6 ms·

A fine pacifist attitude to have when someone else did the fighting and the dying and the building up a military industrial complex for you. Ukrainians, for exa

A fine pacifist attitude to have when someone else did the fighting and the dying and the building up a military industrial complex for you. Ukrainians, for example, don't have that option, which is why a ton of IT guys there are starting and joining all sorts of miltech startups, volunteer groups, etc. Their families and their future depend on using their talents to build yucky weapons they don't want to be on the other side of.

TulliusCicero 3y ago
Yeah, these pacifist-style comments are really tone deaf and out of touch. Yes, we'd all prefer peace and leaving each other alone, but if some other nation comes to kill your countrymen and replace your democracy with a puppet, suddenly just relying on pacifist ideals doesn't work well anymore. Most of the time, these commenters don't want to engage with reality as it currently exists. If you ask them what exactly you're supposed to do without a war machine if some other guy invades, they just have the silliest deflections and hand waving. Ultimately, they just want to say "war bad" from atop their high horse, as if other people didn't believe that war was, in fact, bad. Ukraine is an obvious example. Ukraine wasn't doing anything to Russia other than choosing to gradually move culturally towards the West, which is their right. Before the big invasion in 2022, there were repeated attempts by Ukraine or by Western countries to try and forestall Russia's invasion by opening up negotiations and talking things out, and Putin didn't give a shit. Diplomacy didn't work there. What would've worked? Having a stronger military, or even better, being allied with other strong militaries. Putin doesn't invade the Baltics for a reason.
- kspacewalk2 3y ago
  I grew up in Ukraine, and I distinctly remember how little Ukrainians cared about their military before 2014. It was chronically underfunded, equipment in terrible shape, not nearly enough training, outdated tactics, etc. And Ukrainians wanted it that way, because who wants to think about war and spend resources on the military when your country is in such terrible shape financially already? I shared that attitude growing up. And this is a huge reason why the war happened in the first place. In some neighbourhoods, weakness invites aggression. Ignoring that fact won't make it go away. To have lasting peace, it is necessary (though not sufficient) to have a strong deterrent.
- barbacoa 3y ago
  This comment is peak 2004 neo-conservatives logic. Ukraine is fighting a bloody attrition land war in Russia. They are currently losing and will likely fair worse as time goes on. Mind you Ukraine could have prevented all of this if they had decided not to break the Minsk agreement which would have ended the conflict in Donbas. Instead the US and EU used it to buy for time so they could further arm Ukraine for war with Russia. This conflict has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Ukraine. Entire generation of youth killed or crippled. Millions fled the country and may never return.
  - scheme271 3y ago
    What part of the Minsk agreement did Ukraine break? It seems that LPR, DPR, and UKR all ignored some of the ceasefire agreements and couldn't resist saying that one area or another was an exception that they could seize through military force.
  - kspacewalk2 3y ago
    >Mind you Ukraine could have prevented all of this if Whatever comes after the if, unless it's "surrender sovereignty unconditionally", it's wrong. Putin's goal was, and is now, to incorporate Ukraine into his empire as a client state, similar to Belarus. And eventually to take even that decorative residual bit of sovereignty. Of course at this point, taking over Ukraine will mean mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people and an erasure of Ukrainian identity and language. Just want you to be clear about what outcome you're defending.
- hackandthink 3y ago
  Stupid politics and not enough diplomacy didn't work there. https://www.mearsheimer.com/public_talks/why-is-ukraine-the-wests-fault/ https://www.mearsheimer.com/public_talks/why-is-ukraine-the-...
  - wbl 3y ago
    By diplomacy he means letting Putin have what he wants. The fact is Russia repeatedly signed agreements saying no to a divided Europe and giving countries a free choice in who to ally with.
  - mopsi 3y ago
