8 ms·
Can anyone tell me what the alternative is that would result in less people dying? This needs to stop NOW.
by sgalbincea 2y ago
Can anyone tell me what the alternative is that would result in less people dying? This needs to stop NOW.
- Xeamek 2y agoSo when your country will be attacked you will give up your lands and your freedoms just for sake of "less people dying"?
- faebi 2y agoAbsolutely yes
- Xeamek 2y agoReally? Even if that would result with your new living conditions to be literally North Korea style or the worst of islamic terrorist state?
- castlefreak 2y agoHave you spoken to any Moscovites about living standards recently? Like this is so stupid. I would not trade for Russia's brutal treatment of dissidents but we don't exactly have a great record on that front in Western countries…
- Xeamek 2y agoYou know what hypothetical question is?
- aparticulate 2y ago[flagged]
- Xeamek 2y agoWhat's the point of hypethotical then?
- wilg 2y agoskill issue
- castlefreak 2y agoMy country had a coup in 2014 in order to install a leader friendly to US intel agencies. "Freedoms" were already flimsy.
- Xeamek 2y agoWho led the coup in "your" country?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- johnisgood 2y agoDo boundaries matter more than people dying? Genuine question.
- Xeamek 2y agoDepends on specific boundaries, but literally all of human history is about fighting for people's rights to hold one boundary or another
- johnisgood 2y agoBy boundaries I am referring to the geographical ones, might not be the best term. Like, if Ukraine let Russia have specific regions and it meant millions of people not dying, would people go for it?
- nuancebydefault 2y agoProbably yes, but he premise is wrong. You know P being a villain and all that.
- Xeamek 2y agoSo just borders? In the end, it’s the people who fight that determine if the thing they are fighting for is worth their lives. Dying for some lines on the map sounds bad, but if it were only lines on the map, then the people probably wouldn't choose to die for them, would they? Nobody wants to die, but if someone is ready to give up their life for some cause, then who are you to tell them they can't? It's the fate of Ukrainians that is at stake and its the Ukrainians that determine if changing that fate is worth the costs of their lives.
- johnisgood 2y agoI am not going to tell them they can't, they can do as they see fit, of course. It is a very subjective topic, however. I might save my family even if it meant the death of hundreds of people, or not, it is a moral dilemma for sure. I do not have an answer. Some people may believe "less people dying" is always favorable.
- russocan 2y agoIn a heartbeat. If two criminal organizations want to fight over some land, that’s none of my business. Also worth noting that in a war, the greatest danger comes from your own government, not the enemy because the enemy will accept your surrender and your own government won’t.
- corimaith 2y agoYou've grown spoilt on an age of peace. But that kind of abject self-interest is probably the first to leave one in front of the chopping block, or worse, enslavement.
- russocan 2y agoThat’s exactly what the Ukrainian government is doing with their men, so you’re right in an ironic way. If I was Ukrainian I would be praying for my government to collapse.
- Xeamek 2y agoWhat if the enemy won't allow for your surrender and just want to kill you regardless?
- russocan 2y agoIn that case I'd fight of course, but luckily most wars are for land and resources (which don't belong to the people anyways), so it literally doesn't matter who wins, you'll be paying taxes regardless.
- ben_w 2y agoRegime change in Russia. Putin is the one who started it, and he can stop it any time. Anyone else can only get the peace of surrendering to a violent dictator willing to conquor.
- bilbo0s 2y agoI don't mean to rain on your parade, but humor me for a second. Let's say that Putin is not the only person in Russian leadership who supports war with Ukraine. What then? I mean we get rid of Putin, and the next guy is worse. I know. I know. That would never happen in a million years. But humor me. What then? Do we have a plan for "we took out Putin and it didn't change anything"? Or is this whole thing just a fly by the seat of the pants kind of thing?
- ben_w 2y ago> I don't mean to rain on your parade, but humor me for a second. Feel free, this is no parade for me. And if anyone is taking me seriously*, they need serious alternatives to my beliefs. * which would be their first mistake, as I'm a software engineer not a geopolitical military analyst > I mean we get rid of Putin, and the next guy is worse What would "worse" look like? Putin is already at war, has a massive propaganda network and fake elections, yet still feels unable to have another round of mobilisation due to the internal political fallout. Putin is already threatening nuclear weapons, has already updated doctrine — "The doctrine now says an attack from a non-nuclear state, if backed by a nuclear power, will be treated as a joint assault on Russia." - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4v0rey0jzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4v0rey0jzo The only way to be worse, is to actually use them.
- bilbo0s 2y agoThe only way to be worse, is to actually use them. Then you're starting to see my point.
- ben_w 2y agoWould you rather surrender salami style, or the whole bratwurst? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang Putin is already a threat, without actually using the weapons.
- 827a 2y agoYeah, at the end of the day its hard to agree with the language and demeanor of the administration, but I struggle to disagree with the outcome. What are Zelensky's aims? To secure additional funding for their war machine? If so: I don't see how that benefits anyone; certainly not the Ukrainian people. If the goal is to secure more favorable peace terms, which I do believe is a laudable goal, then I fail to understand why he approached this conversation the way he did. Insinuating that the Trump administration had aligned with Russia, regardless of its validity, is not the way to accomplish this.
- nikaspran 2y agoA ceasefire without security guarantees is just a temporary pause for russia to rearm and continue on. None of the justifications for russia's invasion have changed, and this would mean the US will roll over for anything.
