• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 8th, 2023

help-circle







  • I don’t believe the only options are to do nothing or to use horrific weapons which primary kill civilians and which have been banned by over 100 countries, including major U.S allies who, unlike almost everyone in this thread, are quite critical of the United States for sending these munitions to the battlefield.

    If the logic of supporting Ukraine and ending the conflict as quickly as possible supports the use of cluster bombs, why not chemical weapons? Why not nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line with this logic of escalation?


  • What I said was that Western nations funneling increasingly deadly weapons into a brutal war might not be the best of all options, and that maybe, maybe, working towards a negotiated settlement that ends the war, even if it means territorial losses for Ukraine, would be better. That is not “saving lives at all costs”, that is not “blaming the victims for not giving up quicker”. The idea that the only options are complete and unambiguous Ukrainian victory or the extermination of everyone in Ukraine, (an argument being made here by people, incidentally, who clearly have no skin in the game), is the logic of armageddon.

    The logical gymnastics here are just astonishing. To suggest an alternative to military escalation makes me a tanky. To suggest negotiations makes me an authoritarian. To advocate for peace is to advocate for “might makes right”. This is the logic of nationalism.


  • I’m sorry, did you just accuse me of being a far-right tanky for suggesting that a negotiated peace might be the best of bad options?

    What exactly do you think the word “tanky” means?

    It’s interesting how everyone is anti-war until there’s a war, then everyone is suddenly a nationalist. This isn’t a video game, this isn’t a movie.


  • There is a very real possibility that Ukraine is going to lose this war, and I’ve not heard realistically say this war will be over soon. In which case a plausible argument could be made on humanitarian grounds that a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible is the best of the bad options. But seems not to be what the United States or Ukraine wants, so. It’s really quite fucked up.

    Like I don’t know how I would feel if I were Ukrainian. I absolutely think they are on the right side of this. What the Russian soldiers have been doing to Ukraine is despicable. But with cities being destroyed, nuclear power plants at risk, massive oil pipelines being bombed in the ocean, millions of people displaced…


  • if dropping ten of these prevents the Russians from dropping one of theirs you are coming out ahead in terms of UXO

    Hmm. However justified one feels Ukraine’s struggle is, it’s hard to understand how sending more weapons into a brutal war will result in less violence. NATO supplying Ukraine with weapons is not having the effect of shortening the conflict, it’s having the exact opposite effect. You can make an argument that the U.S and its allies should continue to support Ukraine so that Ukraine can hopefully win this conflict, but that’s a different argument than the humanitarian angle of shortening the conflict.

    This is a very, very dangerous game that is being played. Russia has nuclear weapons. It’s a real tragedy what’s happening one way or another.