    Mearsheimer is literally on Russian payroll. His works have received financial support from Russian government through the so-called Valdai club. Andrei Kozyrev, the minister of foreign affairs of the Russian Federation (1990-1996), had this to say about the purpose of the club and people like Mearsheimer: I ask Kozyrev about a debate that has roiled the American foreign policy establishment in the leadup to this war. Did NATO go too far? On the contrary, he thinks it didn’t go far enough. “One thing among many I admire about the American character is your ability to look into what you did and to be very, very critical of your mistakes,” Kozyrev says, in what I’m right to assume is a slightly philosophical preliminary to an incoming polemic. “Like when Congress unanimously passed a ban on any kind of lynching. It’s a little late, but it’s important because it’s a form of national repentance. That’s what Russia doesn’t do. Russia doesn’t repent. It hasn’t really for Stalinism or for cutting a deal with Hitler. Instead, it blames Ukraine for Nazism, which is ridiculous.” As to the pundits and policy mandarins who think the West sleepwalked into this crisis, which now threatens to bleed out beyond the borders of Russia and Belarus and Ukraine, Kozyrev thinks that’s simply nonsense. “Unfortunately, there are many wishful thinkers especially in academia here and intellectuals who have ties to Russia. They go to Valdai [a Russian think tank forum]. They consume caviar and vodka and are treated like kings by those who exist solely to manipulate them. This argument about NATO is just propaganda fed to Americans who then regurgitate it in their opinion and journal essays. The only real analysts who come here from Russia are dissidents. The rest are front people, just like in the Soviet Union, and they manufacture Western champions of the Putin regime, chumps and useful idiots.” I recommend reading it in full: https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/russias-ex-foreign-minister-on-his-totalitarian-country/ https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/russias-ex-foreign-ministe... His longer account of Russia-NATO relations is also quite a bit different from how Russian lapdogs try to depict the history in 2024: https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/19-Kozyrev.pdf https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...
- somenameforme 3y ago
  I agree that we should engage with reality as it currently exists. Davyd Arakhamia [1] is a Ukrainian member of parliament, in Zelensky's party. He was one of the negotiators early on with Russia. He stated that Russia's main demand was simply that Ukraine agree to not join NATO. Meduza has an article about it (which also links to the interview itself) here, as well as spin from various sides. [2] If you're unaware of the source Meduza is to Russia as MSNBC is to the Republican party. Here's his quote: --- "They actually hoped until nearly the last moment that they could press us into signing this agreement, adopting neutrality. That was their biggest priority. They were willing to end the war if we took on neutrality, like Finland once did, and gave assurances that we wouldn’t join NATO. That was essentially the main point. Everything else was cosmetic and political embellishments about ‘denazification,’ the Russian-speaking population, blah blah blah" --- He goes on to elaborate that the main reason they didn't agree to such is because (1) they didn't trust Russia and (2) Boris Johnson told them they should "just fight." And maybe Russia would have "really" invaded with the sort of logic you put forth in your post later on, but that was clearly not their goal in this invasion. Not joining NATO is hardly some Hitler level appeasement as our propaganda spins it. Russia was paranoid about NATO, which has gradually been working to surround it with nuclear weapons, having a base setup in Ukraine which has a geographically clear path straight into Russia's heartland. And I don't find such paranoia particularly unreasonable. Countries that strongly turn against America tend to find death and destruction at their doorstep soon enough. And none of this is to justify Russia's invasion, nor condemn Ukraine's decision to fight. Rather I emphasize that we live in a world that's a million shades of gray, even if propaganda from one side or the other invariably frame it as the clearest thing ever. And enough people will believe such unquestionably, ensuring war will be with us til our final days. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davyd_Arakhamia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davyd_Arakhamia [1] - https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/11/28/we-had-to-buy-time https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/11/28/we-had-to-buy-time
  - roca 3y ago
    Your version of history entirely ignores the fact that Russia recently grabbed Donbas and then Crimea.
  - jltsiren 3y ago

