Like, if Ukraine let Russia have specific regions and it meant millions of people not dying, would people go for it?
In the end, it’s the people who fight that determine if the thing they are fighting for is worth their lives. Dying for some lines on the map sounds bad, but if it were only lines on the map, then the people probably wouldn't choose to die for them, would they?
Nobody wants to die, but if someone is ready to give up their life for some cause, then who are you to tell them they can't?
It's the fate of Ukrainians that is at stake and its the Ukrainians that determine if changing that fate is worth the costs of their lives.
It is a very subjective topic, however. I might save my family even if it meant the death of hundreds of people, or not, it is a moral dilemma for sure. I do not have an answer.
Some people may believe "less people dying" is always favorable.
From what I gathered, people above a certain age say that their country was better under Soviet Union. Additionally, people say (probably rightly so) that Orbán is pro-Putin. Why is it the case?
Rather a minority of people above a certain age. Like, these days you can go to the shop and buy a banana. Other things, too. I still remember the queues, at the end of which... there was nothing.
Assuming this is true, it's because these are soviet leftovers who had a low education, were indoctrinated from a young age, and lived during the dream phase where you were told what to do, where to live, etc. Then came the bill when everything collapsed because this didn't work. I can make everybody happy tomorrow by emptying the state coffers and institutionalizing national NEETDOM, can't promise our happiness will last long but we can try! And regardless of what they think, it was shit.
Edit: about "why is Orban pro-putin?", this is a joke right?
No, genuine question, he is Eastern European. Let us go further, they claim Hungary is pro-Russian, how come?
In fact, you're so wrong that we're no longer in the realm of having opinions. You're objectively wrong. Look up comparisons of the economic growth of nations to the west of the Berlin Wall and to its east. Germany's alone would suffice, but have at it.
And then you think bringing up outliers means anything... If chess is so difficult why is Magnus Carlsen so good at it? Therefore, chess is an easy game, gotcha. yawn
But if you consider the majority of the elderly in villages as outliers, then have at it.
It does not change the fact that many of them said that life was better in Soviet Union.
How am I objectively wrong? All I claimed was that some people preferred their life in Soviet Union. I think you read too much into it.
Sometimes, it's simply not possible to have both.
Do you truly expect Ukraine to just roll over?
Can you genuinely not imagine being under the thumb of a dictator who sends you off to die?
Elsewhere in this thread you're responding to me as if don't even seem to accept that this can occur despite the fact that it already has.
You accused others with having a voice of moral superiority, but your "I did not pick a side" is just that.
There are only two possible outcomes to this war. Either Ukraine still exists as a sovereign nation, or it doesn't. The first will require continued fighting. There is no possibility for Ukraine to remain sovereign without violently kicking Russia out of its land.
Neutrality only supports aggressors.
What you described is black and white thinking, however, and there is much more to it than just "either Russia wins or does not win", pretty sure there can be a compromise, you know, a middle path, that is good enough for both parties and consequently there will be less deaths.
If people want to die for justice, so be it. Up to them, but:
Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?
Do you?
Because Russia is the invader. It lied about the troop movements being a prelude to invasion. It lied about the reasons for invading. It has committed, and continues to commit, war crimes. It has made nuclear threats to dissuade others from helping Ukraine defend itself. It has threatened Finland for daring to join NATO.
> pretty sure there can be a compromise
Why do you think this?
Russia can stop their unlawful invasion of a sovereign country any time they want. That they have not done so ought to be a QED that they don't want to stop.
> Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?
Would you talk about the invasion of your own country in the same vein?
I don't know where you live. USA? Imagine Russia had in 2014 annexed Alaska the way they've annexed Crimea, and in 2022 started trying the same on the states of Washington and Montana, and briefly had control of the I-90 as far as Chicago before being repelled.
If that happened, would you say "pretty sure there can be a compromise"?
The "compromise" Zelenskyy is offering Putin is: "get out of my country that you've illegally occupied, and I won't keep shooting drones into your oil refineries".
The "compromise" Putin is offering Zelenskyy is: "Be our puppet or die".
