Native Americans appeased the US till there was nothing left. You don't tend to see many appeasers around because there is nothing left of them.

Native Americans didn't have the means to offer any substantial resistance past the initial stages of colonisation in North America. The point is moot. That's not even getting into the fact that "Native Americans" only exist in the eye of the colonizer. It's not a people, a collective body with agency.

Yep and the ones that did appease are still around. The others not so much.

This parable works multiple ways.

I agree, and even Hitler is dubious. I am Czech, and the Munich Agreement is very emotionally painful for us. However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. (Nor would fighting against Russian invasion in 1968, btw.)

And arguably in the case of Ukraine the appeasement already happened after 2014 Donetsk war.

I also heard that appeasement was backreaction to WW1, where everybody was eager to go to war and it ended in bloodshed.

That's also ignoring few earlier opportunities to strike against Hitler.

>https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/first-strike-how-the-po...

Additionally, after remilitarization, there were more opportunities to Strike. Rhineland, Anschluss of Austria... the longer you wait it's worse.

>I also heard that appeasement was backreaction to WW1, where everybody was eager to go to war and it ended in bloodshed.

Wehrmacht was not close to being combat ready yet, and would get crushed by combined Polish-Czechoslovakian-Western Allies troops. Without Czechoslovakia opposing them, and Czech industry fully contributing to Hitler's war machine odds were drastically better for Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t)

>However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives.

And Ukraine is winning the war, saving 40 million Ukrainians from genocide.

> However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives.

That's actually very uncertain. If the war broke out, Hitler might get overthrown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy

Hitler's position was shaky at the time, but his success in Czechoslovakia made any opposition impossible and increased hunger for more.

>What's the data point, beyond Hitler ?

Ukraine 2014. The West should have stopped Russia back then and there.

In the time since 2014, Ukraine got stronger while Russia got weaker. Had Russia pressed forward with their invasion in 2014, they might have succeeded in taking the whole country before NATO-aligned countries worked up the willpower to do anything about it. But because Russia stalled then, the cancer of corruption and hardware decay ate away at their power, while Ukraine began preparing for the inevitable.

How do you show that such action would lead to fewer deaths and less suffering?

Slaves minimize their deaths by not revolting. However, powerful support of their freedom by Union states led to far better world than the one without American Civil War.

That isn't a relevant question. The goal is to contain Russian expansionism, not to minimize deaths.

Well, our values seem to differ, then. I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. I think saving the lives should always trump the national pride.

So just so we're clear.

Russia is ok invading another country and killing it's populace. But the west shouldn't fight back incase it kills someone?

Why aren't you holding Russia to the same standard as everyone else. Why don't you require them to talk and 'appease' the west rather than invading?

I am holding both to same standard. Russian invasion is of course terrible, and it in fact undermined Russia's own goal of keeping Ukraine neutral, at the very least.

But I think everybody here agrees with that, so what's the point of stressing it? You think Putin listens to my opinion?

Yes, and the West should be careful with military intervention, and consider whether it won't lead to more escalation and more death.

In fact, I think the EU could do more with economic sanctions. AFAIK we still buy oil from Russia.

Europe could do even more to promote peace by declaring putin to be the emperor of Europe, and granting him dictatorial power over the continent

What about Ukraine? Should they refrain from defending themselves? Lest it cause blood shed?

I really don't get your POV Putin has repeatedly shown they he will invade other countries. If we don't stop him at Ukraine then next it may well be a nato member and then how much blood shed will there be?

Your suggested course just rewards aggression. Sometimes you need to stand up to bullies. Putin is a bully.

I think Ukrainians have the right to do it, and it's not my call to make, it's up to them. I am torn on it, emotionally I understand it, but I think rationally it's possibly a wrong choice (as I explained elsewhere in the discussion).

Chomsky made a nice comparison with Palestine. Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against Israeli apartheid by shooting rockets at them from Gaza strip?

Regarding my POV - I don't want NATO to get involved as long as it doesn't have to, because I worry about nuclear escalation. That should tell us, try to get serious about complete ban on nuclear weapons in the future, because they prevent exactly the type of action that you propose.

If my country wasn't a NATO member, then military aid against Russian invasion to Ukraine would be more acceptable to me. It is NATO that is making us helpless - we are bound by risk of escalation into a nuclear war. Simply, NATO was designed to handle a different type of threat. (Not to mention, we IMHO have somewhat less efficient military because we partly outsourced it to USA.)

I don't think what I suggest as an alternative (sanctions, resistance) rewards aggression. Occupying Ukraine is a big liability for Russia.

>Chomsky made a nice comparison with Palestine. Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against Israeli apartheid by shooting rockets at them from Gaza strip?

How does that defend Palestine in any way? It's a stupid revenge targeting civilians. If you're so helpless you can't act against military or targeted collaborators then don't do anything at all.

I would be the first to suggest to drop support to Ukraine, and even support acting against it, if they started to deliberately target Russian civilians - Belgorod is very close. Even more, they could produce large amount of chemical and even nuclear weapons if they chose, yet they don't do it.

> How does that defend Palestine in any way?

Punishes the oppressors, in an attempt to make them stop oppressing. Same reasons why Ukrainians fight back against Russians.

And yes, he makes the same case, that Palestinians should instead attempt for a peaceful resolution and negotiation, despite it being extremely difficult (against a much stronger adversary, who doesn't respect them).

>Same reasons why Ukrainians fight back against Russians.

No, Ukrainians are fighting to defeat the aggressors. The main difference is that if they succeed, the occupier will not have anything to say. Palestinian tactics can only succeed by the mercy of the IDF.

In contrast to this, it is symmetric conflict, in which Russia targets citizens by desperation, but those losses are nothing compared to what would happen if they've succeeded.

>I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake.

Well, you can't have one without the other, there's clear evidence of that going back decades.

That's a different discussion, then. The point is, the onus is on whoever is doing the military intervention to prove that they will save more lives than they will destroy. This is very high bar to clear especially since the enemy is going to fight as well, and we do not know the future.

In general, I am in favor of nonviolent resistance (which might include economic sanctions, sabotages etc.) rather than military action. In fact, it is often easier to gain moral support that way.

However, I understand that many humans naturally choose the latter, for tribal reasons, despite it being overall a worse choice.

Russian expansion does indeed mean dead people. It means constant suffering, political oppression (including killing opponents or forcibly relocating them), destruction of economy and the death of culture.

Do you not mind Russia transferring Ukrainian children to brainwash them? Admit it, Ukrainians face genocide.