Focusing in on his one singular good take to criticize as usual.
Minimizing loss of life by negotiating peace is a good thing. The hawks didn't get enough from our last 20 year war that just ended so they want to indefinitely commit to another conflict, and it doesn't matter how many die or whether there's anything other than rubble left afterwards, all that matters is nationalist pride and defense industry profits. I wish they'd asked Harris what the timetable was, how long and exactly how much blood and treasure she's willing to commit over a couple provinces on the other side of the world.
How quickly we forget the past. People learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan.
If only we could get someone who's consistently anti-war, and not an absolutely horrible and disgusting person in every other aspect.
Hmmm... I'm a staunch pacifist and also 100% behind helping Ukraine. These things are not at odds because the enemy of pacifism is aggression. The person that can actually end the war is on the other side of the world.
Then you are not a pacifist. Words mean things.
You don't get to call yourself a pacifist, let alone a staunch one, and then rally around the defense of the fatherland, even if it's your own fatherland, which in this case I'm assuming it's not. This is complete nonsense and hypocrisy.
I'm a Roman Legionnarie out fighting in Gaul, but I'm a "staunch pacifist," you see, because Rome made an alliance with one of the Gallic tribes and its neighbor tried to mess with it, so now, I'm out here slaughtering foreigners hundreds of miles away from home to defend Rome's honor. But I'm a pacifist, you see!
What the hell does "pacifism" mean to you?
Here's how Google defines it:
the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.
I've read works by actual pacifists such as Tolstoy, whose views reflected that definition. Can you cite any "pacifist" who thinks supporting a war, even a defensive one, is consistent with pacifism?
This take is so stupid, it doesn't warrant a response.
What does the word 'take' mean if it can include a dictionary definition of a word?
Take is a weird word. Take as a noun refers to what has been taken. So, in this context, it is like an opinion informed by a story. In a more definitional use..
I took from that story that the sky is blue. That is what I have taken from that story, therefore, that is my take.
I'm sorry your response indicates that my intent went over your head. You positioned someone telling you the literal definition of a word and then a historical example as an opinion. You're being childish with your refusal to engage in honest conversation.
Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn't warrant a response?
Well I don't talk like that because I'm not an insufferable redditor. If I have a problem with something someone said I don't make a smug meta comment about how I'm not going to engage despite engaging. I'm going to directly address the problem I have.
That dude's comment was 100% troll baiting. No one makes such braindead arguments in good faith. Why would I waste my time? Now, I'm curious.. why are you so upset about my response to a blatant troll?
What a child. Now quoting to you the meaning of a word is a 'braindead argument'? Speaking of someone's brain not working, your only arguments are to handwave with thought terminating cliches.
Sorry, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand that pacifism is when you're pro-war, actually. And I guess the fact that I backed it up with the actual definition and with actual pacifist theory I've read further shows that I'm obviously wrong.
I will defer to your judgement, O Wise One. I accept your definition. I'm a pacifist too, I oppose violence in every case except for the cases where I don't. Pacifism.
you’re pro-war, actually.
Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I'm sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I'm not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn't want any punches thrown in the first place.
That's nonsense. If "pro-war" means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I'm not "pro-war" because I don't actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I'd say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly "pro-war", as they went in without provocation and the justification of "WMD" was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it's weird to characterize self-defense as "pro-war" or "being a war hawk". One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it's wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as "pro-war".
For example, I haven't thrown a punch in decades, I don't want to throw a punch and I'll avoid doing so if there's a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse
This is the main point I was making. In the context of discussing pacifism, which condemns all war, supporting any war is pro-war, at least relative to the actual meaning of pacifism.
Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have "do no harm" as a tenant) into a single "pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others". Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers
Then provide me with a source to these pacifist philosophers who support war.
Also, 100 years seems way short. In the Bible, Jesus taught, "turn the other cheek," and "be good to those who hurt you," and chided one of his followers when he attacked a Roman and is said to have healed his wound. If pro-war pacifism counts as part of the tradition, then surely that would as well.
