I don't want to die or kill so the suits on the top can then negotiate new post war order, which would almost certainly perpetuate this BS in the future.

On the other hand: appeasement leads to more bullying, and might cause even bigger conflict on the future (we've seen this happen in WW2)

You've got to draw the line somewhere. If an offensive war like this passes, no-one is safe.

> And do you also believe wars should be initiated against China to liberate Uyghur and Tibet, against North Korea to stop the human rights abuses there, against Afghanistan again to put the previous regime back in power, etc.?

Launching an invasion no, at least not without a very clear UN-like process that gives them multiple opportunities to back down.

> I mean what point do you say okay we need to go in shooting, and would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle?

Whether I'd have the balls is another question entirely, but I absolutely do believe it. This is not subtle, this is not limited, this is war. If we were talking about unmarked "volunteers" in the "independent states" that Russia recognised a few days ago, you might reasonably argue for a more limited response. But when we have Russian regulars shooting in Kyiv, that is absolutely on the wrong side of anywhere the line can possibly be drawn, unless you're ready to start speaking Russian.

This is not the same situation though so I don't think it would be responsible to just say Putin is like Hitler and this is like the invasion of Poland therefore I will send other people to fight a war with some unspecified goal, and just leave it at that.

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong or you haven't thought more deeply about it, perhaps you don't have time or interest in giving a more lengthy answer.

Also, HN doesn't like long discussions with its irritating "commenting too fast" filter, so I'll answer the comment below - good point about Czechoslovakia and Austria. That already could be seen as a sign of what's to come, but the more it escalated, the stronger it should have been apparent.

Do you think this is more similar to Crimea 2014 or Poland 1939, for example? Or maybe you think Crimea 2014 was the same as Poland as well?

Well there's clearly huge differences then aren't there?

> Or to put it differently, he'll take as long as he can. So the question you should be asking, will he stop with Ukraine if he'll take it?

I think I should be asking a lot of questions, that one included of course. And I'm not sure or even sure he would risk getting involved in a significant war in Western Ukraine. At this point "power maniac who must be stopped" doesn't sway me enough that I should ask someone else to send their son to die.

If we are concerned with power maniacs, should we start with China? Will they stop at Tibet and the Uyghurs and Hong Kong? Should we take the CCP regime down before they take Taiwan? That is actually stated goal of the party after all. North Korea? Saudi?

I mean if the concern is occupations, mad dictators, human rights or whatever, we have a lot of wars we could start. Why just limit ourselves to Ukraine?

That's why I don't find that emotional argument convincing (coming from the ruling class, at least). They're sometimes concerned with dictators, except when they aren't. In those other cases sometimes they ignore them and sometimes they actually support them. Sometimes they were the ones who installed them in the first place.

And your arguments could be applied to World War II as well, so they don't sound stronger in this case, than in that one.

Okay. I would be interested in hearing why it's different from other similar regimes but if you don't want to explain that's okay.

> And your arguments could be applied to World War II as well.

Some could in some ways that's true. But I don't think it's similar and I don't think all of them apply in equal ways.

Western Europe was petrified of Germany in the 30s and considered it a very high risk of wide scale invasion and wars though, which is why they doubled or tripled their military expenditure and had massive build ups of fortifications and forces during the 30s.

There's simply been no such sense of that kind of risk with Russia in the past few decades even up to today. I share that view that the real risk is not high. And Russia doesn't use most budget on the army, there is just no such indication of that kind of build up as Germany had.

So far it's a regime which is not very nice and has locally expansionist ambitions. Which is a lot like China. You have preferred so far not to answer whether you think we should go to war against China before they could roll through Taiwan since occupying Tibet, but I think that's a much better parallel than 1930s Germany.

Which regimes? Can you list some cases where fascistic regime with most of its budget used on the army and power hungry maniac running it was appeased and it worked well?

NK is not really expansionist but China is. So China. Who also spend 4-5x what Russia does in absolute. And I don't say it worked well to appease them.

I'm wondering what the difference is. Some pro-war people are drawing "lines" but it's not really clear to me exactly what those lines are. Beyond WWII and Nazis, which is not a reasonable analysis and seems more like a typical cheap appeal to emotion.

