10 ms·
So I know this is not a popular opinion on this site but the only solution being offered by the other side seems to be the meat grinder approach. Basically cont
by Dig1t 2y ago
So I know this is not a popular opinion on this site but the only solution being offered by the other side seems to be the meat grinder approach. Basically continue letting both sides throw their men and (and also US taxpayer) money into the conflict until one side gives up or runs out of men.
I am fundamentally anti-war. We can and should compromise on this. There’s a reason the neocons are aligned with the left on it. The military industrial complex is profiting massively, big banks are securing massive land grants to help “rebuild”, and meanwhile both countries are depopulating themselves.
What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?
- 4ndrewl 2y agoYou mean like the International Brigades? They are defending their country from an aggressor - they're supposed to roll over?
- theGnuMe 2y agoThere’s a third solution: Russia could just stop its aggression and leave.
- pizlonator 2y ago[flagged]
- tesrx 2y agoTrump is calling for peace and a ceasefire agreement. Zelensky won't agree?
- jonathanstrange 2y ago[flagged]
- tesrx 2y agoHow is my statement "disgusting"? I am anti-war. I truly want peace.
- jonathanstrange 2y agoYou want a peace by Ukraine's capitulation, which would involve Ukraine handing over millions of Ukrainian citizens to Russia. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that haven't really thought this through but it's nevertheless disgusting, particularly the bullying of a foreign dignitary in the White House was disgusting and unprecedented in diplomacy. Sorry I don't have any other word for it. It's disgusting behavior.
- tesrx 2y agoGenuine question: what is the solution? The United States has given Ukraine billions. That hasn't seemed to resolved the issue?
- jonathanstrange 2y agoThe only people who should be in charge of deciding when it's time to stop fighting are the Ukrainian people and their elected leaders. That's how democracy works. You should continue to support Ukraine with weapons together with the numerous allies you have, seek further alliance continue to pressure Russia with sanctions and isolation. Russian embassies should be closed, by the way. Why? Because it's the morally right thing to do. It's as simple as that.
- Dig1t 2y ago>That's how democracy works. The Ukrainian leadership has suspended all elections. Polling indicates that Zelensky would almost certainly lose an election if one were held. If you really care about the principles of democracy wouldn't you be in support of giving the people of Ukraine the chance to vote for leaders that would seek to end the war? Also speaking of democracy, Trump campaigned on ending the Ukraine war and he solidly won the election, including the house, senate, and popular vote. Using diplomatic means to bring an end to the killing and an end to sending our taxpayer dollars to fund foreign wars is absolutely what the American people voted for.
- macinjosh 2y agoIt absolutely offers something in return. It gives the US interests in Ukraine and in maintaining the status quo so we can access those minerals. Putin wants them for himself. This is a clever way to push back at Putin while also compromising on having NATO at Russia's doorstep. It also compensates the US for its generous spending on Ukraine's plight. NATO is over anyway because European countries cannot or will not contribute their share and frankly the US isn't threatened by Russia in the same way it was during the Cold War. I much prefer a bi or tri polar world to the Cold War.
- tesrx 2y agoWell said. I completely agree.
- jonathanstrange 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoPlease don't cross into name-calling or attacking other users on HN. Your comment doesn't need those last bits. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- throwawayq3423 2y agoTrump is demanding a conditional surrender of Ukraine according to every Russian demand and calling it a peace deal. You should know that.
- dang 2y agoPlease don't cross into personal attack. Everyone here needs to make an extra effort to assume good faith, as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Otherwise we're just going to get in a downward spiral. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=downward%20spiral%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- AnotherGoodName 2y ago>We can and should compromise on this. With an insane 50% mineral rights demand by the USA in particular which should not be on the table in a deal between Ukraine and Russia? I'm not sure how you can post what you've posted with a straight face.
- UltraSane 2y agoIf your country was invaded by your neighbor would you want to fight them or just capitulate?
- vultour 2y agoExcept there is no reason for a compromise. Russia invaded Ukraine, they're free to withdraw any time they like. I wonder how anti-war you'd be if another country decided half of yours suddenly belonged to them.
