jeroboam
4d ago
Why keep fighting and not offer more territory? Putin, in any case, seems to believe he doesn't need to settle yet.
Because, like most rationalists, I believe that calculating risk and reward has actual value. This, but unironically:
https://www.theonion.com/no-blood-for-oil-vs-exactly-how-much-oil-are-we-talkin-1819594284
If your only condition for ending a conflict is absolute victory, then yes, you are in fact "pro-war". I am against that. But I am willing to tolerate some limited war in order to achieve limited goals so long as the goals are justified by the costs (which they almost never are).
jeroboam
4d ago
Too many. The political goals of the Ukrainian government are not worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of conscripts who were rounded up against their will.
Is conscription always wrong? I wouldn't argue that. It's wrong in this case because the scale of the suffering is too high for the diminishing chances of victory. How many Ukrainians would you be willing to sacrifice? I've given my answer, and the Ukrainian government won't return my emails.
If I were Zelensky, I would immediately call for a cease fire and ask the U.S. to broker a peace deal. I would be willing to give up the territory already lost in exchange for peace. If Putin says no, I'd keep fighting. That's what I would do. But I'd ask the pro-war faction to be equally candid about their goals and what they are willing to give up to achieve them.
jeroboam
4d ago
I agree on the theory of deterrence. I am willing to sacrifice 1,000-10,000 Ukrainians to teach Russia a lesson.
How many are you willing to sacrifice?
jeroboam
4d ago
Perhaps not this stimulus or that stimulus, but the implication is that $X will win the war (for some value of $X).
Otherwise, we are just giving money to prolong the conflict, killing hundreds of thousands of young men in the process. And that would be truly evil.
jeroboam
4d ago
It's not inconceivable that the same units currently armed by the West could be, after a surrender, rearmed by the Russians and marched west.
Yes, it is inconceivable. There is no where for Russia to go. Look at a map of NATO. That's why people are talking about Moldova. It's literally the only European country Russia could reasonably attack.
Increasing the size of the Russian army by 10% with some Ukrainian conscripts who hate you does not move the needle.
jeroboam
4d ago
This is nothing new. The pro-war case has long rested on cognitive dissonance, holding these two mutual incompatible views at the same time:
-
Russia is so weak that one more round of $X billion will win the war for Ukraine.
-
Russia is so strong that if we don't stop them here, they'll take Estonia, Poland, Germany!
jeroboam
4d ago
There is something hellishly dystopian about fleeing to another country, possibly even across the ocean, and your country of birth is still trying to pull you back. Particularly because women are given a free pass. It's natural to feel like there should be some cost associated with the privilege of not having to be forcibly conscripted to fight against an invading army.
Very strange how blank-slatist ideas just sort of vanish when any sacrifice from women is involved.
For the record, I am not a blank-slatist, think women should not serve in combat, and think they would make terrible soldiers for the most part. But if we are going to live by the rules of the blank slatist, those rules should at least be applied fairly.
jeroboam
6d ago
They also have a strong in-group bias which is a huge reason that power exists in the first place.
So, if one, uh, wanted to get some LSD IVF with polygenic embryo screening, where would you actually go for that? Anyone know a guy?
There's lots of talk about it, but is this something currently available for couples looking to conceive? Assume cost is no impediment.
I think this captures the tenor of many protests. It's about power and intimidation. We can burn your buildings, tear down your monuments, loot your stores, and YOU are powerless to stop us.
Demonstrations have worked this way forever, going all the way back to ancient Rome, but perhaps most saliently in the street battles between fascists and communists in Weimar Germany.
Winning hearts and mind is one way to gain power. But any good communist knows that silencing and intimidating your enemies works much better. Here in America, we're so used to the MLK/Gandhi model which is designed to appeal to the hearts of a kind and powerful master. But demonstrations which carry the threat of violence are far more typical. I mean, would you dare to carry a drawing of Muhammad around Columbia's campus right now?
That said, I don't think these protests will go very far. The establishment is NOT on the side of protestors as they were during BLM. Even in San Francisco and Seattle, protestors are being charged for blocking traffic. If any protestors attempt real violence, they will be prosecuted.
Jews are still sacred in America.
BLM is just a three word slogan. To the extent that it became a real-world organization it was largely a grift.
People then, as now, were attracted to the movement for all sorts of reasons. Some people made reasonable demands. Most did not.
As usual, the communists showed up as they do whenever people are angry about something.
There was no "good BLM" that got corrupted. It was always just an organic blob that was fanned by street anger, irresponsible news media, and Marxist organizations. All the white people who were at those protests in 2014 are the same as the white people at the anti-Jewish protests today. Eventually they'll get bored and move on to the next thing, looking for self-actualization that will never arrive.
"Surrender" implies something like Hirohito in 1945. This doesn't represent the current reality of the conflict. No one is talking about surrender. Some people are talking about peace, which means a negotiated peace. It means Russia would get some of what they want, but certainly not all.
More options
Context Copy link