> In 2019, revenues are planned to reach 15.555 trillion and expenditures will amount to 16.374 trillion, whereas the deficit will stand at 0.8 percent of GDP. By 2020, revenues are estimated at 16.285 trillion with expenditures at 17.155 trillion

And

> In contrast, military spending rose from 2 trillion, 141 billion in 2013 to 3.775 trillion in 2016. In 2017 it fell to 2.778 trillion, and it will decline further in 2018 to 2.771 trillion, but will grow again afterward, to 2.808 trillion in 2020. It should be borne in mind that the actual military spending in Russia is much higher than the planned figures. Traditionally, additional budget revenues, if any, are allocated to this sector. Moreover, some military expenditures are concealed under other civilian items, primarily under the “national economy.” Police spending rose from 1 trillion, 487 billion in 2013 to 1.898 trillion in 2016, 1.977 trillion in 2017, 2.108 trillion in 2018, and 2.140 trillion in 2020. The share of concealed budget expenditures in 2013 amounted to 13.8 percent of the total expenditure and increased to 18.6 percent in 2017, with a planned increase to 20.1 percent of the budget in 2020. These are absolutely bizarre figures that cannot withstand any comparison with the secret parts of budgets in developed economies. At the same time, a significant proportion of the “secret expenses” most likely does not go to military purposes but simply remains in someone’s pocket.

So expenditures are around 17, and official military budget is 2.7-3.7. There are "secret" expenditures of up to 3.4 of which they don't all go to the military but if they did we would be at 7.1. 41% of federal budget revenue to the military.

Let's see your figures that show it over 50.

> But further discussion about it is pointless and will be going in circles.

I absolutely could be wrong, but I'm not arguing in bad faith here I'm using the sources I can find so you don't need to go off in a huff. And it's not really going in circles because you've refused to answer all my questions about China or acknowledged that the military build up in Europe is not remotely like it was in the 1930s. It's more like it's hit a brick wall than gone in a circle.

EDIT: Either way I find it's pretty arbitrary to be so worried about the exact amount of military expenditure. Would a regime that spent 30% of its budget be better than one that spent 40%? What if the absolute numbers were higher? What if the government raised taxes and other expenditures to reduce the proportion of military spending below the magic 50%? What about as a proportion to GDP? I really don't see why that should make a significant consideration about whether we would go to war with a country. So perhaps you are right and it is pointless to talk to you about this.

That's the main point. And as if you they'll tell you real numbers.

Either way, no need in all this demagoguery. I already explained the basic idea - Putin will stop only when stopped and none of the above is really relevant to that.

Where are your numbers you so confidently stated that I was wrong with? Let's see them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#War_breaks_out_in...

Parallels with Ukraine and no one helping it directly thinking the problem will stop there are pretty obvious.

I'm surprised that everyone considers sanctions a sophisticated hard soft power tool (clearly useless) but don't consider mobilization of troops as hardware (short of firing rounds) as an effective and peaceful tool.

What Putin did (mobilize troops within their borders) was also an option for NATO/EU in bordering countries. Matching mobilization would definitely increase the costs of firing the first bullet.

But the truth is, despite the talk of solidarity and all this public indignation, Ukraine never really had a partner in NATO/EU/West.

And the world saw how uninterested in peace is NATO/EU/West

I would be interested to hear from anybody from Ukraine to USA to Russia.

No right or wrong answers, I'm just interested in perspective.

For myself since I'm asking the question: I'm in a western country and I don't support sending my countrymen to war. For a number of reasons, primarily I don't think the western neoliberal ruling regime (not talking about one political party or another, but the non-partisan support for wars and interventions by many western governments for many decades) can be trusted with war or interventionism. It has almost always been sold on utter lies and deceit, and almost never turned out for the better of the people involved.

It is sold to us on emotion and outrage and urgency and this kind of thing, but very little calm rational and considered arguments and debate of pros and cons and risks and goals ("Putin is like Hitler and must be stopped" type of rhetoric really does not describe a goal of aim of a military action adequately) . Now I have no doubt there are many very good arguments for the people of Ukraine, the country of Ukraine, the containment of bullies and dictatorships, etc., that could help make the case for military action in this case. However I also know that the ruling class have absolutely no interest in the actual well being of the Ukrainian people or the security of the average person in Europe, or a moral duty to stand up to bullies and dictators, or human rights. Because if they did we couldn't explain their actions and inactions with Saudi, Yemen, North Korea, whatever. They are happy to claim they care about those things if by coincidence they might be seen to align with their agenda, but we know they don't care.

So we know the warmongers are lying right off the bat, this is not really disputable. This doesn't make the case for war wrong, but it does (to me) make it much harder to see what is going on, and I think caution should be applied in such cases. But I do acknowledge the problem with appeasement and the need for decisive action and the fact that we will never have all the information so again this is not a criticism of others who feel differently.

What I would look at for example is Crimea, which of course fell to Russia in a similar way during the Obama administration in which there was also some people calling for war.