(and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have “do no harm” as a tenant)
Do you mean, for example, the Jains? Because they also belong to the type of pacifism that is opposed to war.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
No, because I'm not a pacifist. I just know what the word means.
Here's a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn't always mean a lack of self defense.
As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.
The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.
If you're not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
Since you're not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.
If you’re not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
This is nonsense. Suppose I eat meat, but I call myself a vegan. If you're not a vegan, then should you defer to me on how to define what a vegan is?
If pacifism does not mean opposition to war, then sure, I'm a pacifist, why not. We're all pacifists. It means literally nothing.
Your first link actually provides a neat little term for people who want to tell everyone how much they love peace while supporting war - "Pacificism." "A useful term to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but who accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace." I don't think I've ever met a single person in my life who doesn't meet that description - except, I suppose, actual pacifists. Dick fucking Cheney is a "Pacificist." Completely meaningless.
Your second source I can't access beyond the first page. Your third source does raise a valid point, I stand corrected.
I do not support the war in Ukraine, not because I'm a pacifist, but because I'm a communist. There is substantial overlap between the two, but the main difference is that I make an exception for wars along class lines, which this isn't. The common people are being drafted against their will to fight a pointless war over which reactionary government controls a patch of land.
Go tell Putin and his friends to stop the invasion and hand back all the Ukrainian territory they’ve stolen. It’s easy!
Wow, if it's that easy, then I definitely don't think people should be going out and dying over it, there's just no reason for it when anybody could just pick up the phone and tell him to give the territory back instead.
You were so close to understanding sarcasm
So were you.
I agree that people shouldn’t have to die over this, but Putin is dedicated to the invasion on Ukraine. He won’t stop just because someone kindly ask him to stop over the phone. He’ll continue until there’s no Ukraine anymore, and then he might also go for Moldova and other former Soviet countries.
Ukraine has to defend themselves for as long as Putin is willing to continue the war.
Exactly. You can always tell when uninformed people chime in with their opinions on this topic. Ukraine has already attempted to achieve peace with Russia multiple times, under the condition that they return stolen territory. That's a pretty easy thing for Russia to do but they won't.
So, 20 years from now, if Putin is still willing to continue the war, which is to say, not fully recognize all Ukrainian claims including claims that Russia held before the war as a precondition to negotiations, then you'll still be sending more and more guns and bombs in until there are no two stones left on top of each other in the whole country.
Okay, so what's your timetable then?
It's a shame Putin is a bloodthirsty weirdo who won't listen, I guess.
To be unwavering anti-war including defensive wars, is appeasement, and WWII is a demonstration of exactly where that leads. Even if you ignore all the combat related deaths, millions were still just butchered by the nazis in non-combat situations, and that number would have been even more if no one stood up to counter. The reluctance to forceful resistance resulted in more deaths including innocent non-combatants. Problem is in reality, if all the 'good' folks are anti-war, then the one asshole who is pro-offensive war conquers all. Being highly skeptical of war, especially offensive war I can see, but to stand aside as evil just takes and takes is too far.
Further, it's not our blood to commit, it's the Ukrainians. We are supplying but it's their skin in the game, not our forces. It's their choice to make and we are supporting that decision in the face of a completely unjustified invasion. This is distinct from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we went in with our own forces to unilaterally try to force our desired reality on a sovereign nation. If Ukraine decided to give in, we would not stand in the way, even if we were disappointed in the result.
Also, the only reason the goalposts moved to 'a couple of provinces' is that Russia was stopped when they tried to just take the whole thing. If Russia had just rolled in to easy three day victory, then the goalposts would have moved to have even more Russian expansion (as happened in WWII with Germany).
Thank you for that argument on why pacifism is wrong but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that that's what pacifism means.
This was a reply to your stance, not a rejection of your definition of pacifism. Your comment didn't claim anything about the definition of pacifism, and neither did mine.