Nothing about Russian state behaviour looks like they're willing to behave. Not the military action, not the broad-daylight assassinations (not only in Ukraine, but also in Germany and the UK and Turkey), certainly not the war crimes.
Right now, the Russian government is acting, and talking, as if Ukraine isn't even a real country.
BTW you did not answer "Would you talk about suicide bombers in the same vain though?". They do it for justice, too. Who's justice? Perhaps not yours, but justice nonetheless.
> The "compromise" Zelenskyy is offering Putin is: "get out of my country that you've illegally occupied, and I won't keep shooting drones into your oil refineries". > The "compromise" Putin is offering Zelenskyy is: "Be our puppet or die".
As I said, black and white thinking. That is not how life works.
To have done "the same", he would have needed to force Russian citizens living in occupied Kursk to pick up guns and throw their lives away fighting other Russians. Which he didn't.
Russia did force people from occupied territories to fight in Ukraine.
Because short term survival means surrender, followed by the medium term getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country.
Is it not just speculation? Does it have any merits? Would he do it? What makes you think that it is going to happen, that he wants to do it? Could he actually attempt to do it?
Having already done it three times:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
3. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/russia-forces-ukrainians...
What is currently limiting him from going further is, specifically, the armed forces of Ukraine.
I am referring to NATO, UN, ICC, Amnesty International & Human Rights Organizations, global backslash, fear of uncontrollable consequences (wrt. current allies like China and India, as they are Russia's key trade partners).
So there are those deterrents: legal charges, sanctions, political pressure, military retaliation, geopolitical fallout, and internal resistance within Russia itself.
Even Russian oligarchs and elites might resist, fearing total international isolation.
There are many reasons to not be afraid of what we might believe Putin would do ("getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country" and so forth).
NATO only applies if they go specifically for a NATO country — which is why Ukraine wants into NATO in the first place, and why the invasion of Ukraine got Finland to join in a hurry. Also this is only a risk while NATO continues to still exist, which is threatened both because Trump has explicitly said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447
And: https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-offshore-drilling-gul...
And: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/former-australian-pm...
But also Russia is starting to prepare for direct NATO confrontation anyway: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-accuses-west-push...
> UN
Russia is on the permanent security council, they have a veto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_Unite...
> ICC
Already has arrest warrants for them, can't escalate further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...
> Amnesty International & Human Rights Organizations, global backslash, fear of uncontrollable consequences (wrt. current allies like China and India, they are Russia's key trade partners).
None of this stopped them so far, why would it start?
Especially on trade: Russia is a petrostate, their main export is fuel, the invasion of Ukraine by itself sped up the European transition away from fossil fuels in general and their fossil fuels in particular, and everyone Russia does business with — including "allies", though that's too strong a word for their relationship with India — has every reason to take advantage of the price ceiling to get discounts even when they don't explicitly take part in the actual ceiling itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_crude_oil_price_c...
> There are many reasons to not be afraid of what we might believe Putin would do ("getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go after the next country" and so forth).
Why are you ignoring the evidence that this has already happened three times?
Why do you insist on treating this as a hypothetical?
It's about living in a democracy.
Is it worth dying to ensure your children live in a democracy where they have control over their future?
Or is it better to allow a dictatorship like Russia to engulf your country, and your children grow up under authoritarianism?
It's not boundaries as much as an invading political system you despise.
So I'm talking about those specific territories -- all of Ukraine.
You don't really think that giving up the territory Russia has taken already is going to stop Russia from advancing further?
> You don't really think that giving up the territory Russia has taken already is going to stop Russia from advancing further?
I honestly do not know. If they do, then it requires military intervention.
Yes.
> If they do, then it requires military intervention.
Yes. That is the military intervention that Ukraine is continuing to take against Russia currently.
Does it all make sense now? Why Ukraine shouldn't just let itself be invaded, in order to avoid deaths?
People are willing to fight for freedom, even if they might die in the process.
By your logic, you're saying everyone should just surrender to violent bullies. Most people don't think that kind of subjugation is a life worth living -- not if they can help it.
