If you have a point, please make it more explicit. — frank

It's not rocket science. I just want you to explain your analogy to me. How does one bully punching the other bully in the nose create a more peaceful world? We just exchange bullies.

I'm just asking the simple question. If, in your scenario, the world were made up of bullies, how would your theory (punch the bully on the nose) bring about peace. It's your theory so it doesn't seem too much to ask you to explain it.

Isaac is very angry that we would forget what kind of a bully the US has been. We might forget this because it's obvious that Russia is the aggressor here, Ukraine is the victim and the US is aiding Ukraine. Isaac would be extremely angry if now the US would look good as a "white knight in shining armour" coming to help a victim. Because the US is bad. Remember all the children that died in Iraq thanks to the sanctions etc. Even if this is a thread about the war in Ukraine, that doesn't matter. — ssu

Yeah, the US are only providing the weapons, the intelligence, the strategy, the training, the finances and the global propaganda...I see now they're barely involved, how foolish of me to even mention them.

Let's leave them out of it then.

Prior to the invasion Ukraine were one of the most corrupt nations in the regions, the continent's top black market arms dealers and a hotbed of Neo-nazi extreme right violence. Likewise Russia.

So explain to me how @frank's analogy works. how does the world become more peaceful if Ukraine 'beat' Russia as opposed to Russia 'beat' Ukraine? What magic pill stops Ukraine from thinking "now Russia's weak and we've got all these weapons, we could have Valuyki or Belgorod"?

Is it because they're all just really, really nice?

But I harbor no illusions of changing minds - and it's too late now to do anything about the past. — Manuel

You could change your own mind though, by recognizing the asymmetry of this war: Zelensky is far better than Putin, and Ukraine has just cause.

I think the root of the debate is a profound difference in attitude toward conflict. Where there's a bully, you'll say it's the responsibility of the rest of the population to bow for the sake of peace.

The opposing view is that you have to smash the bully in the nose if you want peace. — frank

Reminds me of MalcolmX accusing Martin Luther king of being an Uncle Tom.

Nonviolent resistance is not non-resistance.

, you think Ukraine has bullied Russia?

you think Ukraine has bullied Russia? — jorndoe

No.

Interesting, so what are your objections to this, considering you had previously expressed doubt that Russia sabotaged their own pipeline? — _db

The "bridge-burning" theory is plausible, but highly speculative. Still, the alternatives are even more problematic. The players who more obviously stand to gain from the destruction of Nord Stream are Ukraine and the US. Both benefit from burning the bridge that would tempt Europe to backslide and make a deal with Russia. US LNG producers and exporters have a better incentive for long-term investment now that they know that they won't be priced out of the market by cheap Russian gas any time soon. And Ukraine now controls one of the main remaining transits for Russian gas into Europe.

But I don't see the US doing something so desperate for a modest commercial gain. Even for Ukraine this would be a very perilous move. If they were caught, this would seriously undermine their vital relationship with Europe, because Europe would see an attack on their infrastructure as a hostile and treacherous act. Besides, it is doubtful that Ukraine actually had the capability to pull off such an attack.

Russia has the capability, and it has nothing to lose reputation-wise. Of all the players it is the only one reckless and desperate enough to do something like this - if they wanted to.

The "bridge-burning" theory is plausible, but highly speculative. — SophistiCat

Another detail making it more likely to be Russia is the ease of access. It’s being said they could just wheel explosive down the pipe using the inspection pig.

But who knows.

https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/html_img86.html

Nonviolent resistance is not non-resistance. — unenlightened

That's just theory. In practice, how would you suggest Ukraine to resist Putin's fascist regime and invading armies in a non-violent manner?

In theory. In practice, how would you suggest Ukraine to resist Putin's fascist regime and invading armies in a non-violent manner? — Olivier5

I am not sufficiently at peace myself to recommend anything. but the methods are well developed by Gandhi, King and others. It isn't an easy option, for sure.

Don't worry guys we only have 426,877 years left of the Kali Yuga

Reminds me of MalcolmX accusing Martin Luther king of being an Uncle Tom.

Nonviolent resistance is not non-resistance. — unenlightened

I don't think those who advocated Ukraine's surrender to Russia had any kind of resistance in mind. I think @Tzeentch, for instance, was concerned with casualties of an on going war. @Manuel was worried about escalation.