Now maybe you meant my other comment, where you responded to someone asserting being a pacifist is actually "pro-war". In which case I also did not speak one way or another on your definition of pacifism, but your characterization of people supporting self-defense as being "pro-war".
My mistake.
Regarding your previous comment, the comparison to Hitler has been used by high ranking figures in the US to justify every major conflict for the past 70 years, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Iraq. In retrospect, it's easy to see how completely nonsensical such claims were - somehow, Vietnam did not go on to conquer the world after we lost.
However, no matter how clearly wrong such comparisons and such conflicts are, they are generally accepted, and each of those conflicts was begun with overwhelming popular support.
I happen to think that one conflict from 70 years ago isn't the only thing we should be thinking about or comparing conflicts to when we judge them in the modern day. Why is it necessary to go back so far to find a conflict where the US was justified?
Because the US is frequently not justified and has the history of being the warmonger, so they are often unjustified. That says nothing about the Ukrainian situation though, where a well established independent nation was subject to a military invasion. There isn't significant "gray area" to find in this scenario.
There are justified US military operations in more recent history but those aren't useful as an example either. Because the prospect of someone actually "caving" to invasion is a rare situation, and we do have to go back 70 years to cite an example of what happens when major powers try the "let the dictator win without resistance" strategy. The major powers learned something in the 1930s and have not repeated that behavior.
Here's another example of "letting the dictator win without resistance." The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Soviet revolutionaries had rallied the people in opposition the the meat grinder of WWI, in which the Russian people were being slaughtered en masse for no real benefit. So when Lenin came to power, he signed a treaty with Kaiser Wilhelm that was very favorable to Germany and ceded a considerable amount of territory to him. The resulting peace stopped the killing and allowed the Russians to focus on rebuilding.
If you take a broader historical view, you can see that the reality is more complex. There are numerous differences between the situation in the 30's and the situation now, and even then it's only one example, and one that's vastly overused. And the reason that it's overused is that it can be used as a pretty generic pro-war argument for any war imaginable. "If we don't beat them now, they'll keep coming forever." All you have to do is paint the people you're fighting in a negative light and you can sell people on it.
For these reasons, I reject the comparison. I think it's intellectually lazy.
In the WWI scenario, Russia was able to have a reprieve because the central powers had other things to do. So "appeasement" worked at least in the scenario where the opposition has multiple other fronts to contend with, and also when that would-be opponent ultimately lost. WWI was a lot more "gray area" so it's hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.
For the opposite experience for Russia, see WWII where they started off with appeasing Germany and then got invaded two years later.
But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn't actually have a horse in the race doesn't apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace. We don't have US military being ordered to go in to fight and die in that conflict.
it’s hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.
Then why is it so easy to say that modern Russia would continue expanding forever? Isn't it possible that Putin is more like Kaiser Wilhelm than Adolf Hitler?
But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn’t actually have a horse in the race doesn’t apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace.
They do though. They could negotiate peace at the cost of territorial concessions, the same way the Soviets did. It's not that the Soviets didn't have a dog in the fight, they surely would've preferred a better treaty that preserved more of their territory, but they prioritized peace instead.
This isn't entirely incorrect, but this is pretty much what happened 10 years ago. And here we are. You can argue appeasement or suggest this is a one-time thing, but it's already the second time. Also, Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire, so suggesting he will stop here on his own goes against his own statements.
Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire
No, he has not. Source.
Okay, you're sort if correct. He alluded to it. He mentioned the Russian Empire attacking various neighbors and taking over their territory using excuses of ethnicity and then referred to it as returning and reinforcing, not conquering. He then said it fell to their lot to return and reinforce, as well. Here's a link that discusses it. Given the date and the discussion, I'm sure you can find other sources for it. That was just the first that appeared on my search.
Exactly how much Ukrainian land should Russia get to keep in this negotiation? Percentage is fine.
