3 ms·

I agree it is very sad. Not enough effort on de-escalation, negotiation and understanding. And with a stockpile of cheap weapons it will be ever easier for gree

I agree it is very sad. Not enough effort on de-escalation, negotiation and understanding. And with a stockpile of cheap weapons it will be ever easier for greedy, lazy, corrupt and cowardly policy makers to simply press a button and hope it gets them what they want. It won't though.

Log_out_ 2y ago
yeah, more surrender to aggressive dictatorships by 'change through trade'. right now someone is bleeding out in ukraine because you peaceniks had your way for thirty years. bloody handed well spoken monsters in a world they want to leave ...
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  Peaceniks had their way for thirty years?!?! The Ukraine war is not due to peaceniks. Had the hawks been in charge we would be in pretty much the same situation as we are now. Up until 2014 there is nothing any reasonable hawk would have done differently with Ukraine. Even after they had their come-to-Jesus moment and cleaned up their act there's still little more we could have done. We were helping them get their military in order, what else was there to do? I do think the peaceniks are very wrong in saying it could have been avoided by diplomacy, but that doesn't mean they caused the war.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    The blatant nature of land empire of "grab all you can get ,never let go, lie through your teeth,assume everyone else is a lying land empire also " was visible even during the fall of the sovjet union in grosny , the various border raids of china into its neighbors (vietnam), and the various persian proxy wars. but the problem was that dove liberal future optimism incompetence infected a whole generation of politicians. including the "warmongery" group around bush junior . which removed one landempire containing another from the map and just ignored the other unreformables while they staged blatant psyops.
hcfman 2y ago
Well stated. An awful lot of gunning for war. The words inclusion are very much talked about in context of human beings but it disappears out of the window when talking about foreign policy. Perhaps inclusive foreign policy could have resulted in the avoidance of the Ukraine war? Instead everything is focused on escalation and exclusion.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > Perhaps inclusive foreign policy could have resulted in the avoidance of the Ukraine war? Maybe but negotiations are always bound by the alternatives of which war is one and as a country it is better if the calculation looks grim when it is considered. What is certain is that Russia didn’t hesitate to start an invasion when they felt threatened and thought they could get something from it. I think it’s a fallacy to view it as an either/or situation. We should strive for both an efficient diplomatic service, enlightened leaders who strive for peace and are intellectually able to navigate a complex international situation, and a strong army.
- squidbeak 2y ago
  > Perhaps inclusive foreign policy could have resulted in the avoidance of the Ukraine war? Ukrainians had chosen a turn to Europe and the West before 2013. Should they have abandoned a national aspiration because it would annoy their neighbour?
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  "Inclusive foreign policy"?? Obviously it's the woman's fault her husband beat her. She clearly wasn't inclusive enough in her actions. She deserved to be rape when she wouldn't put out when her husband came home drunk.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Literally all Russia had to do was not invade Ukraine, and none of this would happen. Ukraine will never be a “threat” to Russia at any point in the foreseeable future. However, Russia is maintaining that if it exists that it will become the next super power and overrun them. Or is it more likely that Putin was scared that Russians would see a richer sister country prospering under a western economy and challenge his tyranny?
energy123 2y ago
Sometimes the person you're negotiating with has already decided to expand territory, and they use your goodwill as a tactic to extract benefits from you. The only thing that works is deterrence, and then to beat them in a war if they decide to fight it. The obvious example is WW2, where appeasement backfired. The recent example is Ukraine, where the West appeased Putin in 2008 around Georgia, in 2014 around Eastern Ukraine, and again after he invaded in 2022 by slowrolling arms and placing restrictions on Ukraine. This appeasement mindset is a failure of cognitive empathy. You as an individual can be reasoned with. The people around you can be reasoned with. So you can't imagine someone who is a ruthless empire builder. You extend the benefit of the doubt in places it shouldn't be extended. And in turn develop this naive worldview where war is always unnecessary. But this worldview can lead to more people getting killed.
squidbeak 2y ago
What forms of 'de-escalation, negotiation and understanding' do you think could have deterred Putin - whose demands included control of Ukraine's national direction and foreign policy, the removal of the democratically elected government and a crippled army?
LorenPechtel 2y ago
This is the fundamental failure of the left--the *faith* in there always being a path to avoiding conflict. This is most definitely a faith-based position, never defended by reason. It's simply always taken as a sign that the side with "more power" (by their yardstick, not always correct) failed to use it's power responsibly. If both sides are sure of what would happen with conflict there will always be peace. Nobody's going to pick a fight they know they will lose unless losing is just as bad as not fighting in the first place (say, your opponent wishes to kill you.) However, in the real world knowledge is far from perfect and circumstances can change. War happens when the two sides have different evaluations of the expected outcome. (And you also have cases where losing is the objective--at least a double digit percentage of police shootings are suicide by cop and plenty more are people who evaluate dying as preferable to jail. Not outright suicide but pretty close to it. De-escalation is completely useless against both of these groups.)