If there was a major war over Crimea back then, would the situation for Crimea, its people, Ukraine, and everybody else involved with the war be better today than it is now? If Crimea was occupied by Russian forces would it have meant civilian collateral deaths? If many people in Crimea were pro-Russian separatists, would that war have meant bombing the people of Crimea? And what would the end game be? Would we still be there? How many people would be dead? Would it war there have dissuaded Russia from this action? What are the similarities with the regions of Ukraine being occupied now? I have seen almost no analysis of this with hindsight, I'm sure such analysis exists, but it is a concern to me that the warmongers have not taken it and made it front-and-center of the discussion. It would be a very good data point for justification of any action now.

Finally I would not support war unless a significant number of Ukrainians particularly from the region take up arms against Russia and start fighting. They are the ones who have the ultimate moral authority about whether force should be used to protect their land, and they have the first responsibility to fight for it. Sounds cruel and it is, but crueler in my opinion is to first send people who have no relationship to the place to fight.

EDIT: and when I say warmongers I don't mean people who are pro war in any situation, I believe war is sometimes justified. I was purely talking about those in the ruling class who are warmongers.

That is not a high risk, but becomes a real possibility. Rather than insane rambling and pure fiction. Or something appearing to be a dark pessimism.

This is not situation that I like.

So, in the end

- (1) I may not have option to choose

- (2) I would prefer to fight Russians in Estonia (Baltic countries are likely the next target) than in my own country

> would you still believe that if you were to be the first on the beach with a rifle?

I am not going to pretend that I know how I will behave in situation that is extremely beyond what ever happened to me.

There's more than one parallel with the Third Reich efforts here.

Or maybe instead of sweeping up through NATO he decides owning the worlds oil would be nice and starts cutting down to the Middle East.

Well, do you think that? My question was for you but it's fair I answer yours.

> you may want to stop him early.

What "you" is that? The people of those countries that would be invaded along the way?

If I thought that and was a person from one of those other countries, I would probably think it's preferable to build defenses of my country rather than engage in expeditionary warfare in the east near Russian supply lines and air space. Difficult question though I'm certainly no military strategist.

On the first question, I do not think Putin's next stop is likely to be that or possibly even the regions of Ukraine where there are fewer Russians/less pro-Russian support. But such things should always be considered and I'm no military or geopolitical analyst. What I can see is that from the amount of money western european states spend on their defenses they do not consider such a risk likely either, and they do employ many such strategists. So as a person not from one of those countries I certainly wouldn't support my country getting involved in military action in the region first.

The "you" was, well, everyone in the world. I don't really subscribe to the strange belief that I should only care about human suffering of my countrymen. However, if you do, the bigger the war gets, the worse it will be and the more far afield it will bring in other countries.

As far as "far from Russia's supply lines", their old border won't matter, they'll still be close to their bases in what was once Ukraine. Oh, and they'll have more resources from Ukraine. Plus, you won't have the 7th largest army in the world absorbing the brunt of their attack.

So far they seem to have occupied heavily pro-Russian areas very close to home that have not put up much resistance. I don't think that's a good indication they would just keep going further. Possibly though.

> but my belief is he will keep salami slicing until war is joined because he crosses some line that people stand up to him. Better to do it cheaper.

> The "you" was, well, everyone in the world. I don't really subscribe to the strange belief that I should only care about human suffering of my countrymen. However, if you do, the bigger the war gets, the worse it will be and the more far afield it will bring in other countries.

That is not my belief. It is my belief that I care about my countrymen more though or at least have more responsibility to them being that I have a vote in how the country is run, and it is also my belief that those with something to lose have to take a stand. I wouldn't want to send solders from my country even if Putin was driving a tank down the Champs-Elysees, if the French were all just sitting there waiting for me.

And pretty clearly Western European governments do not consider this a high risk given their military spending. So I just think it's very premature to take action based on the idea you can be so sure such a thing would happen.

> As far as "far from Russia's supply lines", their old border won't matter, they'll still be close to their bases in what was once Ukraine. Oh, and they'll have more resources from Ukraine. Plus, you won't have the 7th largest army in the world absorbing the brunt of their attack.

It would absolutely stretch supply lines and defenses. Reality isn't like an RTS you can't just keep conquering territory and it turns red and your resources immediately grow.

Since you wrote your comment, Putin has starting acting bellicose to Finland. No where near attacking - yet. But it certainly doesn't make "he's only going to nip a little and then stop forever" seem likely.

It's one thing to condemn Putin's actions but quite another to demonize immigrants.

Assassinations on foreign soil including attempt on opposition leader who now rots in a jail on rediculous charges. Shooting down passenger planes. Putin needs a punch in the face that rattles him to the core such that he fears stepping outside in daylight.