The exact lines would have to be negotiated. For starters, obviously Russia is going to keep Crimea which they held before the war started. At most, they'd receive the disputed provinces which had been fighting in the civil war before they got involved, which requested Russian assistance. I don't know what percentage of Ukrainian territory those provinces are.
The exact amount of loss that's acceptable to achieve peace is debatable, but there hasn't been any discussion of it whatsoever. Zelensky has insisted on zero territorial concessions at all, including retaking Crimea, which is completely unrealistic.
And, I suppose, all Ukraine gets out of the deal is that Russia stops taking more of their territory. For now. This sounds like it's all in Russia's favor.
As opposed to what, exactly? Like, even in your wildest fantasies, how does this go exactly? Ukraine reclaims all of it's lost territory, including Crimea somehow, and then negotiates peace. For now. Oh, I guess that's not enough then, is it? So what, does Ukraine seize Russian territory? Does Russia get coup'ed, and the US hand picks someone to be in charge to make sure that Russia is never threatens anyone ever again, like it did in the 90's? Hey, wait a minute...
Sometimes conflicts end without one side being completely annihilated, and no matter how the conflict ends, that's how it's going to end. Ukraine can negotiate for security guarantees, but what that would look like exactly would have to be worked out in the negotiations that aren't happening.
Well you've decided how I fantasize it will go, so I guess I don't have to tell you. Congratulations on your psychic powers.
I made a guess, if I'm wrong, explain it to me.
You didn't make a guess, you told me what is not enough for me. Don't try to weasel out of it now. You're clearly not interested in knowing what I think.
Lol, ok. So you don't have an answer, got it.
I do have an answer. You told me what it was, remember?
You're playing games to avoid answering because you can't.
If you apologize for putting words in my mouth or someone else asks me, I will answer. Until then, we'll just go with your mind-reading answer.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I intended what I said to be a supposition, not an actual claim of knowledge regarding your beliefs, but I can see how it could've been interpreted that way.
Marxist-leninist account made inconsolable from others that say supporting a country resist russian invasion is worth fighting and funding a defensive war. Go figure
Focusing in on his one singular good take to criticize as usual.
Minimizing loss of life by negotiating peace is a good thing. The hawks didn't get enough from our last 20 year war that just ended so they want to indefinitely commit to another conflict, and it doesn't matter how many die or whether there's anything other than rubble left afterwards, all that matters is nationalist pride and defense industry profits. I wish they'd asked Harris what the timetable was, how long and exactly how much blood and treasure she's willing to commit over a couple provinces on the other side of the world.
How quickly we forget the past. People learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan.
If only we could get someone who's consistently anti-war, and not an absolutely horrible and disgusting person in every other aspect.
Hmmm... I'm a staunch pacifist and also 100% behind helping Ukraine. These things are not at odds because the enemy of pacifism is aggression. The person that can actually end the war is on the other side of the world.
Then you are not a pacifist. Words mean things.
You don't get to call yourself a pacifist, let alone a staunch one, and then rally around the defense of the fatherland, even if it's your own fatherland, which in this case I'm assuming it's not. This is complete nonsense and hypocrisy.
I'm a Roman Legionnarie out fighting in Gaul, but I'm a "staunch pacifist," you see, because Rome made an alliance with one of the Gallic tribes and its neighbor tried to mess with it, so now, I'm out here slaughtering foreigners hundreds of miles away from home to defend Rome's honor. But I'm a pacifist, you see!
What the hell does "pacifism" mean to you?
Here's how Google defines it:
I've read works by actual pacifists such as Tolstoy, whose views reflected that definition. Can you cite any "pacifist" who thinks supporting a war, even a defensive one, is consistent with pacifism?
This take is so stupid, it doesn't warrant a response.
What does the word 'take' mean if it can include a dictionary definition of a word?
Take is a weird word. Take as a noun refers to what has been taken. So, in this context, it is like an opinion informed by a story. In a more definitional use..
I took from that story that the sky is blue. That is what I have taken from that story, therefore, that is my take.