Because when you wrote:
> One of them will have to stop, if neither does, there will be more bloodshed, that is a given, right? If Putin does not stop, shouldn't Zelensky do?
You can say in WWII, if Hitler does not stop, then shouldn't Churchill/FDR/etc. stop to avoid more bloodshed?
It's the same thing. It's an expansionist European land grab by a dictator. Just take how you understand WWII and apply it to this conflict.
So stopping Hitler through whatever means necessary results in less deaths, right? That was my initial point: less deaths.
You think that would have been preferred then? You would prefer that today we would live under a fascist Third Reich, instead of democracies, so that we could have saved the lives of those who fought in WWII?
I mean, you're free to prefer that. But everyone who fought did it because they thought it was worth it to die, to save democracy so they and their children and their children's children wouldn't have to live under fascist rulers from another nation.
Maybe you don't think Ukranians should fight. But Ukranians clearly believe it's worth it. And people in the country honor those who die for it. And I do too.
And then tell Putin "hey Putain, feel free to call our bluff".
Nuclear war couldn't be won.
Clearly, you're unfamiliar with the prosecution of a nuclear conflict.
I wouldn't count on NYC being the only place hit. In fact, I wouldn't count on any of our port cities and even any mainland military infrastructure surviving the initial strike. Additionally, energy infrastructure would be severely crippled. None of that even counts the disruption to electronics and communication wrought by the EMP blasts. And no, none of it's coming back. I can assure any Russian readers that the same would happen to you in a nuclear exchange with us. The initial strikes would be unfortunate for europe, as I think they would likely fare the worst.
But as bad off as we'd all be, the worst would be yet to come. The secondary strikes are where the knockout blows would be dealt.
Nuclear war, (any war really), is raw and nasty. Don't expect "limited" strikes. By your own admission, we would send a massive retaliatory strike to Russia. It defies logic for them to send a limited strike our way. That's not how nuclear war works.
Putin is the one who started it, and he can stop it any time.
Anyone else can only get the peace of surrendering to a violent dictator willing to conquor.
Let's say that Putin is not the only person in Russian leadership who supports war with Ukraine. What then? I mean we get rid of Putin, and the next guy is worse.
I know. I know. That would never happen in a million years. But humor me. What then? Do we have a plan for "we took out Putin and it didn't change anything"?
Or is this whole thing just a fly by the seat of the pants kind of thing?
Feel free, this is no parade for me. And if anyone is taking me seriously*, they need serious alternatives to my beliefs.
* which would be their first mistake, as I'm a software engineer not a geopolitical military analyst
> I mean we get rid of Putin, and the next guy is worse
What would "worse" look like?
Putin is already at war, has a massive propaganda network and fake elections, yet still feels unable to have another round of mobilisation due to the internal political fallout.
Putin is already threatening nuclear weapons, has already updated doctrine — "The doctrine now says an attack from a non-nuclear state, if backed by a nuclear power, will be treated as a joint assault on Russia." - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4v0rey0jzo
The only way to be worse, is to actually use them.
Then you're starting to see my point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang
Putin is already a threat, without actually using the weapons.
Cold war was rather less theoretical in Europe than in the USA. The USA got to argue about missile gaps and sending conscripts to prevent domino effects; we got to watch troops and tanks doing maneuvers by shared land borders they themselves had fortified.
A forum like HN will be familiar with the misdeeds of the CIA/NSA/Five Eyes; much of Europe with the KGB/Stasi/ etc. from allied/puppet states.
Friends in the UK got married, the father of the bride talked about fleeing torture in (communist) Poland. The current prime minister of Poland was part of the movement that overthrew communist rule, leading to his own arrest: https://www.gov.pl/web/primeminister/donald-tusk
Russia gets the blame for pulling everyone's strings in the cold war.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania: tried to appease Russians, still got invaded, governments overthrown, puppets installed as replacements, a large part of the local population was deported to Siberian labor camps in multiple mass actions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_deportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Priboi This was followed by a 50-year military occupation that saw severe violations of human rights, suppression of national identity, and developmental retardation that left these countries severely behind of their free counterparts.
