3 ms·

So, we just have to entirely ignore the human cost of war. Someone has to take that weapon system into the field and fire it at someone else. You can distrac

So, we just have to entirely ignore the human cost of war. Someone has to take that weapon system into the field and fire it at someone else. You can distract yourself with the small price tag of the munitions if you like, but you are essentially discussing the act of killing. Wouldn't it also "cost us peanuts" to pursue peace? This is a bizarre calculus to apply from the sidelines.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
The human cost of Russia's aggression would happen regardless. Ukraine wants to defend themselves and wants weapons. The US and allies send weapons. Everyone wins except Russia.
- akira2501 4y ago
  I wouldn't consider losing territory equivalent to losing lives. Also, isn't the opinion of those living in Crimea important? Ukraine wants to defend themselves _and_ to retake Crimea, something they cannot do on their own, so they need weapons. Who is winning is not at all clear. When this started, it was assumed that Russia would collapse very quickly, so far this has not happened.. at what point is this strategy reconsidered? Is the possibility of reconsideration already at hand, and are articles such as these meant to serve as a bulwark against breaks for peace? It makes me suspicious.
  - funnymony 4y ago
    Assumption is that russia does not want peace. It wants a pause during which it can rebuild its military strength and repeat the war again, until ukraine de facto looses sovereignty (becomes similar to belarus)
  - detaro 4y ago
    > I wouldn't consider losing territory equivalent to losing lives. Russian behavior in occupied regions makes it quite obvious that those are equivalent, at least for people who dare to not identify as Russian. > Also, isn't the opinion of those living in Crimea important? To a degree, although you need to consider policies of expelling non-Russians from Crimea and intentionally settling Russians there in how much stock you give that. > When this started, it was assumed that Russia would collapse very quickly, There was also fairly widespread surprise how well Ukraine held on.
CamperBob2 4y ago
Yes, you're right, it would cost us peanuts to help negotiate how much of a peaceful country should be turned over to barbarian invaders in exchange for a (doubtless temporary) ceasefire. Sometimes "peanuts" isn't the bargain you think it is.
- isthisthingon99 4y ago
  Sadly this is true. People do not learn until they feel pain. And that means this has to keep going until the pain is felt by whoever loses, at the highest level.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 4y ago
It is intentionally framed that narrow, because this article is a direct refutation of the idea that aid should be discontinued because the price tag is too expensive.
Ralfp 4y ago
History teaches that sometimes war is goal of foreign politics in itself, and thus it's impossible to escape, only to delay. "The government had to choose between war and shame. They chose shame. They will get war too."

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

The human cost of Russia's aggression would happen regardless. Ukraine wants to defend themselves and wants weapons. The US and allies send weapons. Everyone wins except Russia.

akira2501 4y ago
I wouldn't consider losing territory equivalent to losing lives. Also, isn't the opinion of those living in Crimea important? Ukraine wants to defend themselves _and_ to retake Crimea, something they cannot do on their own, so they need weapons. Who is winning is not at all clear. When this started, it was assumed that Russia would collapse very quickly, so far this has not happened.. at what point is this strategy reconsidered? Is the possibility of reconsideration already at hand, and are articles such as these meant to serve as a bulwark against breaks for peace? It makes me suspicious.
- funnymony 4y ago
  Assumption is that russia does not want peace. It wants a pause during which it can rebuild its military strength and repeat the war again, until ukraine de facto looses sovereignty (becomes similar to belarus)
- detaro 4y ago
  > I wouldn't consider losing territory equivalent to losing lives. Russian behavior in occupied regions makes it quite obvious that those are equivalent, at least for people who dare to not identify as Russian. > Also, isn't the opinion of those living in Crimea important? To a degree, although you need to consider policies of expelling non-Russians from Crimea and intentionally settling Russians there in how much stock you give that. > When this started, it was assumed that Russia would collapse very quickly, There was also fairly widespread surprise how well Ukraine held on.

CamperBob2 4y ago

Yes, you're right, it would cost us peanuts to help negotiate how much of a peaceful country should be turned over to barbarian invaders in exchange for a (doubtless temporary) ceasefire. Sometimes "peanuts" isn't the bargain you think it is.

isthisthingon99 4y ago
Sadly this is true. People do not learn until they feel pain. And that means this has to keep going until the pain is felt by whoever loses, at the highest level.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kube-system 4y ago

It is intentionally framed that narrow, because this article is a direct refutation of the idea that aid should be discontinued because the price tag is too expensive.

Ralfp 4y ago

History teaches that sometimes war is goal of foreign politics in itself, and thus it's impossible to escape, only to delay. "The government had to choose between war and shame. They chose shame. They will get war too."