5 ms·

>What's the data point, beyond Hitler ? Ukraine 2014. The West should have stopped Russia back then and there.

• js8 4y ago
  How do you show that such action would lead to fewer deaths and less suffering?
  • nradov 4y ago
    That isn't a relevant question. The goal is to contain Russian expansionism, not to minimize deaths.
    • js8 4y ago
      Well, our values seem to differ, then. I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. I think saving the lives should always trump the national pride.
      • stoltzmann 4y ago
        Russian expansion does indeed mean dead people. It means constant suffering, political oppression (including killing opponents or forcibly relocating them), destruction of economy and the death of culture.
      • KptMarchewa 4y ago
        Do you not mind Russia transferring Ukrainian children to brainwash them? Admit it, Ukrainians face genocide.
      • iSnow 4y ago
        >I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. Well, you can't have one without the other, there's clear evidence of that going back decades.
        • js8 4y ago
          That's a different discussion, then. The point is, the onus is on whoever is doing the military intervention to prove that they will save more lives than they will destroy. This is very high bar to clear especially since the enemy is going to fight as well, and we do not know the future. In general, I am in favor of nonviolent resistance (which might include economic sanctions, sabotages etc.) rather than military action. In fact, it is often easier to gain moral support that way. However, I understand that many humans naturally choose the latter, for tribal reasons, despite it being overall a worse choice.
      • benj111 4y ago
        So just so we're clear. Russia is ok invading another country and killing it's populace. But the west shouldn't fight back incase it kills someone? Why aren't you holding Russia to the same standard as everyone else. Why don't you require them to talk and 'appease' the west rather than invading?
        • js8 4y ago
          I am holding both to same standard. Russian invasion is of course terrible, and it in fact undermined Russia's own goal of keeping Ukraine neutral, at the very least. But I think everybody here agrees with that, so what's the point of stressing it? You think Putin listens to my opinion? Yes, and the West should be careful with military intervention, and consider whether it won't lead to more escalation and more death. In fact, I think the EU could do more with economic sanctions. AFAIK we still buy oil from Russia.
          • benj111 4y ago
            What about Ukraine? Should they refrain from defending themselves? Lest it cause blood shed? I really don't get your POV Putin has repeatedly shown they he will invade other countries. If we don't stop him at Ukraine then next it may well be a nato member and then how much blood shed will there be? Your suggested course just rewards aggression. Sometimes you need to stand up to bullies. Putin is a bully.
            • js8 4y ago
              I think Ukrainians have the right to do it, and it's not my call to make, it's up to them. I am torn on it, emotionally I understand it, but I think rationally it's possibly a wrong choice (as I explained elsewhere in the discussion). Chomsky made a nice comparison with Palestine. Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against Israeli apartheid by shooting rockets at them from Gaza strip? Regarding my POV - I don't want NATO to get involved as long as it doesn't have to, because I worry about nuclear escalation. That should tell us, try to get serious about complete ban on nuclear weapons in the future, because they prevent exactly the type of action that you propose. If my country wasn't a NATO member, then military aid against Russian invasion to Ukraine would be more acceptable to me. It is NATO that is making us helpless - we are bound by risk of escalation into a nuclear war. Simply, NATO was designed to handle a different type of threat. (Not to mention, we IMHO have somewhat less efficient military because we partly outsourced it to USA.) I don't think what I suggest as an alternative (sanctions, resistance) rewards aggression. Occupying Ukraine is a big liability for Russia.
  • KptMarchewa 4y ago
    Slaves minimize their deaths by not revolting. However, powerful support of their freedom by Union states led to far better world than the one without American Civil War.
• MichaelCollins 4y ago
  In the time since 2014, Ukraine got stronger while Russia got weaker. Had Russia pressed forward with their invasion in 2014, they might have succeeded in taking the whole country before NATO-aligned countries worked up the willpower to do anything about it. But because Russia stalled then, the cancer of corruption and hardware decay ate away at their power, while Ukraine began preparing for the inevitable.