4 ms·

Western distaste for killing is a recent-ish phenomenon and is by no means universal. I don't think it would be that hard for us to go back to those days. Civil

by api 2y ago

Western distaste for killing is a recent-ish phenomenon and is by no means universal. I don't think it would be that hard for us to go back to those days. Civilization can be a thin veneer.

benterix 2y ago
I disagree. After the two wars there is nobody who couldn't see that war is pure evil. That's why the initial project than later became the EU appeared - so that a war never appears in Europe again. If anything, today we hate it more than ever.
- mindslight 2y ago
  And when all of those people who remember the horrors of war, or at least heard first person accounts, have passed on?
- ossobuco 2y ago
  Facts simply disagree with you. The USA took part in (too) many bloody wars and invasions since WWII. After Iraq, one would have hoped Americans finally learnt the lesson, yet Biden was voted president, after backing the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lybia. Even Obama championed drone strikes around the world and supported Saudi Arabia's invasion of Yemen. If there's a lesson to be learned, it seems to constantly evade Americans' attempts to grasp it.
  - benterix 2y ago
    I agree that the USA is different from Europe in this respect. The invasion on Afghanistan and Iraq was completely wrong, and in the case of Iraq based on falsified information, and the final result was worse than before. And although I'm happy Obama withdrew the troops from Iraq and Biden from Afghanistan, it looks like there simply wasn't an exit plan and responsibility for the people left behind. They had to deal with the consequences of wars waged by Bush under the impulse of 9/11 with no good outcome. Still, when you look at the perception of war by Americans, starting with Vietnam, you see that people don't like killing. "In the course of the war, there developed in the United States the greatest anti-war movement the nation had ever experienced, a movement that played a critical role in bringing the war to an end." [0] This is a phenomenon that you don't see in Russia where people learned very well that if they want to stay away from big trouble for them and their families, they must not speak out in any way. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_in...
    - ossobuco 2y ago
      It seems the West has found the perfect solution. Allow protests as long as they don't become dangerous, but keep waging wars without any compromise. People (some of them at least) will vote either way, and you can now claim to be better than everyone else, while detaining the record for most killed civilians!
      - benterix 2y ago
        Europe didn't start any war after WWII. leadership reflect the people so if Europeans were blood-hungry, they would kill - for territory, for money, for resources. Instead, people slowly started to understand that we're all interconnected and war is just suffering. You can't really find any of XIX-century mentality like "Our nation is the best and we must fight with our neighbors" anymore - and it is thanks to the EU that Putin hates so much.
        ossobuco 2y ago
        > Europe didn't start any war after WWII. This is false. We bombed Sarajevo, Libya, participated in the invasion of Iraq and so on. > thanks to the EU that Putin hates so much If we look again at facts, the only ones who seem to hate Europe are the USA, Ukraine, and the EU commission. Who destroyed North Stream and is now trying to destroy the other routes for gas from Russia to Europe? Who's pushing for Europe to buy USA gas at 4x the Russian gas cost? Who's trying at all costs to escalate this war, spreading allarmism and calling for wild increases in military spending? Before the Ukraine war started, Russia actually helped us, as most of our industry was backed by the availability of cheap Russian gas. If nothing, we were increasingly independent of the USA. That mutual benefit relationship has now been severed, but to whose advantage? As a EU citizen I only see our quality of life decrease the more we "help" Ukraine.
        benterix 2y ago
        Let's go one by one. The destruction of North Stream was an excellent move by whoever did. Europe drastically cut support for the current war and any future ones that Putin can wage by enormous cut on gas purchase from the regime. Yes, it was cheap, but the price is blood. We understood this too late. Can Putin attack other countries? Not now, because Ukraine is still fighting, so for now he can just do smaller acts like cutting cables, messing up public transport during the Olympics or putting inflammable stuff on transport airplanes. But can we be sure he won't do it in a couple of years? The means to ensure so is to make Europe strong enough to make Putin hesitate. Now let's move on to military actions you mentioned. As for Sarajevo, I remember it very clearly. The UN mission failed completely, in the same way that they failed in Rwanda. And I believe it was the only NATO initiative in history that actually made sense. The idea itself, not the execution though - NATO pilots were too afraid to fly low and they bombed civilians. But they never considered it a "good thing to do", rather a grave mistake, then a humanitarian fund was established to rebuild and make amends to the families. Other than that, the intervention actually stopped genocide. As for Iraq and Afghanistan - as I mentioned, nobody in Europe wanted, Bush had big problems forming the coalition for his stupid aggression, millions of people went on the streets. I don't know any single person who would say "What a great idea, let's attack Iraq/Afghanistan". On the contrary, everybody thought it was very stupid. This is a huge difference between the two worlds: many Russians actually believe that killing Ukrainians is good and it should be continued.

