I don’t think anyone here is suggesting we are in a movie or video game situation. A lot of the arguments here are rooted in history.
I believe the argument you made is simply beneficial to authoritarianism which is why folks are leaving intense replies. If the idea you’re proposing is saving lives at all cost, then it is no different functionally from the ideology of “might makes right.”
Quickly negotiating a defeat to save lives means that the USA, China and Russia can and should invade every square foot of land that they desire as fast as possible. The blame would then be on the victims for not giving up quicker to save lives.
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 am not referring to you as a Tanky like other folks, to be clear. I’m more civil than that :)
I think the issue I personally have with your argument is that I do not think there is an “advocate for peace” option left on the table. Functionally, what would that look like today? Losing autonomy over your land, your culture, your people, so that Russia will stop blowing things up. That to me does not seem to be advocating for peace, it seems to be advocating for defeat and potentially, a long-game genocide.
Hey, I don’t agree with you, but I also don’t agree with others here putting words into your mouth. But just like I’m asking others to take a breath, I’m going to ask you the same.
I think you could have been better served here by disengaging instead of escalating. Or maybe, by answering the question posed, and re-starting your view without being argumentative. You’re falling into the trap of generalizing the same way a few of the comments below you did.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I don’t think anyone here is suggesting we are in a movie or video game situation. A lot of the arguments here are rooted in history.
I believe the argument you made is simply beneficial to authoritarianism which is why folks are leaving intense replies. If the idea you’re proposing is saving lives at all cost, then it is no different functionally from the ideology of “might makes right.”
Quickly negotiating a defeat to save lives means that the USA, China and Russia can and should invade every square foot of land that they desire as fast as possible. The blame would then be on the victims for not giving up quicker to save lives.
Surely you can see how this is a problem?
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 am not referring to you as a Tanky like other folks, to be clear. I’m more civil than that :)
I think the issue I personally have with your argument is that I do not think there is an “advocate for peace” option left on the table. Functionally, what would that look like today? Losing autonomy over your land, your culture, your people, so that Russia will stop blowing things up. That to me does not seem to be advocating for peace, it seems to be advocating for defeat and potentially, a long-game genocide.
Hey, I don’t agree with you, but I also don’t agree with others here putting words into your mouth. But just like I’m asking others to take a breath, I’m going to ask you the same.
I think you could have been better served here by disengaging instead of escalating. Or maybe, by answering the question posed, and re-starting your view without being argumentative. You’re falling into the trap of generalizing the same way a few of the comments below you did.