7 ms·

Extremely sad to see this blunt rethoric here. The amount of cruelty that Russia is causing in Ukraine (not the Ukraine) is enormous. If we don't fight back it

Extremely sad to see this blunt rethoric here. The amount of cruelty that Russia is causing in Ukraine (not the Ukraine) is enormous. If we don't fight back it will cause decades of suffering and pain. Spinning this to a problem caused by the West is extremely naive.

remarkEon 4y ago
>If we don't fight back Who is the "we" here? Edit: To make an attempt at preventing flamebait, I'm asking who the "we" is that is being asked to sign up to fight back directly against Russia, and whether or not there is a proper democratic feedback mechanism in place to support such a fight. I've seen war, and wish to see this one deescalate.
roenxi 4y ago
> If we don't fight back it will cause decades of suffering and pain. What has the West done that will reduce the amount of suffering? Who is suffering less thanks to the US's efforts to make the war more brutal? It isn't even that obvious that the Ukrainians would be badly off in some hypothetical world where they were conquered by Russia. They will definitely be worse off now that there is a partly mobilised army heading towards their territory. Russia is ramping up the destruction that they are going to unleash. In a predictable fashion, responding to actions by people who aren't interested in reducing suffering, calming things down or promoting peace. I don't fault the Ukrianian's for defending themselves, but the US deserves a lot of heat for the strategic mess they're manoeuvring in to.
- yladiz 4y ago
  So you’re saying, let me check my notes… let Russia win because of reasons including “reducing suffering” and “Ukraine wouldn’t be that much worse off if Russia conquered it”. This feels like you’re basically saying that Ukraine is not an answer here, because their suffering has been reduced thanks to the west and obviously Ukraine doesn’t think they would be better off if they capitulated, and they’re the only ones who should be able to make that call. Excuse my Russian but idi nahui with that kind of thinking.
  - foverzar 4y ago
    I think the idea was that dick-swinging and escalating this whole deal into a war was kinda an avoidable thing, and now all we see is the sunk cost falacy
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > I think the idea was that dick-swinging and escalating this whole deal into a war was kinda an avoidable thing, and now all we see is the sunk cost falacy It was unavoidable because despite what Russia says they likely started this war over natural resources in Ukraine, they saw that Ukraine was going to become a massive provider of natural resources to the EU and saw that as a threat. Because, if its really over NATO, why isn't Russia invading Finland?.
      - foverzar 4y ago
        > likely Ehh, "likely". Seems to me like there were quite a lot of much more pressing factors. > Because, if its really over NATO, why isn't Russia invading Finland?. Why would it? Russia had warned Finland of repercussions of deploying NATOs military infrastructure. NATO does not exist in a vacuum and we are not playing magical alchemy here: Finland is a stable country with solid governmental and social institutions, that cares for the long-term prosperity of its citizens and generally doesn't base its identity on anti-russian rhetorics. Ukraine, on the other hand, recently had a revolution, collapsed all the stability institutions that it had managed to grow after the SU dissolution, has a government relying on populist anti-russian militant rhetorics and has a president dumb enough to seriously and openly discuss deploying foreign nukes or making their own (Ukraine's atomic industry could produce dirty bombs). Finland in NATO is sad, but at least it's not immediately dangerous, as Fins are unlikely to be willing to pose as human shields for the US military infrastructure. Nowadays Ukraine in NATO is a total disaster and at its best would be a repetition of Turkey-Cuba missile crisis, except this time there would be no Cuba and no deterrent.