- 827a 2y agoSure; so maybe his focus should be on attaining those security guarantees. If not from the United States, then from other countries; is the United States the only World Police on the globe? Why is the Moral Onus on the United States to be the only ones willing to say "Yeah if you invade Ukraine again we'll put boots on the ground"; why isn't anyone asking Germany, or the UK, or Poland, to make those some guarantees to Ukraine? I mean, sure, there's genuine concerns about Article 5 if anyone in NATO makes those guarantees, I don't know what the impact of that would be, but looking past that for a second: Its utterly insane to me how much of this conversation involves placing some kind of Moral Responsibility on a country half the world away from the conflict.
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago> and this would mean the US will roll over for anything. This is a war between Ukraine and Russia, not the US. Nobody should want western powers to enter this war because of the potential consequences. But if western powers make security guarantees, isn't that what you risk?
- vsean 2y ago> Can anyone tell me what the alternative is that would result in less people dying? This needs to stop NOW. There's a logical flaw in what you are saying. Forcing Ukraine to accept a truce right now, without any security guarantees will result in a LOT MORE deaths. Russia will re-arm, using their oil and gas money, and in a year finish the job. Right now, Ukraine can hang on, but if Russia gets its shit together during a truce it's game over. What could happen is that they negotiates a truce with security guarantees from the US or at the very least a no-fly zone. But Trump doesn't want that, Trump doesn't want to do anything, he want mineral rights to offset the cost of the last president gave Ukraine (Not $350 bn, that number is lies, its ~$70bn), asking for $400bn rare earths and other metals. I can only assume he will only give new weapons under the same terms. A shameful shakedown. And even if Ukraine agrees to this, Trump has said he won't enforce a no-fly zone or give a security guarantee. The best thing Trump and the US can do from now on is just to not get involved in teh war. I can see Trump supporting Putin out of spite.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- avianlyric 2y agoHahaha, do you honestly believe that Putin has any interest in stopping? This isn’t the first time Putin has invaded another country, had the west capitulate for “peace”, then two years later Putin invades somewhere else. Hell, Putin originally invade Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Every one made “pease” with Putin, and few years later he invades the rest of Ukraine. If Trump sell out Ukraine now, it might end the “official” war, but there will be endless civil/insurgency warfare in Ukraine for decades. The Ukraine’s have zero interest in allowing a foreign country simply take their land without a fight.
- lawn 2y agoRussia must be made to kneel, just as Germany and Japan had to in WW2. Any other "peace treaty" will only lead to Russia rebuilding and attacking again, leading to yet another war, having learned the important lesson that aggression works. We want it to stop NOW, but that's wishful thinking just as world peace is. The sooner you internalize that, the better.
- a_ba 2y agoDeterrence works. That's why the cold war is remembered as the cold war and not the hot war. Zelensky knows this while Trump is publicly taking all leverage (NATO membership, security guaranties) off the table while the Russians have not even started negotiating - and why would they? Trump is doing all their work for them
- NickC25 2y agoSure - moving a few dozen nuclear warheads to Kiev and telling Russia "Kiev has nukes now, make one step further into Ukraine and we'll make sure they'll hit the Kremlin by end of day today". And then tell Putin "hey Putain, feel free to call our bluff".
- YetAnotherNick 2y agoPutin: "Thanks for heads up as I left Kremlin. Also don't mind the ICBM to Washington and NYC" Nuclear war couldn't be won.
- jonathanstrange 2y agoI don't know. People used to say during the Cold War that deterrence works. If it doesn't work, a nuclear war is unavoidable anyway.
- NickC25 2y agoMight as well get it over with at that point. If Putin does decide to strike first, yeah, Washington or NYC gets hit. OK. We'll live. Russia will be flattened by the entire world's nukes at that point, and the likes of China will be inclined to join in on the fun and take a whole bunch of Russian land.
- bilbo0s 2y agoWashington or NYC gets hit. OK. We'll live. Clearly, you're unfamiliar with the prosecution of a nuclear conflict. I wouldn't count on NYC being the only place hit. In fact, I wouldn't count on any of our port cities and even any mainland military infrastructure surviving the initial strike. Additionally, energy infrastructure would be severely crippled. None of that even counts the disruption to electronics and communication wrought by the EMP blasts. And no, none of it's coming back. I can assure any Russian readers that the same would happen to you in a nuclear exchange with us. The initial strikes would be unfortunate for europe, as I think they would likely fare the worst. But as bad off as we'd all be, the worst would be yet to come. The secondary strikes are where the knockout blows would be dealt. Nuclear war, (any war really), is raw and nasty. Don't expect "limited" strikes. By your own admission, we would send a massive retaliatory strike to Russia. It defies logic for them to send a limited strike our way. That's not how nuclear war works.
- valine 2y agoThere is no alternative. Europe tried to peacefully coexist with Germany in the 1930s. Standing up to imperialist dictators is the least bloody option.
- StefanBatory 2y agoAnd you stop it now - no security guarantees for Ukraine - and more people will die in few years when Russia strikes back, having rearmed herself.
- oezi 2y agoEurope needs to deploy troops to Ukraine to secure the current border. No other way from stoping Putin.
- bilbo0s 2y agoRight. Just when America pulls back, Europe should escalate. Awesome! /s Right now Europe needs time to build. The calculus has radically changed. They need to build out in a fashion that is massive, but also both quick and quiet. This situation is too serious for rash action. Especially where victory is not guaranteed.
- oezi 2y agoAmerica is pulling back because it has lost its moral compass. Republican leadership has made it inconceivable to many Americans that you can have Win-Win situations internationally. At least that is the only explanation which explains for me what is happening. Europe is already in this war and it is costing us money and European lives if we want or not.
- bashback 2y ago[flagged]
- surfpel 2y ago[flagged]