-
1). If the Ukrainians want to lay down their arms and surrender they can do that. If they want to fight, we should assist them as we best we can within the confines of avoiding a direct conflict with Russia.
2). Yes, the Ukrainians are fighting for all of us. They are fighting for a future as a sovereign nation, and as a market-based democracy, because they know that is the best way of life.
3). What is the alternative? Looking the other way as Putin destroys and enslaves them?
4). How can you be certain that Putin wins? People point to Chechnya or Syria, but this is a very different war on a far larger scale. Putin bet the house, but he doesn't have an endless supply of resources.
5). How far are Ukraine from pushing Russia to the negotiating table? Maybe they manage to score some major reverses in the field. Maybe public opinion in Russia decisively turns against Putin as losses mount and sanctions bite. Maybe there is a palace coup. Maybe Russian forces desert en masse as morale already seems to be low. Maybe China turns against Russia.
I don't think there is anything cynical in hoping the Ukrainians can resist total subjugation.
-
Glenn Greenwald makes that point but it very depressing
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1498658078232920069I guess as long as Ukrainian's ask for support though they should receive it
-
I see what you’re saying but as @revenant. says the Ukrainians can give up and accept Russian rule if they want. The fact is funnily enough they don’t want to be conquered, and women and children are busy making Molotov cocktails in the streets.
If we are talking about stopping bloodshed, for a Russian tank crew about to enter a Ukrainian village - the knowledge that Ukrainian villagers have an anti tank weapon gifted from the UK will be far more effective at stopping them from choosing to enter the town than a few bottles of vodka and matches.. -
I think what you're not factoring in is the effect on Russian public opinion of Putin failing to secure a fast victory and of thousands of young Russian men being returned ro Russia in boxes. Nobody celebrates the loss of life on either side, but Putin has seemed immovable so far because he has been seen to create stability rather than prosperity. If his judgement is shown not to be sound and it costs Russian lives (during the invasion and the occupation) then he may be ousted.
-
Not half baked at all.
The west, mainly the US, trapped the Soviet Union in a long term war in Afghanistan by sending arms. That played a significant part in the eventual crumbling of the regime. If this one goes long, it could certainly bring Putin down and potentially get rid of Russia as an obstacle to US / western power in the region.
Is it in the interests of the Ukranian people? Most likely not as it will prolong the hell of war that they have to endure, the suffering, the death, the disruption, the fracture of civil society. It will also make the Russians up the ante. Instead of sending infantry in, they will feel the need to bomb every town flat first.
From the point of view of the average Ukranian civilian, the quicker it was over, the better. For an ordinary civilian, being on the losing side in a quick war is not necessarily a terrible outcome, but being in a never-ending war certainly is.
You are reading a single comment by @carson and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
deleted
greentricky
Jameo
ffm
frank9755
@carson
Apologies for the ramble and no doubt half baked thoughts below - I am no expert on geopolitics, but...
Is there not something morally ambiguous, or even dishonest about the west's posture in this war in Ukraine.
Cutting through the wishful thinking and propaganda, there doesn't seem to be any serious credence given to the idea that Ukraine will secure a military victory - rather, the grim reality that Russia will simply escalate the violence to such an extent as is required to win is predicted and expected across the board.
If that is our expectation, then why are we arming the Ukrainians and in turn provoking the Russian escalation, when all we believe it can lead to is the destruction of Ukrainians cities and the blood loss of it's military and civilian populations? To say nothing of the refugee misery.
The west is resolved not to enter the conflict militarily and secure a victory for Ukraine, so why do we not accept what we believe to be inevitable and not prolong and intensify the suffering of Ukrainians?
There seems an obvious, and terrible cynical answer...because it suits the West for Ukraine to suffer - the more grotesque and public the better. The more the Ukrainians are obliterated, the more the West can pursue a bloodless (western) and morally certain campaign against Putin. The Ukrainian's blood is fueling our PR / Russia's negative PR - it justifies our sanctions and weakens Russia internally.
Apart from the violation of the principal of national sovereignty, does the West really care about the fate of Ukraine? We clap for an independent Ukraine, but having Russia bogged down in a ghastly, messy war of occupation is perhaps of far more practical use to us, isn't it?
Did the west arm and train the Mujahideen in Afghanistan because we gave a shit about that country's fate?
I don't doubt that there is very much genuine outrage and sympathy - and that many if not most are genuinely conflicted by the motivation of wanting to do all they can without risking the terrible fate of nuclear war. But surely there must be those who know how this ends - and know that there is much to be gained if it doesn't end too quickly, or too cleanly. And the cynicism of those people, posturing with Ukraine flags and chanting solidarity is sickening.