3 ms·

Well I suppose the ideal state would be that people conclude war is expensive and brutal then we enter a sort of global pacifist state. But if you want me to ge

by roenxi 2y ago

Well I suppose the ideal state would be that people conclude war is expensive and brutal then we enter a sort of global pacifist state. But if you want me to get myself in to trouble I'm happy to oblige because someone has to keep saying it: 1) Ukraine shouldn't have been stationing CIA bases and taking military aid from the US before the war. It was stupid strategy and eventually got them invaded. 2) They should have surrendered on day 1. That would have gotten them a bad deal but not so many people dying. 3) They should still surrender on day 1,050. That'd get them a much worse deal and they've suffered who knows how many 100,000s of casualties for nothing. But it'd at least be over. 4) If we extrapolate from the poor quality of the Ukrainian leadership's decisions so far the worst case is the other side of the coin flip on things like: > The U.S. intelligence pointed to a 50% chance that Putin would use tactical nukes... ~ https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-biden-nuclear-weapons-90cb3bb3499a5e211095b3f93173a575 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-putin-biden-nu... and there are a lot of deaths. I mean, hopefully Bob Woodward is a known liar because that is not a can of worms to open over questions like whether Moscow controls Kyiv. Many of us have lived in a world where Moscow controled Kyiv, it isn't that wildly new. While terrible it just isn't that big an issue. We've coped with the US invading multiple random countries in the Middle East, and while it is icky and unpleasant it is not as bad as the tactical nuke taboo breaking or something like the million casualties we're seeing in the Ukraine war from the West's policy of escalation.

UltraSane 2y ago
" Ukraine shouldn't have been stationing CIA bases and taking military aid from the US before the war. " Citation please. This sounds exactly like the lies Putin says to justify the invasion. "They should have surrendered on day 1." So if your country is invaded you would surrender "day one"? "If we extrapolate from the poor quality of the Ukrainian leadership's decisions so far " What decisions would those be? Zelensky has done a very good job in a very difficult situation.
- roenxi 2y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-shadow-war-russia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-... Or refer to Trump Impeachment 1, the fuss at the time involved sending military aid to Ukraine. > So if your country is invaded you would surrender "day one"? Yes. If a bloody loss is inevitable that is explicitly what I'm saying. If we were invaded by the likes of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea then I'd probably be OK with fighting. But we were going to be the site of a proxy war the smart thing to do is fold immediately and ask the majors to go elsewhere. Australia wouldn't survive a China-US proxy war if it has reached the point of an actual invasion, we'd be better off surrendering and making do. Although I'd be pointing that out after having attempted to flee the country for obvious reasons.
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    The link you provide was AFTER Russia invaded Ukraine. You can't use the actions of a country to defend against and invasion to JUSTIFY the invasion. Well, Russia does, but it doesn't actually make sense to do so. Ukrainians understand better than anyone just how much you DO NOT want to be under the thumb of Putin. I don't blame them for fighting back. And this isn't, or at least did not start out as a "Russia-US proxy war". Ukraine is a sovereign country that sensibly wanted to forge strong ties to Europe and the West. For selfish and egotistical reasons Putin hated that idea and his puppet was going to ignore this desire so Ukrainians kicked him out.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - roenxi 2y ago
      You can't justify the war with actions taken before the war either, the technical term for that is "unjustifiable". But what the Ukrainian politicians then did wasn't sensible. They've been broken. They have some of the poorest political leadership we've seen out of any country so far in the 21st century. They've managed to transition their country from comfortable and improving to a smouldering wreck. At every turn they've managed to find an option that leaves them unambiguously worse off than they were before. It is a case study in diplomatic failure and what not to do when threatened by a larger, more militarily competent neighbour.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
victorbjorklund 2y ago
Russia should have surrendered on day 1 of the kursk invasion. Dont you agree?
- roenxi 2y ago
  Maybe. I want to agree with the proposition but you've put a negative in the question, so I don't know if that means I say yes or no here.
mopsi 2y ago
> They should have surrendered on day 1. That would have gotten them a bad deal but not so many people dying. No, many more would have died. It's not even a speculation at this point, but a reasonable conclusion that is solidly grounded in facts. Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea put up little resistance in 2014 and that didn't save them. Their male population was forcibly conscripted to fight against Ukraine and has been decimated by the deliberately wasteful way they were used. Russia hit three bird with one stone: a) physically got rid of Ukrainians, Tatars and other people loyal to Ukraine, b) reduced the number of Russian citizens dying in the war to keep internal dissent down, c) stole the property of deceased conscripts and gave their homes to resettlers from Russia to further russify the occupied territories. Everyone in Ukraine knows these simple truths and that's why the idea of surrendering to Russia remains out of the question. Horror stories from the occupied territories shatter any illusions about peace under Russian control.
anabab 2y ago
> 2) They should have surrendered on day 1. That would have gotten them a bad deal but not so many people dying. Well, guess what, they DID surrender on day one. This was back in early 2014. The result? Two more invasions.