I'm sorry your response indicates that my intent went over your head. You positioned someone telling you the literal definition of a word and then a historical example as an opinion. You're being childish with your refusal to engage in honest conversation.
Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn't warrant a response?
Well I don't talk like that because I'm not an insufferable redditor. If I have a problem with something someone said I don't make a smug meta comment about how I'm not going to engage despite engaging. I'm going to directly address the problem I have.
That dude's comment was 100% troll baiting. No one makes such braindead arguments in good faith. Why would I waste my time? Now, I'm curious.. why are you so upset about my response to a blatant troll?
What a child. Now quoting to you the meaning of a word is a 'braindead argument'? Speaking of someone's brain not working, your only arguments are to handwave with thought terminating cliches.
Sorry, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand that pacifism is when you're pro-war, actually. And I guess the fact that I backed it up with the actual definition and with actual pacifist theory I've read further shows that I'm obviously wrong.
I will defer to your judgement, O Wise One. I accept your definition. I'm a pacifist too, I oppose violence in every case except for the cases where I don't. Pacifism.
Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I'm sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I'm not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn't want any punches thrown in the first place.
That's nonsense. If "pro-war" means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I'm not "pro-war" because I don't actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I'd say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly "pro-war", as they went in without provocation and the justification of "WMD" was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it's weird to characterize self-defense as "pro-war" or "being a war hawk". One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it's wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as "pro-war".
For example, I haven't thrown a punch in decades, I don't want to throw a punch and I'll avoid doing so if there's a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
This is the main point I was making. In the context of discussing pacifism, which condemns all war, supporting any war is pro-war, at least relative to the actual meaning of pacifism.
Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have "do no harm" as a tenant) into a single "pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others". Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
Then provide me with a source to these pacifist philosophers who support war.
Also, 100 years seems way short. In the Bible, Jesus taught, "turn the other cheek," and "be good to those who hurt you," and chided one of his followers when he attacked a Roman and is said to have healed his wound. If pro-war pacifism counts as part of the tradition, then surely that would as well.
Do you mean, for example, the Jains? Because they also belong to the type of pacifism that is opposed to war.
No, because I'm not a pacifist. I just know what the word means.
Here's a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn't always mean a lack of self defense.
As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.
The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.
If you're not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
Since you're not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.
This is nonsense. Suppose I eat meat, but I call myself a vegan. If you're not a vegan, then should you defer to me on how to define what a vegan is?
If pacifism does not mean opposition to war, then sure, I'm a pacifist, why not. We're all pacifists. It means literally nothing.
Your first link actually provides a neat little term for people who want to tell everyone how much they love peace while supporting war - "Pacificism." "A useful term to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but who accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace." I don't think I've ever met a single person in my life who doesn't meet that description - except, I suppose, actual pacifists. Dick fucking Cheney is a "Pacificist." Completely meaningless.
Your second source I can't access beyond the first page. Your third source does raise a valid point, I stand corrected.
I do not support the war in Ukraine, not because I'm a pacifist, but because I'm a communist. There is substantial overlap between the two, but the main difference is that I make an exception for wars along class lines, which this isn't. The common people are being drafted against their will to fight a pointless war over which reactionary government controls a patch of land.
Ofcourse not. I'm Atlanticist. Pacific should shove a dildo up its ring of fire and fuck right off.
Go tell Putin and his friends to stop the invasion and hand back all the Ukrainian territory they’ve stolen. It’s easy!
Wow, if it's that easy, then I definitely don't think people should be going out and dying over it, there's just no reason for it when anybody could just pick up the phone and tell him to give the territory back instead.
You were so close to understanding sarcasm
So were you.
I agree that people shouldn’t have to die over this, but Putin is dedicated to the invasion on Ukraine. He won’t stop just because someone kindly ask him to stop over the phone. He’ll continue until there’s no Ukraine anymore, and then he might also go for Moldova and other former Soviet countries.
Ukraine has to defend themselves for as long as Putin is willing to continue the war.