- Dig1t 2y agoThere is absolutely a reason for compromise. Ukraine should be opposed to depopulating itself. The current situation is very similar to the trench warfare of WW1. Despite there being a clear initiator of WW1, BOTH sides absolutely had a huge reason to compromise. Over 8 million lives were lost, the reason to compromise was saving those 8 million lives.
- mcv 2y ago> Ukraine should be opposed to depopulating itself. And they are. They want the people back that Russia abducted, and the people who still live in the occupied territories. They can't bring back the dead obviously, but they can fight for the living. And for the future. To understand Ukraine's will to fight, you need to understand that they have lived under Moscow's yoke for generations. Their grandparents lived through the Holodomor, their parents lived under Soviet oppression. The current generation has known 30 years of freedom. And now they're faced with the possibility of their children living under Moscow rule again. This is why they fight so hard.
- pjc50 2y agoThere was never a compromise in WW1, Germany collapsed.
- yazaddaruvala 2y agoI empathize with your opinion Dig1t. War is horrible and meat grinders are especially so. But when a victimized population like Ukraine decides it wants to keep fighting. Especially given: > Ukraine should be opposed to depopulating itself. Then you gotta ask yourself: Given they would rather die than suffer the consequences of a compromise. Then maybe they know something about the consequences of that compromise that you and I can’t? and if so, maybe we should continue trusting the victims to not compromise ?
- collinmcnulty 2y agoYou cannot compromise with an aggressor, it encourages them to be more aggressive. Being anti-war to the point of allowing allies to be overrun by totalitarians is just foolishness, and a great way to create more war.
- amarcheschi 2y agoLeft - at least the moderate left in italy, I don't know what kind of American left you're talking about - is anti war in an anti _offensive_ war sense, not against a defensive war or against defending another more or less allied country from being invaded by another country I am not sure of course, but I guess the same would be true of other similar center left parties in europe
- terribleperson 2y agoWhat compromise do you suggest? So far what trump has been offering is "give us a bunch of stuff and get nothing in return". Compromise would be a peace deal that actually guarantees Ukraine's future safety (e.g. NATO membership or nuclear weapons) without further compromising their sovereignty (forcing them to give up more territory or recognize Russian territorial claims). We don't have the ability to compel Ukraine to take a bad deal, and if we did it would be wrong to.
- Dig1t 2y agoAny compromise at all which brings the meat grinder to an end. We basically have a WW1 situation where both sides are grinding themselves down and the only thing the left can bring themselves to support is continuing the conflict. Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. This is a good hint that you MIGHT not be on the good guys team as much as you think you are.
- JohnBooty 2y agoThis also puts you on the same side as Neville Chamberlain, so. There are a lot of bad people who espoused war in the past. There are also a lot of bad people who ran from war and appeased the Hitlers of the world, although many of their names did not survive because they weren't around afterward to write the histories. We tried doing literally nothing when Russia invaded Georgia, and we tried doing basically nothing when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. How did that work out? He invaded another god damned country. He really thought it was going to be a three-day operation; he thought he was going to be welcomed in Kiev. Should we have done nothing, forever?
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. Just think for a sec, if AOC and Dick Cheney can agree "person X is horrible", there's a good chance that person is horrible.
- terribleperson 2y agoThe position "any compromise that ends the war is acceptable" is a nonsensical idea that gives agressors the ability to take any territory they want from weaker nations. Invade weaker nation, take some land, then force them to surrender to 'save lives'. Do you not see where this absolutist idea leads? If the only thing that matters is saving lives, you can have whatever you want by taking lives. The end result is that people who are willing to kill for profit win. If you don't want the world to be ruled by people willing to kill for profit, you have to take action to make that behavior unprofitable.
- JohnFen 2y ago> What happened to the left that used to be anti-war? I am extremely anti-war, but capitulating to Russia and rewarding them for invading a neighbor would guarantee more war and killing, not less.
- brookst 2y agoIt’s bizarre that anyone would try to spin opposition to war for war’s sake as some kind of obligation to never fight regardless of the provocation or context. Yes, yes, I am opposed to punching random people on the street. It is bad manners. That does not mean I have to stand by and watch someone else get attacked for no reason.
- alabastervlog 2y agoFor fucking real, I was against invading Iraq (again...) for reasons pretty similar to why I'm against letting Russia take Ukraine.
