3 ms·

I'm not sure where you got the 'chicken' business from, but regardless, folks who want everyone to bend the knee to Putin are usually acting out of malice, not

by m4ck_ 9mo ago

I'm not sure where you got the 'chicken' business from, but regardless, folks who want everyone to bend the knee to Putin are usually acting out of malice, not fear. Is it really warmongering to suggest a country should police it's own territory, or defend it's own interests from aggression aimed at them? And, how is that aggression towards them not warmongering? If Russia isn't responsible for these attacks on infrastructure, then no one should have a problem with the crew being tossed in prison and the boat being chopped up and turned into patio furniture or repurposed as a reef. If they are responsible, then they're the warmongers; only a fundamentally dishonest person would suggest a measured response to or self defense against an attack is warmongering. btw i'm not even suggesting anyone go to war with russia. But more than likely capitulation is going to fail and russia will cross a line with their acts of sabotage and terrorism in Europe (or they'll just move on to whoever is next after Ukraine.) Since you brought up WWII, remind me, how did capitulating to Hitler in 1938 work out in the long run?

mmooss 9mo ago
> I'm not sure where you got the 'chicken' business from Implying that people are cowardly for not pursuing aggression is like high schoolers calling each other 'chicken' for not doing something. > folks who want everyone to bend the knee to Putin are usually acting out of malice, not fear. I don't necessarily agree - people do feel fear. Regardless, who wants capitulation? Could you point out some leader? Or even a comment on this long page? Not agreeing with aggression != supporting capitulation. There are infinitely more solutions. The question is, what outcome do you want and what acts are most likely to get you there? Aggression is emotionally satisfying, in the short term, but usually results in bad outcomes. > Is it really warmongering to suggest a country should police it's own territory, or defend it's own interests from aggression aimed at them? If the proposed solution is warfare, then it's warmongering. The point is that are many other solutions. And self-righteousness is irrelevant - it doesn't make the outcome better or worse; it's therefore a dangerous distraction, likely to cause sub-optimal outcomes (usually bad ones). Using it as a reason to pursue warfare is a hallmark of warmongering. > they're the warmongers They are, in a sense, but that doesn't change what you do. Again, it's an argument from self-righteousness - 'they started it'. That doesn't matter; what matters is the outcome and warfare is one option that provides one range of outcomes (almost all horrible, almost universally different than what was expected when the decision was made - think of Ukraine, Iraq, etc. etc.). Russia is not a warmonger, in an important sense: They deliberately use 'grey zone' tactics, actions short of being sufficient to provoke war. It's fundamental to their strategy and therefore essential to understand: They intend to cause political change, not warfare. You can see their effectiveness in the emotional responses on this page. They disregard outcomes - you can bet that while some have temporary emotional satisfaction, the outcomes will be Russia's.
- jarito 9mo ago
  This is...not true. Attacking key infrastructure is an act of war. Just because they try to do it secretly doesn't change that fact. 'Grey zone' tactics doesn't make any difference here. Green men, intel services, etc. are still government entities acting at the behest of the leadership to commit acts of war. The argument here is about appeasement or not. If you allow continued acts of war to pass without response, you get more of them. This is the lesson of bullies from the playground to WW2. I'm more than willing to have a conversation about what sort of response is the best, but saying that Russia is not a warmonger is incorrect - they are committing acts of war. Just because no one has called them on it yet doesn't make it not warmongering.
  - mmooss 9mo ago
    > Attacking key infrastructure is an act of war. You can say what you like, but nobody with expertise or authority agrees either that it's strategic infrastructure (if that's what you mean) or that it's anything like an act of war or casus belli. I'm willing to bet that nobody has ever started a war over a cut cable.
    - jarito 9mo ago
      Man, you have a love of arguments to authority. Just saying that everyone else thinks something isn't an argument and condescending to everyone isn't compelling, especially when you are incorrect. US definition of critical infrastructure includes Communications (https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/communications-sector https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security...). The EU lists digital infrastructure as well - https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/counter-terrorism-and-radicalisation/protection/critical-infrastructure-resilience-eu-level_en https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security.... Two seconds. That's how long that took. It _is_ strategic infrastructure and is declared so by everyone with expertise and authority. Since there are plenty of examples of wars caused by damaging / interrupting infrastructure - see any sort of blockade, you would lose that bet. People and countries go to war for lots of reasons - sometimes even pigs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)). You have a reasonable argument on the basis of proportional response. I don't buy it, but it is a think that people can have a reasonable discussion about. If you engage in that discussion in good faith and stop condescending to everyone, you might have a better time and actually learn something.
cindyllm 9mo ago
[dead]