Exactly. You can always tell when uninformed people chime in with their opinions on this topic. Ukraine has already attempted to achieve peace with Russia multiple times, under the condition that they return stolen territory. That's a pretty easy thing for Russia to do but they won't.
So, 20 years from now, if Putin is still willing to continue the war, which is to say, not fully recognize all Ukrainian claims including claims that Russia held before the war as a precondition to negotiations, then you'll still be sending more and more guns and bombs in until there are no two stones left on top of each other in the whole country.
Okay, so what's your timetable then?
It's a shame Putin is a bloodthirsty weirdo who won't listen, I guess.
To be unwavering anti-war including defensive wars, is appeasement, and WWII is a demonstration of exactly where that leads. Even if you ignore all the combat related deaths, millions were still just butchered by the nazis in non-combat situations, and that number would have been even more if no one stood up to counter. The reluctance to forceful resistance resulted in more deaths including innocent non-combatants. Problem is in reality, if all the 'good' folks are anti-war, then the one asshole who is pro-offensive war conquers all. Being highly skeptical of war, especially offensive war I can see, but to stand aside as evil just takes and takes is too far.
Further, it's not our blood to commit, it's the Ukrainians. We are supplying but it's their skin in the game, not our forces. It's their choice to make and we are supporting that decision in the face of a completely unjustified invasion. This is distinct from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we went in with our own forces to unilaterally try to force our desired reality on a sovereign nation. If Ukraine decided to give in, we would not stand in the way, even if we were disappointed in the result.
Also, the only reason the goalposts moved to 'a couple of provinces' is that Russia was stopped when they tried to just take the whole thing. If Russia had just rolled in to easy three day victory, then the goalposts would have moved to have even more Russian expansion (as happened in WWII with Germany).
Thank you for that argument on why pacifism is wrong but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that that's what pacifism means.
This was a reply to your stance, not a rejection of your definition of pacifism. Your comment didn't claim anything about the definition of pacifism, and neither did mine.
Now maybe you meant my other comment, where you responded to someone asserting being a pacifist is actually "pro-war". In which case I also did not speak one way or another on your definition of pacifism, but your characterization of people supporting self-defense as being "pro-war".
My mistake.
Regarding your previous comment, the comparison to Hitler has been used by high ranking figures in the US to justify every major conflict for the past 70 years, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Iraq. In retrospect, it's easy to see how completely nonsensical such claims were - somehow, Vietnam did not go on to conquer the world after we lost.
However, no matter how clearly wrong such comparisons and such conflicts are, they are generally accepted, and each of those conflicts was begun with overwhelming popular support.
I happen to think that one conflict from 70 years ago isn't the only thing we should be thinking about or comparing conflicts to when we judge them in the modern day. Why is it necessary to go back so far to find a conflict where the US was justified?
Because the US is frequently not justified and has the history of being the warmonger, so they are often unjustified. That says nothing about the Ukrainian situation though, where a well established independent nation was subject to a military invasion. There isn't significant "gray area" to find in this scenario.
There are justified US military operations in more recent history but those aren't useful as an example either. Because the prospect of someone actually "caving" to invasion is a rare situation, and we do have to go back 70 years to cite an example of what happens when major powers try the "let the dictator win without resistance" strategy. The major powers learned something in the 1930s and have not repeated that behavior.
Here's another example of "letting the dictator win without resistance." The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Soviet revolutionaries had rallied the people in opposition the the meat grinder of WWI, in which the Russian people were being slaughtered en masse for no real benefit. So when Lenin came to power, he signed a treaty with Kaiser Wilhelm that was very favorable to Germany and ceded a considerable amount of territory to him. The resulting peace stopped the killing and allowed the Russians to focus on rebuilding.
If you take a broader historical view, you can see that the reality is more complex. There are numerous differences between the situation in the 30's and the situation now, and even then it's only one example, and one that's vastly overused. And the reason that it's overused is that it can be used as a pretty generic pro-war argument for any war imaginable. "If we don't beat them now, they'll keep coming forever." All you have to do is paint the people you're fighting in a negative light and you can sell people on it.