Log_out_ 2y ago

yeah, more surrender to aggressive dictatorships by 'change through trade'. right now someone is bleeding out in ukraine because you peaceniks had your way for thirty years. bloody handed well spoken monsters in a world they want to leave ...

LorenPechtel 2y ago
Peaceniks had their way for thirty years?!?! The Ukraine war is not due to peaceniks. Had the hawks been in charge we would be in pretty much the same situation as we are now. Up until 2014 there is nothing any reasonable hawk would have done differently with Ukraine. Even after they had their come-to-Jesus moment and cleaned up their act there's still little more we could have done. We were helping them get their military in order, what else was there to do? I do think the peaceniks are very wrong in saying it could have been avoided by diplomacy, but that doesn't mean they caused the war.
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  The blatant nature of land empire of "grab all you can get ,never let go, lie through your teeth,assume everyone else is a lying land empire also " was visible even during the fall of the sovjet union in grosny , the various border raids of china into its neighbors (vietnam), and the various persian proxy wars. but the problem was that dove liberal future optimism incompetence infected a whole generation of politicians. including the "warmongery" group around bush junior . which removed one landempire containing another from the map and just ignored the other unreformables while they staged blatant psyops.

hcfman 2y ago

Well stated. An awful lot of gunning for war. The words inclusion are very much talked about in context of human beings but it disappears out of the window when talking about foreign policy. Perhaps inclusive foreign policy could have resulted in the avoidance of the Ukraine war? Instead everything is focused on escalation and exclusion.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> Perhaps inclusive foreign policy could have resulted in the avoidance of the Ukraine war? Maybe but negotiations are always bound by the alternatives of which war is one and as a country it is better if the calculation looks grim when it is considered. What is certain is that Russia didn’t hesitate to start an invasion when they felt threatened and thought they could get something from it. I think it’s a fallacy to view it as an either/or situation. We should strive for both an efficient diplomatic service, enlightened leaders who strive for peace and are intellectually able to navigate a complex international situation, and a strong army.
squidbeak 2y ago
> Perhaps inclusive foreign policy could have resulted in the avoidance of the Ukraine war? Ukrainians had chosen a turn to Europe and the West before 2013. Should they have abandoned a national aspiration because it would annoy their neighbour?
LorenPechtel 2y ago
"Inclusive foreign policy"?? Obviously it's the woman's fault her husband beat her. She clearly wasn't inclusive enough in her actions. She deserved to be rape when she wouldn't put out when her husband came home drunk.
EasyMark 2y ago
Literally all Russia had to do was not invade Ukraine, and none of this would happen. Ukraine will never be a “threat” to Russia at any point in the foreseeable future. However, Russia is maintaining that if it exists that it will become the next super power and overrun them. Or is it more likely that Putin was scared that Russians would see a richer sister country prospering under a western economy and challenge his tyranny?

energy123 2y ago

Sometimes the person you're negotiating with has already decided to expand territory, and they use your goodwill as a tactic to extract benefits from you. The only thing that works is deterrence, and then to beat them in a war if they decide to fight it. The obvious example is WW2, where appeasement backfired. The recent example is Ukraine, where the West appeased Putin in 2008 around Georgia, in 2014 around Eastern Ukraine, and again after he invaded in 2022 by slowrolling arms and placing restrictions on Ukraine. This appeasement mindset is a failure of cognitive empathy. You as an individual can be reasoned with. The people around you can be reasoned with. So you can't imagine someone who is a ruthless empire builder. You extend the benefit of the doubt in places it shouldn't be extended. And in turn develop this naive worldview where war is always unnecessary. But this worldview can lead to more people getting killed.

squidbeak 2y ago

What forms of 'de-escalation, negotiation and understanding' do you think could have deterred Putin - whose demands included control of Ukraine's national direction and foreign policy, the removal of the democratically elected government and a crippled army?

LorenPechtel 2y ago

This is the fundamental failure of the left--the *faith* in there always being a path to avoiding conflict. This is most definitely a faith-based position, never defended by reason. It's simply always taken as a sign that the side with "more power" (by their yardstick, not always correct) failed to use it's power responsibly. If both sides are sure of what would happen with conflict there will always be peace. Nobody's going to pick a fight they know they will lose unless losing is just as bad as not fighting in the first place (say, your opponent wishes to kill you.) However, in the real world knowledge is far from perfect and circumstances can change. War happens when the two sides have different evaluations of the expected outcome. (And you also have cases where losing is the objective--at least a double digit percentage of police shootings are suicide by cop and plenty more are people who evaluate dying as preferable to jail. Not outright suicide but pretty close to it. De-escalation is completely useless against both of these groups.)