by m4ck_ 9mo ago

mmooss 9mo ago

> I'm not sure where you got the 'chicken' business from Implying that people are cowardly for not pursuing aggression is like high schoolers calling each other 'chicken' for not doing something. > folks who want everyone to bend the knee to Putin are usually acting out of malice, not fear. I don't necessarily agree - people do feel fear. Regardless, who wants capitulation? Could you point out some leader? Or even a comment on this long page? Not agreeing with aggression != supporting capitulation. There are infinitely more solutions. The question is, what outcome do you want and what acts are most likely to get you there? Aggression is emotionally satisfying, in the short term, but usually results in bad outcomes. > Is it really warmongering to suggest a country should police it's own territory, or defend it's own interests from aggression aimed at them? If the proposed solution is warfare, then it's warmongering. The point is that are many other solutions. And self-righteousness is irrelevant - it doesn't make the outcome better or worse; it's therefore a dangerous distraction, likely to cause sub-optimal outcomes (usually bad ones). Using it as a reason to pursue warfare is a hallmark of warmongering. > they're the warmongers They are, in a sense, but that doesn't change what you do. Again, it's an argument from self-righteousness - 'they started it'. That doesn't matter; what matters is the outcome and warfare is one option that provides one range of outcomes (almost all horrible, almost universally different than what was expected when the decision was made - think of Ukraine, Iraq, etc. etc.). Russia is not a warmonger, in an important sense: They deliberately use 'grey zone' tactics, actions short of being sufficient to provoke war. It's fundamental to their strategy and therefore essential to understand: They intend to cause political change, not warfare. You can see their effectiveness in the emotional responses on this page. They disregard outcomes - you can bet that while some have temporary emotional satisfaction, the outcomes will be Russia's.

jarito 9mo ago
This is...not true. Attacking key infrastructure is an act of war. Just because they try to do it secretly doesn't change that fact. 'Grey zone' tactics doesn't make any difference here. Green men, intel services, etc. are still government entities acting at the behest of the leadership to commit acts of war. The argument here is about appeasement or not. If you allow continued acts of war to pass without response, you get more of them. This is the lesson of bullies from the playground to WW2. I'm more than willing to have a conversation about what sort of response is the best, but saying that Russia is not a warmonger is incorrect - they are committing acts of war. Just because no one has called them on it yet doesn't make it not warmongering.
- mmooss 9mo ago
  > Attacking key infrastructure is an act of war. You can say what you like, but nobody with expertise or authority agrees either that it's strategic infrastructure (if that's what you mean) or that it's anything like an act of war or casus belli. I'm willing to bet that nobody has ever started a war over a cut cable.
  - jarito 9mo ago
    Man, you have a love of arguments to authority. Just saying that everyone else thinks something isn't an argument and condescending to everyone isn't compelling, especially when you are incorrect. US definition of critical infrastructure includes Communications (https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors/communications-sector https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security...). The EU lists digital infrastructure as well - https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/counter-terrorism-and-radicalisation/protection/critical-infrastructure-resilience-eu-level_en https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security.... Two seconds. That's how long that took. It _is_ strategic infrastructure and is declared so by everyone with expertise and authority. Since there are plenty of examples of wars caused by damaging / interrupting infrastructure - see any sort of blockade, you would lose that bet. People and countries go to war for lots of reasons - sometimes even pigs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)). You have a reasonable argument on the basis of proportional response. I don't buy it, but it is a think that people can have a reasonable discussion about. If you engage in that discussion in good faith and stop condescending to everyone, you might have a better time and actually learn something.

cindyllm 9mo ago

[dead]