TulliusCicero 3y ago

Yeah, these pacifist-style comments are really tone deaf and out of touch. Yes, we'd all prefer peace and leaving each other alone, but if some other nation comes to kill your countrymen and replace your democracy with a puppet, suddenly just relying on pacifist ideals doesn't work well anymore. Most of the time, these commenters don't want to engage with reality as it currently exists. If you ask them what exactly you're supposed to do without a war machine if some other guy invades, they just have the silliest deflections and hand waving. Ultimately, they just want to say "war bad" from atop their high horse, as if other people didn't believe that war was, in fact, bad. Ukraine is an obvious example. Ukraine wasn't doing anything to Russia other than choosing to gradually move culturally towards the West, which is their right. Before the big invasion in 2022, there were repeated attempts by Ukraine or by Western countries to try and forestall Russia's invasion by opening up negotiations and talking things out, and Putin didn't give a shit. Diplomacy didn't work there. What would've worked? Having a stronger military, or even better, being allied with other strong militaries. Putin doesn't invade the Baltics for a reason.

kspacewalk2 3y ago
I grew up in Ukraine, and I distinctly remember how little Ukrainians cared about their military before 2014. It was chronically underfunded, equipment in terrible shape, not nearly enough training, outdated tactics, etc. And Ukrainians wanted it that way, because who wants to think about war and spend resources on the military when your country is in such terrible shape financially already? I shared that attitude growing up. And this is a huge reason why the war happened in the first place. In some neighbourhoods, weakness invites aggression. Ignoring that fact won't make it go away. To have lasting peace, it is necessary (though not sufficient) to have a strong deterrent.
barbacoa 3y ago
This comment is peak 2004 neo-conservatives logic. Ukraine is fighting a bloody attrition land war in Russia. They are currently losing and will likely fair worse as time goes on. Mind you Ukraine could have prevented all of this if they had decided not to break the Minsk agreement which would have ended the conflict in Donbas. Instead the US and EU used it to buy for time so they could further arm Ukraine for war with Russia. This conflict has been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Ukraine. Entire generation of youth killed or crippled. Millions fled the country and may never return.
- scheme271 3y ago
  What part of the Minsk agreement did Ukraine break? It seems that LPR, DPR, and UKR all ignored some of the ceasefire agreements and couldn't resist saying that one area or another was an exception that they could seize through military force.
- kspacewalk2 3y ago
  >Mind you Ukraine could have prevented all of this if Whatever comes after the if, unless it's "surrender sovereignty unconditionally", it's wrong. Putin's goal was, and is now, to incorporate Ukraine into his empire as a client state, similar to Belarus. And eventually to take even that decorative residual bit of sovereignty. Of course at this point, taking over Ukraine will mean mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people and an erasure of Ukrainian identity and language. Just want you to be clear about what outcome you're defending.
hackandthink 3y ago
Stupid politics and not enough diplomacy didn't work there. https://www.mearsheimer.com/public_talks/why-is-ukraine-the-wests-fault/ https://www.mearsheimer.com/public_talks/why-is-ukraine-the-...
- wbl 3y ago
  By diplomacy he means letting Putin have what he wants. The fact is Russia repeatedly signed agreements saying no to a divided Europe and giving countries a free choice in who to ally with.
- mopsi 3y ago
  Mearsheimer is literally on Russian payroll. His works have received financial support from Russian government through the so-called Valdai club. Andrei Kozyrev, the minister of foreign affairs of the Russian Federation (1990-1996), had this to say about the purpose of the club and people like Mearsheimer: I ask Kozyrev about a debate that has roiled the American foreign policy establishment in the leadup to this war. Did NATO go too far? On the contrary, he thinks it didn’t go far enough. “One thing among many I admire about the American character is your ability to look into what you did and to be very, very critical of your mistakes,” Kozyrev says, in what I’m right to assume is a slightly philosophical preliminary to an incoming polemic. “Like when Congress unanimously passed a ban on any kind of lynching. It’s a little late, but it’s important because it’s a form of national repentance. That’s what Russia doesn’t do. Russia doesn’t repent. It hasn’t really for Stalinism or for cutting a deal with Hitler. Instead, it blames Ukraine for Nazism, which is ridiculous.” As to the pundits and policy mandarins who think the West sleepwalked into this crisis, which now threatens to bleed out beyond the borders of Russia and Belarus and Ukraine, Kozyrev thinks that’s simply nonsense. “Unfortunately, there are many wishful thinkers especially in academia here and intellectuals who have ties to Russia. They go to Valdai [a Russian think tank forum]. They consume caviar and vodka and are treated like kings by those who exist solely to manipulate them. This argument about NATO is just propaganda fed to Americans who then regurgitate it in their opinion and journal essays. The only real analysts who come here from Russia are dissidents. The rest are front people, just like in the Soviet Union, and they manufacture Western champions of the Putin regime, chumps and useful idiots.” I recommend reading it in full: https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/russias-ex-foreign-minister-on-his-totalitarian-country/ https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/russias-ex-foreign-ministe... His longer account of Russia-NATO relations is also quite a bit different from how Russian lapdogs try to depict the history in 2024: https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/19-Kozyrev.pdf https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...
somenameforme 3y ago
I agree that we should engage with reality as it currently exists. Davyd Arakhamia [1] is a Ukrainian member of parliament, in Zelensky's party. He was one of the negotiators early on with Russia. He stated that Russia's main demand was simply that Ukraine agree to not join NATO. Meduza has an article about it (which also links to the interview itself) here, as well as spin from various sides. [2] If you're unaware of the source Meduza is to Russia as MSNBC is to the Republican party. Here's his quote: --- "They actually hoped until nearly the last moment that they could press us into signing this agreement, adopting neutrality. That was their biggest priority. They were willing to end the war if we took on neutrality, like Finland once did, and gave assurances that we wouldn’t join NATO. That was essentially the main point. Everything else was cosmetic and political embellishments about ‘denazification,’ the Russian-speaking population, blah blah blah" --- He goes on to elaborate that the main reason they didn't agree to such is because (1) they didn't trust Russia and (2) Boris Johnson told them they should "just fight." And maybe Russia would have "really" invaded with the sort of logic you put forth in your post later on, but that was clearly not their goal in this invasion. Not joining NATO is hardly some Hitler level appeasement as our propaganda spins it. Russia was paranoid about NATO, which has gradually been working to surround it with nuclear weapons, having a base setup in Ukraine which has a geographically clear path straight into Russia's heartland. And I don't find such paranoia particularly unreasonable. Countries that strongly turn against America tend to find death and destruction at their doorstep soon enough. And none of this is to justify Russia's invasion, nor condemn Ukraine's decision to fight. Rather I emphasize that we live in a world that's a million shades of gray, even if propaganda from one side or the other invariably frame it as the clearest thing ever. And enough people will believe such unquestionably, ensuring war will be with us til our final days. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davyd_Arakhamia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davyd_Arakhamia [1] - https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/11/28/we-had-to-buy-time https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/11/28/we-had-to-buy-time
- roca 3y ago
  Your version of history entirely ignores the fact that Russia recently grabbed Donbas and then Crimea.
- jltsiren 3y ago