Actually this is promoting war. Because if you are donating to someone who is at war, you are participating in this war.
Some people just think that Russians will never come and ask them why did these people give money to kill their brothers.
Also it works like a promo. First you are supporting someone with tweets. Then you are sending money. Then you are sending weapons. Then they send you to the battlefield, because You know, it's very important to support Ukraine.
Insofar as that meets the criteria of "supporting war", then yes it's "supporting war" (a country's defence).
I see that as a wholly good thing.
No one wants to be in a war except malignant psychopaths like Putin. But once you are, the only way back is through.
This is the jingoistic phrasing we hear a lot, which implies that Russia did something unique. As Americans, certainly we invade many countries, but we have the integrity to invade countries who are not our neighbors.
Other examples of stealing territory / starting wars can also be bad.
You ignored the content of my original comment. If you don't think "invaded their neighbor" is jingoistic, that's fine, but you didn't address that. I'm not commenting on specific ethics of their invasion; I am commenting on that specific phrase.
If they were to enter peace talks based on the premise of ceding territory, would that not strengthen Russia; sending the message that this sort of robbery works and is rewarded? And would that not pose a danger to other neighbours of Russia?
I can see why it's in both Ukraine's interest, and its allies, for it to not cede territory.
Having said all of this: I am not a military strategist or diplomat, and I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Ask Ukrainian men who are forbidden to leave the country and risk getting drafted every day.
It's only their health, their limbs and their very lives that would be sacrificed so that Ukraine's "allies" can get a better footing in their next confrontations with Russia.
I think this mindset betrays a lack of understand at how power-hungry bullies work. They aren't reasonable.
It's not a case of "negotiate with them THIS time, and all will be fine" (as if they have a single, specific grievance).
Choosing to defer pain now invites much, much more later.
What exactly are you imaging?
IMO, given the current direction, the chances of a much more massive conflict in 10-20 years are only increasing, all while currently there is realistically NO actual threat to Europeans.
> I think this mindset betrays a lack of understand at how power-hungry bullies work. They aren't reasonable. It's not a case of "negotiate with them THIS time, and all will be fine" (as if they have a single, specific grievance).
I think we really shouldn't anthropomorphise geopolitical processes as it substitutes the actual nature of what is going on and what is at stake. It's not some bruises, bloody nose and a bit of pride. This is serious. This people securing their futures and livelihoods.
And yes, there should always be a negotiation when it comes to fates of so many people getting crushed between leviathans. This whole blood bath could have been avoided with proper negotiations, but instead people of Ukraine and Russia were pushed into a conflict they both hardly need. Remember how Minsk agreements were a thing? Good times.
> Choosing to defer pain now invites much, much more later.
This is a horrifyingly cozy outlook on condemning someone else to die. What is even a definition of win here? Currently all participants of the conflict: Ukraine, Russia, Europe/GB/US seem to be enchanted with ritualistic slaughter, afraid to take a wider look and realise what they've done.
For example: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-zelenskyy-kyiv-bor...
> “We have to fight, but fight for life. You can’t fight for dust when there is nothing and no people. That’s why it is important to stop this war,” Zelenskyy said.
> [..]
> Zelenskyy said he is confident Ukrainians would accept peace despite the horrors they have witnessed in the more than six-week-long war.
> [..]
> U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson also made an unannounced visit to meet Zelenskyy, with his office saying they discussed Britain’s “long-term support.”
Which links to https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-zelenskyy-kyiv-bus...
> Johnson’s visit came a day after the U.K. pledged an additional 100 million pounds ($130 million) in high-grade military equipment to Ukraine.
On top of that, Ukraine joining NATO guarantees Russia not backing down. It's at least part of the reason Ukraine wasn't a member in the first place: Russia doesn't want NATO advancing to their border. Ukraine joining NATO is the opposite of that.
If Ukraine will stop fighting their independence and the country is over.
They'll never join EU or NATO. There will be no investments to rebuild.
People who left will never return back.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-zelenskyy-kyiv-bor...
> They'll never join EU or NATO.
That would probably be a good thing. Russia doesn't want NATO to advance to its border, doing so is just provoking them, as it has before Ukraine: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/27/ukraine-drops-...
> Ukraine was considered a potential Nato partner along with Georgia. Concern in many Nato countries increased in 2008 when Russia responded with military force to a Georgian attack on South Ossetia, an enclave in Georgia.
> [..]
> Since then, most Nato countries, including the US and Britain, have realised membership of Ukraine and Georgia would provoke conflict, notably with Russia. This month, the Albright report on Nato's new strategic concept made no mention of prospective Ukrainian membership of the alliance.
It became pretty clear in this war that refusing Ukraine was a mistake and caused the war.
> The war isn't something that Ukraine wanted, but it was forced on them.
I rate both of these claims to be indisputably true.
> Would you deem tweets that encourage donations toward Ukraine's military defence to be "promoting war"?
> How about tweets that boost morale of their defence forces (well-produced propaganda videos, etc), [are they promoting war]?
The answer to both of these questions is indisputably yes.
War propaganda from the side which I support is still war propaganda. It doesn't stop being war propaganda just because it's also in the right. Remember "loose lips sink ship"? It was a WW2 American propaganda slogan designed to address German u-boat aggression. America was plainly on the right side of that conflict, yet those posters are still cited today in American classrooms as an example of war propaganda, because that's indisputably what it was.
Morally in the right and war propaganda have never been mutually exclusive.
Or that tweets in support of Ukraine's efforts / donations / etc are "supporting the war".
I am, rather, disputing the "both sides"-type thinking of the person I replied to, who seems to imply that stopping ALL talk of war (regardless of whom it is in support of) is desirable.
It's a private platform isn't it? By conventional logic, twitter has the right to decide what sort of content they promote. If a fashion magazine or a twitting website decide they don't want to cover a war, that is a perfectly valid business decision.
It doesn't really matter anyway. Twitter isn't as important as the media says it is. Only a small fraction of the population actually use it, but it just happens that this small fraction includes people in the media, so they think it's much more important than it actually is and give it undo coverage. And no, I don't think that makes twitter actually important in a round-about way, because when most people see "somebody tweeted something" articles they roll their eyes at the media scrapping the bottom of the barrel for news. The media is blind to their twitter bias, but most others cringe. If Elon Musk ends up running twitter straight into the ground, nothing of value will be lost.
How about well-produced propaganda that targets people outside Ukraine and Russia? Why should a foreign military be allowed to influence public opinion in America or India?
Ukraine was invaded by its neighbour. Russia started a war.
Would you deem tweets that encourage donations toward Ukraine's military defence to be "promoting war"?
How about tweets that boost morale of their defence forces (well-produced propaganda videos, etc)?
The war isn't something that Ukraine wanted, but it was forced on them.
To then demote any tweet about Ukraine is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and (in the examples I've given above) making their digital 'life' harder when trying to deal with a problem they didn't want.