        _kbh_ 4y ago
        > Finland in NATO is sad, but at least it's not immediately dangerous, as Fins are unlikely to be willing to pose as human shields for the US military infrastructure. How is Finland in NATO sad?, Finland has joined the largest defensive military alliance in the world, and they clearly felt as a country that had been invaded by the USSR in the past that they needed more protections. Russia won't even breathe in the direction of Finland now, because Russia cannot handle NATO and Russia knows it.
- megous 4y ago
  West has helped supply weapons and intelligence to reduce the suffering. It also accepted a lot of refugees. How exactly are more modern weapons making the war more brutal? More precise weapons are strictly less brutal than barely targetted crap Russians use. Longer range weapons can be used to destroy stockpiles of this barely targeted crap before it's used, etc.
blub 4y ago
Considering the continuous escalation, Ukraine may end up in such a horrendous state, that it would make losing the war from the beginning look like an appealing alternative. Not to mention the risk of nuclear extinction which is very high. I’ve read that most mechanisms developed to avoid exactly such a scenario were dismantled and the Russian and US government aren’t even on speaking terms. WTF are US and EU politicians thinking? The rhetoric was purposefully shaped into into an absolute victory or death, but the more realistic outcome would have been victory or end up like Belarus/Georgia.
- tarasglek 4y ago
  Would you rather be a slave with all your relatives in a deathcamp or fight the occupier to death? To give an analogy that Americans might understand: imagine that a drug cartel imposed martial law on USA. Constant torture, living in fear, millions of wasted lives. That's literally the situation in occupied territories(since 2012). I don't understand how people can think there will be less violence imposed on Ukrainians if they stop fighting. There is plenty of bloody evidence from Russian conflicts since 1990.
  - hnthrway 4y ago
    I sincerely doubt Ukrainians would be slaves in death camps
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    >To give an analogy that Americans might understand: imagine that a drug cartel... Your analogy is wrong, but some border towns might see it as familiar. The analogy you're looking for is more like if Mexico (as a Nation) declared war on the just the states in the US that used to be Mexican territory, and then used their internal drug cartels (that they tacitly let exist, and allow to force project into the continental United States) to help finance and facilitate the war. There's still a ton of things wrong with that analogy, but it's closer to what I think you mean if I'm steel-maning it.
    - tarasglek 4y ago
foverzar 4y ago
> Extremely sad to see this blunt rethoric here. Extremely sad to see how everyone has gone so deep into post-truth and magical thinking of "if I don't think about it won't be real", that a cool-headed assessment of facts is now a "blunt rhetoric".