- WD-42 2y agoI think traditionally anti war meant being opposed to aggression, for example the United States invasion of Iraq to maintain oil interests. Ukraine is a western country invaded by an enemy of the west. You can still be anti violence but it’s a different situation.
- Dig1t 2y agoEinstein was famously a pacifist, opposed to the concept of war. Many leftists used to be aligned with this as well. We are funding a meat grinder that has no sign of victory for either side anywhere in sight. This has been going on for years now. Long enough where we need to consider a diplomatic compromise, we can’t just keep pumping money into another country waiting for enough men to die, it is fundamentally evil. I know people feel that they are morally justified in funding the conflict forever because Russia is the aggressor. But at a certain point it becomes evil not to seek an end to the killing. Have you watched videos of the horrific things that are happening over there with drone warfare? How can you watch that and say “it’s okay to let this go on forever because technically Russia is the invader”?
- pjc50 2y agoEinstein was pro-nuke! Certainly applying the Einstein solution of a spread of nukes would end the war, very quickly.
- ioblomov 2y agoHe was only pro-nuke through fear that Hitler would get them first. After the war, he was as anti-nuke as Oppenheimer and the rest.
- justatdotin 2y agohe called his initial support 'the one great mistake of my life' - and spent the rest of it campaigning for disarmament
- dralley 2y ago> Einstein was famously a pacifist, opposed to the concept of war. And then his mind changed when confronted with WWII. “I am a pacifist in principle, but I am not an absolute pacifist.” >“it’s okay to let this go on forever because technically Russia is the invader”? There is no "technically". Russia is the invader. Russia can leave at any time and there will be peace very quickly.
- GeoAtreides 2y agoHow can you compromise with an invader looking to occupy your country?
- b112 2y agoCanada wonders this too. Perhaps the playbook is: * Russia takes part of Northern Canada (oil and lots of it, Northern passage aka the new Panama Canal) * Canada fights, but Russia remains * US says "If you were the 51st state, we could protect you" US gets Canada, Russia the Ukraine, neither side objects.
- throwawayq3423 2y ago[flagged]
- b112 2y ago[flagged]
- throwawayq3423 2y ago[flagged]
- b112 2y ago[flagged]
- throwawayq3423 2y ago[flagged]
- b112 2y ago[flagged]
- tbatchelli 2y agoMy understanding is that Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for an agreement Wirth Russia to not be invaded? If that is the case and Russia invaded anyway, then what kind of compromise can you have with a country that breaks any agreement they sign? I doubt many people want war, I know I don't. But once you have a warring nation going rouge, there aren't many options left on the table.
- dralley 2y agoWhich is just one of many, many broken agreements.
- hnuser9125 2y agoWhy is compromising the anti war stance? Ukraine is not Putin’s end goal, it’s his first step
- zimpenfish 2y ago> Ukraine is not Putin’s end goal, it’s his first step Technically his second given the invasion of Crimea.
- BigParm 2y agoIf Russian soldiers leave then the war ends immediately.
- sfifs 2y agoI don't think you should be down voted for opinions. The question is how to organize incentives to make anti-war ideal a reality. As the last 70 odd years have demonstrated, Economic development as a carrot alone seems to have not worked. The stick of MAD unfortunately seems to required.
- JohnBooty 2y agoIf Russia was allowed to annex Ukraine with no military resistance... would this not certainly encourage more invasions/annexations in the future between various countries? Would this not result in more violence in the long run?
- zeroCalories 2y agoNo one wants peace, they want justice. But putting aside all that nonsense, this is a relatively cheap way to fuck with Russia, one of our main geopolitical adversaries. If Ukraine is willing to jump into the meat grinder, let's give Russia the push it needs to join them. Don't give up a winning position for no reason.
- justatdotin 2y agoI agree that this accurately illustrates usa strategy on ukraine. of course the reason to stop killing people is to stop killing people.
- david422 2y agoRussia is not acting in good faith, so a compromise doesn't help. If both parties had legitimate grievances and acted in good faith, they could come to a peaceful lasting compromise. But instead, one nation aggressively invaded another with constantly shifting narratives for the reason why.