by api 2y ago

Western distaste for killing is a recent-ish phenomenon and is by no means universal. I don't think it would be that hard for us to go back to those days. Civilization can be a thin veneer.

benterix 2y ago

I disagree. After the two wars there is nobody who couldn't see that war is pure evil. That's why the initial project than later became the EU appeared - so that a war never appears in Europe again. If anything, today we hate it more than ever.

mindslight 2y ago
And when all of those people who remember the horrors of war, or at least heard first person accounts, have passed on?
ossobuco 2y ago
Facts simply disagree with you. The USA took part in (too) many bloody wars and invasions since WWII. After Iraq, one would have hoped Americans finally learnt the lesson, yet Biden was voted president, after backing the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lybia. Even Obama championed drone strikes around the world and supported Saudi Arabia's invasion of Yemen. If there's a lesson to be learned, it seems to constantly evade Americans' attempts to grasp it.
- benterix 2y ago
  I agree that the USA is different from Europe in this respect. The invasion on Afghanistan and Iraq was completely wrong, and in the case of Iraq based on falsified information, and the final result was worse than before. And although I'm happy Obama withdrew the troops from Iraq and Biden from Afghanistan, it looks like there simply wasn't an exit plan and responsibility for the people left behind. They had to deal with the consequences of wars waged by Bush under the impulse of 9/11 with no good outcome. Still, when you look at the perception of war by Americans, starting with Vietnam, you see that people don't like killing. "In the course of the war, there developed in the United States the greatest anti-war movement the nation had ever experienced, a movement that played a critical role in bringing the war to an end." [0] This is a phenomenon that you don't see in Russia where people learned very well that if they want to stay away from big trouble for them and their families, they must not speak out in any way. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_in...
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    It seems the West has found the perfect solution. Allow protests as long as they don't become dangerous, but keep waging wars without any compromise. People (some of them at least) will vote either way, and you can now claim to be better than everyone else, while detaining the record for most killed civilians!
    - benterix 2y ago
      Europe didn't start any war after WWII. leadership reflect the people so if Europeans were blood-hungry, they would kill - for territory, for money, for resources. Instead, people slowly started to understand that we're all interconnected and war is just suffering. You can't really find any of XIX-century mentality like "Our nation is the best and we must fight with our neighbors" anymore - and it is thanks to the EU that Putin hates so much.
      - ossobuco 2y ago
        > Europe didn't start any war after WWII. This is false. We bombed Sarajevo, Libya, participated in the invasion of Iraq and so on. > thanks to the EU that Putin hates so much If we look again at facts, the only ones who seem to hate Europe are the USA, Ukraine, and the EU commission. Who destroyed North Stream and is now trying to destroy the other routes for gas from Russia to Europe? Who's pushing for Europe to buy USA gas at 4x the Russian gas cost? Who's trying at all costs to escalate this war, spreading allarmism and calling for wild increases in military spending? Before the Ukraine war started, Russia actually helped us, as most of our industry was backed by the availability of cheap Russian gas. If nothing, we were increasingly independent of the USA. That mutual benefit relationship has now been severed, but to whose advantage? As a EU citizen I only see our quality of life decrease the more we "help" Ukraine.
        benterix 2y ago
        Let's go one by one. The destruction of North Stream was an excellent move by whoever did. Europe drastically cut support for the current war and any future ones that Putin can wage by enormous cut on gas purchase from the regime. Yes, it was cheap, but the price is blood. We understood this too late. Can Putin attack other countries? Not now, because Ukraine is still fighting, so for now he can just do smaller acts like cutting cables, messing up public transport during the Olympics or putting inflammable stuff on transport airplanes. But can we be sure he won't do it in a couple of years? The means to ensure so is to make Europe strong enough to make Putin hesitate. Now let's move on to military actions you mentioned. As for Sarajevo, I remember it very clearly. The UN mission failed completely, in the same way that they failed in Rwanda. And I believe it was the only NATO initiative in history that actually made sense. The idea itself, not the execution though - NATO pilots were too afraid to fly low and they bombed civilians. But they never considered it a "good thing to do", rather a grave mistake, then a humanitarian fund was established to rebuild and make amends to the families. Other than that, the intervention actually stopped genocide. As for Iraq and Afghanistan - as I mentioned, nobody in Europe wanted, Bush had big problems forming the coalition for his stupid aggression, millions of people went on the streets. I don't know any single person who would say "What a great idea, let's attack Iraq/Afghanistan". On the contrary, everybody thought it was very stupid. This is a huge difference between the two worlds: many Russians actually believe that killing Ukrainians is good and it should be continued.