need original thoughts from me. The natural corollary of someone attacking you is not to get into an arms race. Afghanistan didn't choose Taliban. Pakistan and Saudi chose Taliban and armed them enough to take over. War obviously works. What's going to happen in UKR is that the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the locals. Exactly like in Afghanistan. You can arm them as much as you like, but they will not turn into gandhis with an excess of guns. My point is not that war doesn't work. My point is that we should all be fighting against war.
    - vel0city 4y ago
      > My point is that we should all be fighting against war. By what, asking nicely?

dageshi 4y ago

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

pizzachan 4y ago
That’s what I tell people about politics.
- I-M-S 4y ago
  OP is paraphrasing a quote by Leon Trotsky which originally refers to politics.

bombcar 4y ago

> I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. As long as there are conflicting desires, there will be conflict, and it can break out into war. However, it's possible that war can be reduced, but it may require things we're not quite ready for, such as the end of Westphalian states.

jrochkind1 4y ago
I'm ready

skylanh 4y ago

This is sort of my reference point from a salient and personal perspective on why government's have departments of defense. TEDxAmsterdam: Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0 Link to TED profile: https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm "Peter van Uhm [was from 17 April 2008 until 28 June 2012] the Netherlands' chief of defense" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm

kashkhan 4y ago
A government needs to wage war at some level to exist. To eliminate war the motives for war created by governments need to be addressed. There is only one logical outcome, once you decide you don't want war.
- phillc73 4y ago
  Dispense with the government?
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Governments are fine. It's states that are the problem. Nation-states (whether ethnic or civic) especially, because they have motivations to wage war that are connected to the fiction that forms their core: "this territory is historically ours", and "you're treating our people poorly". Both are in full display in Ukraine today, but just look at any "Greater ..." article in Wikipedia to see numerous other examples.
    - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
      Unless you somehow achieve global equality in all things, there's always going to be one group that wants something another group has. Combine that with democracy and you get a government that's happy to assist them with taking it.

gorgoiler 4y ago

“War is the continuation of politics by other means.” Armed conflict is driven by foreign policy which itself is, ultimately, politics. (Unless it’s a crusade.)