remarkEon 4y ago

>If we don't fight back Who is the "we" here? Edit: To make an attempt at preventing flamebait, I'm asking who the "we" is that is being asked to sign up to fight back directly against Russia, and whether or not there is a proper democratic feedback mechanism in place to support such a fight. I've seen war, and wish to see this one deescalate.

roenxi 4y ago

> If we don't fight back it will cause decades of suffering and pain. What has the West done that will reduce the amount of suffering? Who is suffering less thanks to the US's efforts to make the war more brutal? It isn't even that obvious that the Ukrainians would be badly off in some hypothetical world where they were conquered by Russia. They will definitely be worse off now that there is a partly mobilised army heading towards their territory. Russia is ramping up the destruction that they are going to unleash. In a predictable fashion, responding to actions by people who aren't interested in reducing suffering, calming things down or promoting peace. I don't fault the Ukrianian's for defending themselves, but the US deserves a lot of heat for the strategic mess they're manoeuvring in to.

yladiz 4y ago
So you’re saying, let me check my notes… let Russia win because of reasons including “reducing suffering” and “Ukraine wouldn’t be that much worse off if Russia conquered it”. This feels like you’re basically saying that Ukraine is not an answer here, because their suffering has been reduced thanks to the west and obviously Ukraine doesn’t think they would be better off if they capitulated, and they’re the only ones who should be able to make that call. Excuse my Russian but idi nahui with that kind of thinking.
- foverzar 4y ago
  I think the idea was that dick-swinging and escalating this whole deal into a war was kinda an avoidable thing, and now all we see is the sunk cost falacy
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > I think the idea was that dick-swinging and escalating this whole deal into a war was kinda an avoidable thing, and now all we see is the sunk cost falacy It was unavoidable because despite what Russia says they likely started this war over natural resources in Ukraine, they saw that Ukraine was going to become a massive provider of natural resources to the EU and saw that as a threat. Because, if its really over NATO, why isn't Russia invading Finland?.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > likely Ehh, "likely". Seems to me like there were quite a lot of much more pressing factors. > Because, if its really over NATO, why isn't Russia invading Finland?. Why would it? Russia had warned Finland of repercussions of deploying NATOs military infrastructure. NATO does not exist in a vacuum and we are not playing magical alchemy here: Finland is a stable country with solid governmental and social institutions, that cares for the long-term prosperity of its citizens and generally doesn't base its identity on anti-russian rhetorics. Ukraine, on the other hand, recently had a revolution, collapsed all the stability institutions that it had managed to grow after the SU dissolution, has a government relying on populist anti-russian militant rhetorics and has a president dumb enough to seriously and openly discuss deploying foreign nukes or making their own (Ukraine's atomic industry could produce dirty bombs). Finland in NATO is sad, but at least it's not immediately dangerous, as Fins are unlikely to be willing to pose as human shields for the US military infrastructure. Nowadays Ukraine in NATO is a total disaster and at its best would be a repetition of Turkey-Cuba missile crisis, except this time there would be no Cuba and no deterrent.
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > Finland in NATO is sad, but at least it's not immediately dangerous, as Fins are unlikely to be willing to pose as human shields for the US military infrastructure. How is Finland in NATO sad?, Finland has joined the largest defensive military alliance in the world, and they clearly felt as a country that had been invaded by the USSR in the past that they needed more protections. Russia won't even breathe in the direction of Finland now, because Russia cannot handle NATO and Russia knows it.
megous 4y ago
West has helped supply weapons and intelligence to reduce the suffering. It also accepted a lot of refugees. How exactly are more modern weapons making the war more brutal? More precise weapons are strictly less brutal than barely targetted crap Russians use. Longer range weapons can be used to destroy stockpiles of this barely targeted crap before it's used, etc.

blub 4y ago

Considering the continuous escalation, Ukraine may end up in such a horrendous state, that it would make losing the war from the beginning look like an appealing alternative. Not to mention the risk of nuclear extinction which is very high. I’ve read that most mechanisms developed to avoid exactly such a scenario were dismantled and the Russian and US government aren’t even on speaking terms. WTF are US and EU politicians thinking? The rhetoric was purposefully shaped into into an absolute victory or death, but the more realistic outcome would have been victory or end up like Belarus/Georgia.

tarasglek 4y ago
Would you rather be a slave with all your relatives in a deathcamp or fight the occupier to death? To give an analogy that Americans might understand: imagine that a drug cartel imposed martial law on USA. Constant torture, living in fear, millions of wasted lives. That's literally the situation in occupied territories(since 2012). I don't understand how people can think there will be less violence imposed on Ukrainians if they stop fighting. There is plenty of bloody evidence from Russian conflicts since 1990.
- hnthrway 4y ago
  I sincerely doubt Ukrainians would be slaves in death camps
- remarkEon 4y ago
  >To give an analogy that Americans might understand: imagine that a drug cartel... Your analogy is wrong, but some border towns might see it as familiar. The analogy you're looking for is more like if Mexico (as a Nation) declared war on the just the states in the US that used to be Mexican territory, and then used their internal drug cartels (that they tacitly let exist, and allow to force project into the continental United States) to help finance and facilitate the war. There's still a ton of things wrong with that analogy, but it's closer to what I think you mean if I'm steel-maning it.
  - tarasglek 4y ago

foverzar 4y ago

> Extremely sad to see this blunt rethoric here. Extremely sad to see how everyone has gone so deep into post-truth and magical thinking of "if I don't think about it won't be real", that a cool-headed assessment of facts is now a "blunt rhetoric".