- mcv 2y ago> What happened to the left that used to be anti-war? The left is still anti-war. But most people on the left have paid enough attention to Putin to know that surrendering to him is not going to bring peace. This war didn't just start in 2022; Putin invaded Ukraine twice in 2014. He invaded Georgia in 2008. And very early on in his career, he completely demolished Chechnya. He's not a peace guy. And all those wars by Putin were rewarded, and so he continues. Now finally, people understand that giving Putin everything he wants is just going to make him want more and attack more. In Russia, they're already talking about Moldova, Estonia, Lithuania and even Poland. The only way this will end is by stopping Putin. The left didn't compromise with Hitler either. Surrendering to Hitler didn't bring anyone peace. Peace came only after defeating Hitler. And unfortunately, it's exactly the same with Putin. Except nobody is going to march on Moscow, because Putin has nukes. So the only way to stop him becomes letting him exhaust his country until it collapses. That sounds terrible, but Ukraine is actually willing and eager to be the anvil on which Russia destroys itself. All we need to do is continue to support Ukraine with everything they need and more. I know it's terrible. You can blame Putin for that. But this may be the only way to put an end to Putin's bottomless aggression.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoThose of us truly anti-war realize that allowing Ukraine to be punished/Ukrainians to be kidnapped for giving up their nuclear weapons will only lead to future wars and future nuclear proliferation, not less war..
- Glyptodon 2y agoUnfortunately, if we do not want to have a direct conflict with Russia, the next best thing is giving Ukraine massive amounts of weapons, arms, etc., and enabling them to retake their country. Any alternative that allows Russian gains will only further cement the idea that wars of aggression can be worthwhile in the modern world, and this is the most horrendous conclusion possible for anyone actually anti-war.
- marcusverus 2y ago> and enabling them to retake their country. The West has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and money, yet the Ukranians have made near-zero progress. They are incapable of retaking their country without direct intervention from NATO, which is not an option.
- Glyptodon 2y agoThen you give them more and more weapons forever until it's like Korea rather than give in.
- marcusverus 2y agoNobody is stopping you from giving money. You won't, because you don't actually care.
- y0ssar1an 2y agoAs if the Ukrainians had a choice about fighting. If Russia gives up, the war ends. If Ukraine gives up, Ukraine ends.
- ifyoubuildit 2y agoIt's nice to see a speck of sanity in this thread. Oh but didn't you know that all that aid money is actually going to America(n weapons manufacturers, who will then lobby us into the next forever war after this one). If you were wondering how american politicians managed to piss away trillions of dollars in the middle east instead of fixing healthcare or education, building trains, doing anything the least bit useful, this is how. You gin the people up into believing that there's a bad guy somewhere and its our job to make things right, and you're off to the races. Works every time.
- danny_taco 2y agoOk. Let's pretend this is what is done. Russia gets to keep all the land it took from Ukraine, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. Who's going to stop Russia from re-arming and building up its army only to launch another attack in 2-3 years? Who's going to prevent them from destabilizing Ukraine until it falls? Russia won't stop until it has destroyed Ukraine, that much is certain. Russia only understands strength, and they won't stop until stopped by force. But hey, peace is more important right? Maybe they should just take Ukraine, capture, torture, rape and murder all the people they deem as undesirables and convert it to another Russian oblast as it was once before. Then there will be peace. I would imagine you would also lay down at your own home if someone breaks in and tries to rape and murder your family just for the sake of peace?
- jemmyw 2y agoUkraine offered an alternative approach. They are willing to compromise on territory - i.e. stop fighting over it, not give up the claim to it. What they want, and they've said it again and again, is a security guarantee for the future to prevent Russia invading again. Either membership of NATO or a specific treaty. This is their one goal beyond coming under the control of Russia during this specific war, not having to worry about being invaded again. If they don't get it then they're likely to start developing a nuclear deterrent (they've already indicated this and they probably have the capability).
- anigbrowl 2y agoI mean Russia could leave, pull their troops back in Russia. It's not like the Ukrainians invaded Russia, or have annexed any Russian territory that they want to keep. The Russians were not in fact forced to invade.
- Jare 2y agoThe (moderate) left was anti-oppression and anti-dictatorship. Sometimes you need to fight for that, but the goal remains a stable, egalitarian and peaceful society. If your anti-war stance means I can punch you in the face and your reaction is to compromise on "ok but no more punching", your face is going to look very bad very soon.