by roenxi 2y ago

UltraSane 2y ago

" Ukraine shouldn't have been stationing CIA bases and taking military aid from the US before the war. " Citation please. This sounds exactly like the lies Putin says to justify the invasion. "They should have surrendered on day 1." So if your country is invaded you would surrender "day one"? "If we extrapolate from the poor quality of the Ukrainian leadership's decisions so far " What decisions would those be? Zelensky has done a very good job in a very difficult situation.

roenxi 2y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-shadow-war-russia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-... Or refer to Trump Impeachment 1, the fuss at the time involved sending military aid to Ukraine. > So if your country is invaded you would surrender "day one"? Yes. If a bloody loss is inevitable that is explicitly what I'm saying. If we were invaded by the likes of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea then I'd probably be OK with fighting. But we were going to be the site of a proxy war the smart thing to do is fold immediately and ask the majors to go elsewhere. Australia wouldn't survive a China-US proxy war if it has reached the point of an actual invasion, we'd be better off surrendering and making do. Although I'd be pointing that out after having attempted to flee the country for obvious reasons.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  The link you provide was AFTER Russia invaded Ukraine. You can't use the actions of a country to defend against and invasion to JUSTIFY the invasion. Well, Russia does, but it doesn't actually make sense to do so. Ukrainians understand better than anyone just how much you DO NOT want to be under the thumb of Putin. I don't blame them for fighting back. And this isn't, or at least did not start out as a "Russia-US proxy war". Ukraine is a sovereign country that sensibly wanted to forge strong ties to Europe and the West. For selfish and egotistical reasons Putin hated that idea and his puppet was going to ignore this desire so Ukrainians kicked him out.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - roenxi 2y ago
    You can't justify the war with actions taken before the war either, the technical term for that is "unjustifiable". But what the Ukrainian politicians then did wasn't sensible. They've been broken. They have some of the poorest political leadership we've seen out of any country so far in the 21st century. They've managed to transition their country from comfortable and improving to a smouldering wreck. At every turn they've managed to find an option that leaves them unambiguously worse off than they were before. It is a case study in diplomatic failure and what not to do when threatened by a larger, more militarily competent neighbour.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

victorbjorklund 2y ago

Russia should have surrendered on day 1 of the kursk invasion. Dont you agree?

roenxi 2y ago
Maybe. I want to agree with the proposition but you've put a negative in the question, so I don't know if that means I say yes or no here.

mopsi 2y ago

> They should have surrendered on day 1. That would have gotten them a bad deal but not so many people dying. No, many more would have died. It's not even a speculation at this point, but a reasonable conclusion that is solidly grounded in facts. Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea put up little resistance in 2014 and that didn't save them. Their male population was forcibly conscripted to fight against Ukraine and has been decimated by the deliberately wasteful way they were used. Russia hit three bird with one stone: a) physically got rid of Ukrainians, Tatars and other people loyal to Ukraine, b) reduced the number of Russian citizens dying in the war to keep internal dissent down, c) stole the property of deceased conscripts and gave their homes to resettlers from Russia to further russify the occupied territories. Everyone in Ukraine knows these simple truths and that's why the idea of surrendering to Russia remains out of the question. Horror stories from the occupied territories shatter any illusions about peace under Russian control.

anabab 2y ago

> 2) They should have surrendered on day 1. That would have gotten them a bad deal but not so many people dying. Well, guess what, they DID surrender on day one. This was back in early 2014. The result? Two more invasions.