If I understand correctly, they're saying the cost of standing up to aggression isn't worth any gains from it. Surrender assures peace and save lives.

the methods are well developed by Gandhi, King and others. — unenlightened

Those methods have not proved to work against a ruthless, amoral enemy. In 1940 Gandhi appealed to GB to stop fighting Germany. Good thing they didn't listen.

Another detail making it more likely to be Russia is the ease of access. It’s being said they could just wheel explosive down the pipe using the inspection pig. — apokrisis

That the pipes were blown up from inside would be very obvious to even a casual inspection, I would think. Unless they want everyone to know and don't care even for a modicum of deniability, that would be extremely stupid. But we'll know soon enough.

Surrender assures peace and save lives. — frank

Well that's obviously not always true. But clearly no one involved is much considering the possibility of peaceful resistance.

Those methods have not proved to work against a ruthless, amoral enemy. — Olivier5

Are you seriously suggesting that the British Empire was anything other than ruthless and amoral?

Gandhi brought Satyagraha to India in 1915, and was soon elected to the Indian National Congress political party. He began to push for independence from the United Kingdom, and organized resistance to a 1919 law that gave British authorities carte blanche to imprison suspected revolutionaries without trial. Britain responded brutally to the resistance, mowing down 400 unarmed protesters in the Amritsar Massacre.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/mahatma-gandhi-changed-political-protest

I don't think those who advocated Ukraine's surrender to Russia had any kind of resistance in mind. — frank

From six months ago...

if we assume that life in 'independence' would be worse for the people there (a significant assumption), the fact remains that two options are open to us to do something about that

1. Keep fighting wars to keep them under the control of the (marginally) better government.
2. Keep fighting revolutions to make it not matter what government they are under the control of.

The latter has the advantage of freeing millions more from misery and you've presented little by way of clear evidence that the former is somehow so much easier as to commend on the grounds of achievability alone. — Isaac

...but don't let what's actually been written get in the way of your little vignette of strawmen.

Surrender assures peace and save lives. — frank

Except, of course, it does neither, as we can see in front of our own eyes. What it does though is relieve the West from the cost and the responsibility for the war. (Especially in the eyes of those who believe that the white man the West automatically assumes all of the agency and the responsibility wherever it so much as casts a sideways glance.)

I don't think those who advocated Ukraine's surrender to Russia had any kind of resistance in mind. I think @Tzeentch, for instance, was concerned with casualties of an on going war. — frank

I never advocated any course of action for Ukraine - that would be highly presumptuous.

What it does though is relieve the West from the cost and the responsibility for the war. — SophistiCat

I was trying to articulate the sides of the debate. It looks like I failed.

But speaking of the cost of the war, what do you think accounts for the continuing support of the West? Fear for their own safety? Or what?

I never advocated any course of action for Ukraine - that would be highly presumptuous. — Tzeentch

I see. Then what was your perspective on the situation?

what do you think accounts for the continuing support of the West? — frank

Good question, what could it possibly be...?

https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-war-profiteers-stock-lockheed-martin-raytheon-investment-2022-3?op=1&r=US&IR=T

Are you seriously suggesting that the British Empire was anything other than ruthless and amoral? — unenlightened

Indeed, comparatively speaking.

I see. Then what was your perspective on the situation? — frank

On what part of the situation?

comparatively speaking. — Olivier5

What are you comparing? The concentration camps in S.Africa and those of the Nazis? the holocaust of the slave trade with the holocaust of the Jews? The argument is too odious to continue.

It turns out there is no debate. Interesting.

But speaking of the cost of the war, what do you think accounts for the continuing support of the West? Fear for their own safety? Or what? — frank

Obviously Putin wouldn't stop at Ukraine. Perhaps the territorial annexations might end there, yet the fact is that Russia would want to enlarge it's sphere-of-influence to the West. Finlandization: my country knows the game extremely well.

From Putin's view he is restoring things after the greatest tragedy in history, the fall of the Soviet Union, with a re-emerging Russia taking it's place where it deserves to be against the decadent, failing West.

Yet the war seems to be going well for the Ukrainians... :up: