jeroboam
5d ago
Yes, I do think conscription pushes the balance in favor of surrender.
"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.
jeroboam
5d 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
5d 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
6d 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
5d 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
6d 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
6d 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.
In some ways, the tweet is not wrong. Protesters at elite universities will be tomorrow's leaders. They will be on the "right" side of the history not because they are morally right, but because they will be able to shape history to their whims.
The Ivy League protests are not a street movement, they are an elite rebellion.
And in that way, it's really no different than the Vietnam protesters who shared the same elite characteristics. As early as 1966 Normal Mailer noted how the protestors were upper class while the policemen they fought were working class.
Sadly, these benighted and often mentally ill children are our future leaders. They will no doubt treasure the memories of their "rebellion" in 30 years as they sit comfortably inside the halls of power.
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.
More options
Context Copy link