For these reasons, I reject the comparison. I think it's intellectually lazy.
In the WWI scenario, Russia was able to have a reprieve because the central powers had other things to do. So "appeasement" worked at least in the scenario where the opposition has multiple other fronts to contend with, and also when that would-be opponent ultimately lost. WWI was a lot more "gray area" so it's hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.
For the opposite experience for Russia, see WWII where they started off with appeasing Germany and then got invaded two years later.
But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn't actually have a horse in the race doesn't apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace. We don't have US military being ordered to go in to fight and die in that conflict.
Then why is it so easy to say that modern Russia would continue expanding forever? Isn't it possible that Putin is more like Kaiser Wilhelm than Adolf Hitler?
They do though. They could negotiate peace at the cost of territorial concessions, the same way the Soviets did. It's not that the Soviets didn't have a dog in the fight, they surely would've preferred a better treaty that preserved more of their territory, but they prioritized peace instead.
This isn't entirely incorrect, but this is pretty much what happened 10 years ago. And here we are. You can argue appeasement or suggest this is a one-time thing, but it's already the second time. Also, Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire, so suggesting he will stop here on his own goes against his own statements.
No, he has not. Source.
Okay, you're sort if correct. He alluded to it. He mentioned the Russian Empire attacking various neighbors and taking over their territory using excuses of ethnicity and then referred to it as returning and reinforcing, not conquering. He then said it fell to their lot to return and reinforce, as well. Here's a link that discusses it. Given the date and the discussion, I'm sure you can find other sources for it. That was just the first that appeared on my search.
Exactly how much Ukrainian land should Russia get to keep in this negotiation? Percentage is fine.
The exact lines would have to be negotiated. For starters, obviously Russia is going to keep Crimea which they held before the war started. At most, they'd receive the disputed provinces which had been fighting in the civil war before they got involved, which requested Russian assistance. I don't know what percentage of Ukrainian territory those provinces are.
The exact amount of loss that's acceptable to achieve peace is debatable, but there hasn't been any discussion of it whatsoever. Zelensky has insisted on zero territorial concessions at all, including retaking Crimea, which is completely unrealistic.
And, I suppose, all Ukraine gets out of the deal is that Russia stops taking more of their territory. For now. This sounds like it's all in Russia's favor.
As opposed to what, exactly? Like, even in your wildest fantasies, how does this go exactly? Ukraine reclaims all of it's lost territory, including Crimea somehow, and then negotiates peace. For now. Oh, I guess that's not enough then, is it? So what, does Ukraine seize Russian territory? Does Russia get coup'ed, and the US hand picks someone to be in charge to make sure that Russia is never threatens anyone ever again, like it did in the 90's? Hey, wait a minute...
Sometimes conflicts end without one side being completely annihilated, and no matter how the conflict ends, that's how it's going to end. Ukraine can negotiate for security guarantees, but what that would look like exactly would have to be worked out in the negotiations that aren't happening.
Well you've decided how I fantasize it will go, so I guess I don't have to tell you. Congratulations on your psychic powers.
I made a guess, if I'm wrong, explain it to me.
You didn't make a guess, you told me what is not enough for me. Don't try to weasel out of it now. You're clearly not interested in knowing what I think.
Lol, ok. So you don't have an answer, got it.
I do have an answer. You told me what it was, remember?
You're playing games to avoid answering because you can't.
If you apologize for putting words in my mouth or someone else asks me, I will answer. Until then, we'll just go with your mind-reading answer.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I intended what I said to be a supposition, not an actual claim of knowledge regarding your beliefs, but I can see how it could've been interpreted that way.
Now if you would please answer the question.
I've never read such dumb bullshit in my life... until I found your comments...
Marxist-leninist account made inconsolable from others that say supporting a country resist russian invasion is worth fighting and funding a defensive war. Go figure