5 ms·

Anyone who values STEM and the legacy of enlightenment that has made STEM possible should definitely pledge allegiance to the Western side in a conflict with Ru

Anyone who values STEM and the legacy of enlightenment that has made STEM possible should definitely pledge allegiance to the Western side in a conflict with Russia or China, even if that includes repeating wartime propaganda at times. I find it perfectly rational.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Broadly supporting the Western side? Perhaps. Siding with and supporting Ukraine in this conflict? Yes. Repeating war propaganda? I strongly think this is just sawing off the branch you're sitting on. We can debate the merit of the idea of sacrificing the thing you value the most in order to protect it - but it's neither here, nor there. People on the ground, fighting to defend their homes, are going to do whatever they feel necessary, including plenty of nasty, ugly, underhanded things - as it has always been in the history of war. But people far away, safe from any ongoing conflict, have no excuse - they're not sacrificing anything but intellectual integrity, and they're not doing it for survival, but rather for internet points or a leg up in some domestic political games.
caoilte 3y ago
Funding this war (which we're losing) is gutting funding for further education and scientific research. It's possible there's a secret plan which will turn things around, but it seems more likely that the only thing which benefits from our inevitable defeat is the arms industry.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > It's possible there's a secret plan which will turn things around, but it seems more likely that the only thing which benefits from our inevitable defeat is the arms industry. The benefit of a Russia that is incapable of committing more or any forces to there numerous wars of conquest is a net benefit for the entirety of the Europe as it increases stability in the region.
  - dmix 3y ago
    It could still mean a Vietnam type situation which wasn't fun for the Vietnamese. But I doubt Ukrainian citizens would choose the other option just to end it early. Might be worth asking again in a year from now when this war will likely still be deadlocked.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  How are we losing? Ukraine was supposed to fall in days. For them, even holding the line isn't losing, and they've pushed the line back. I talked about politics that I don't like here it is: the west is not losing, it's winning substantially. Even if Ukraine doesn't win back territory, the west sees Russia bash itself against a wall losing men and equipment, and showing its hand operationally. And the amount spent is a pittance to western governments. We could, and imo we should, give Ukraine to means to win. But I would say there is a calculation going on the US about stringing out the war longer to weaken Russia even further and perhaps even pull out its alliances, see what happens. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are going to "win" in the sense of coming out of things better than they went in. Ukraine obviously. But Russia has probably fallen further from higher. The war has essentially solidified Ukraine identity and politics, but it's starting to unravel Russian politics. Nobody can know what the future holds, but I cannot see a future now where Russia is not considerably weakened - it's turned it's western neighbours/customers into enemies, shown weakness to its vassal states, and gone begging to China for material and trade. Also what outcome do you want? We surely don't want Russia to win this and think its great and start more wars and repress more people. I think we should care at least.
  - caoilte 3y ago
    > And the amount spent is a pittance to western governments I don't consider well north of $100billion and climbing to be a pittance. > We could, and imo we should, give Ukraine to means to win. And yet we haven't. The Ukrainians are still rationing artillery fire, appear to have lost most of their air defence cover and long ago lost air cover. If we were serious about winning the US government would have switched to a planned economy (as we did in WW2), taken control of munitions production and gotten a handle on our out of control military contract padding. > But I would say there is a calculation going on the US about stringing out the war longer That's certainly one way to spin trying to lose more slowly. > Also what outcome do you want? We surely don't want Russia to win this and think its great and start more wars and repress more people. I think we should care at least. a negotiated peace. Tricky given all of the times the US has betrayed Russian trust over the last ten years. The only plausible route feels like a massive neutral DMZ (probably everything east of the Dnipro) administered by a BRICS led UN peace keeping force. Hugely embarrassing for the West and NATO, but would end the killing and devastation and allow us to concentrate on the real threat of climate change.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Broadly supporting the Western side? Perhaps. Siding with and supporting Ukraine in this conflict? Yes. Repeating war propaganda? I strongly think this is just sawing off the branch you're sitting on. We can debate the merit of the idea of sacrificing the thing you value the most in order to protect it - but it's neither here, nor there. People on the ground, fighting to defend their homes, are going to do whatever they feel necessary, including plenty of nasty, ugly, underhanded things - as it has always been in the history of war. But people far away, safe from any ongoing conflict, have no excuse - they're not sacrificing anything but intellectual integrity, and they're not doing it for survival, but rather for internet points or a leg up in some domestic political games.

caoilte 3y ago

Funding this war (which we're losing) is gutting funding for further education and scientific research. It's possible there's a secret plan which will turn things around, but it seems more likely that the only thing which benefits from our inevitable defeat is the arms industry.

_kbh_ 3y ago
> It's possible there's a secret plan which will turn things around, but it seems more likely that the only thing which benefits from our inevitable defeat is the arms industry. The benefit of a Russia that is incapable of committing more or any forces to there numerous wars of conquest is a net benefit for the entirety of the Europe as it increases stability in the region.
- dmix 3y ago
  It could still mean a Vietnam type situation which wasn't fun for the Vietnamese. But I doubt Ukrainian citizens would choose the other option just to end it early. Might be worth asking again in a year from now when this war will likely still be deadlocked.
jemmyw 3y ago
How are we losing? Ukraine was supposed to fall in days. For them, even holding the line isn't losing, and they've pushed the line back. I talked about politics that I don't like here it is: the west is not losing, it's winning substantially. Even if Ukraine doesn't win back territory, the west sees Russia bash itself against a wall losing men and equipment, and showing its hand operationally. And the amount spent is a pittance to western governments. We could, and imo we should, give Ukraine to means to win. But I would say there is a calculation going on the US about stringing out the war longer to weaken Russia even further and perhaps even pull out its alliances, see what happens. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are going to "win" in the sense of coming out of things better than they went in. Ukraine obviously. But Russia has probably fallen further from higher. The war has essentially solidified Ukraine identity and politics, but it's starting to unravel Russian politics. Nobody can know what the future holds, but I cannot see a future now where Russia is not considerably weakened - it's turned it's western neighbours/customers into enemies, shown weakness to its vassal states, and gone begging to China for material and trade. Also what outcome do you want? We surely don't want Russia to win this and think its great and start more wars and repress more people. I think we should care at least.
- caoilte 3y ago
  > And the amount spent is a pittance to western governments I don't consider well north of $100billion and climbing to be a pittance. > We could, and imo we should, give Ukraine to means to win. And yet we haven't. The Ukrainians are still rationing artillery fire, appear to have lost most of their air defence cover and long ago lost air cover. If we were serious about winning the US government would have switched to a planned economy (as we did in WW2), taken control of munitions production and gotten a handle on our out of control military contract padding. > But I would say there is a calculation going on the US about stringing out the war longer That's certainly one way to spin trying to lose more slowly. > Also what outcome do you want? We surely don't want Russia to win this and think its great and start more wars and repress more people. I think we should care at least. a negotiated peace. Tricky given all of the times the US has betrayed Russian trust over the last ten years. The only plausible route feels like a massive neutral DMZ (probably everything east of the Dnipro) administered by a BRICS led UN peace keeping force. Hugely embarrassing for the West and NATO, but would end the killing and devastation and allow us to concentrate on the real threat of climate change.