3 ms·
> However, democracies tend to only fuel popular wars, and wars of aggression lose popularity when information is freely available. What's your basis for sayin
by tablespoon 4y ago
> However, democracies tend to only fuel popular wars, and wars of aggression lose popularity when information is freely available.
What's your basis for saying that so generally? It's probably true for a war of aggression that you're losing, but I'm not sure if it would hold for one you're winning.
Also, I suspect you're also probably making an assumption that a democracy will invariably settle on an ideological outlook similar to elites in present-day western democracies, but I don't think that's very solid.
- jemmyw 4y agoI did actually write a second sentence about when you're losing, but removed it because I needed to think about it. I think there's some contextual stuff to consider - I was thinking about this specific situation. It's not going very well for Russia, especially for their soldiers. If people are dying in an unnecessary war then they'd vote to stop it, and one party is likely to capitalise on that in a democracy. Second is maintaining the propaganda about Ukraine in the face of free information. It's not like the Vietnam war where culture and language was very different and other, especially at that time when people were not so globally connected. It's more like America invading Canada. Similar language, shared culture and history, large numbers of people of each country in each country etc. I think if the war could be talked about in Russia there would be a pressing question: why the f are we there, what will we even gain? The gain is for Putin to maintain power, a democracy wouldn't see any benefit. Maybe there would be another reason, but that's not what we're discussing.
- was8309 4y ago> losing ... winning not 'losing or winning' but upholding the principle of 'no aggression' is what is (hopefully) popular?