Poland: Russians colluded with Hitler and invaded from both the west and the east in September 1939. Germans started burning Jews in ovens, Russians set up an industrial operation to murder Polish politicans, lawyers, officers and other national leaders by tens of thousands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre Hundreds of thousands were murdered in total and 1.5 million deported to Siberia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_c... In Poland too, Russians installed a dictatorship at the end of WWII that severely held the country back until the 1990s.
The rest of the journey southward on the European map remains homework for you to complete.
After that, we can philosophize why no one likes Russians, if that still remains unclear.
But even regardless of wars - there was always some degree of russophobia without any good reasons. Maybe it's just a fear of a big neighboring country, I don't know.
As for Katyn - you are right, it was indeed a crime by USSR's Stalin and it's a shame USSR hasn't admitted to that crime until as late as 1990.
Thank you for that reply.
Also, the poster above gave you actual examples that you're handwaving as "regardless of wars" and then go on to say "russophobia without any good reasons"?
Please don't try to wash this over as "USSR" or blame it on Stalin. It's called Russia now and Putin is in charge, but the fundamentals haven't changed, they're still russifying captured territory by displacing local people and they still have no regard for basic human rights.
Any other "peace treaty" will only lead to Russia rebuilding and attacking again, leading to yet another war, having learned the important lesson that aggression works.
We want it to stop NOW, but that's wishful thinking just as world peace is. The sooner you internalize that, the better.
There's a logical flaw in what you are saying. Forcing Ukraine to accept a truce right now, without any security guarantees will result in a LOT MORE deaths. Russia will re-arm, using their oil and gas money, and in a year finish the job. Right now, Ukraine can hang on, but if Russia gets its shit together during a truce it's game over.
What could happen is that they negotiates a truce with security guarantees from the US or at the very least a no-fly zone. But Trump doesn't want that, Trump doesn't want to do anything, he want mineral rights to offset the cost of the last president gave Ukraine (Not $350 bn, that number is lies, its ~$70bn), asking for $400bn rare earths and other metals. I can only assume he will only give new weapons under the same terms. A shameful shakedown. And even if Ukraine agrees to this, Trump has said he won't enforce a no-fly zone or give a security guarantee.
The best thing Trump and the US can do from now on is just to not get involved in teh war. I can see Trump supporting Putin out of spite.
This isn’t the first time Putin has invaded another country, had the west capitulate for “peace”, then two years later Putin invades somewhere else.
Hell, Putin originally invade Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Every one made “pease” with Putin, and few years later he invades the rest of Ukraine. If Trump sell out Ukraine now, it might end the “official” war, but there will be endless civil/insurgency warfare in Ukraine for decades. The Ukraine’s have zero interest in allowing a foreign country simply take their land without a fight.
This is a war between Ukraine and Russia, not the US. Nobody should want western powers to enter this war because of the potential consequences. But if western powers make security guarantees, isn't that what you risk?
What are Zelensky’s aims, they’re pretty damn obvious, do everything in his power to remove a foreign aggressor from Ukrainian land. Why would expect people who have been invaded to not defend their country and their land?
Look: I do not believe the world will be a more peaceful and prosperous place if America continues the path of providing billions of dollars in weapons and military aid to the Ukraine war effort. My question to others is: Do you believe I'm wrong in this assessment, and that the world will be more peaceful and more prosperous if we continue funding this war? Or, is it that: Do you believe that Peace and Prosperity are not Generally Good things we should strive to achieve?
Is the aim to negotiate for peace, and in that negotiation ensure Russia gets nothing? If so, do you believe that to be a realistic thing Ukraine can ask for right now? Even if the United States is brokering the negotiation, and wants this for Ukraine, what can the United States bring to the table to help make it happen? Is your suggestion that the United States go so-far as to guarantee Ukraine's security through direct military intervention?
That's where my brain is at on this; its a horrible situation, but if the goal we're optimizing toward is Peace and Prosperity, and I believe those goals to be laudable, and if we admit that the United States is not All Powerful (as proven by our billions in military aid up to this point not as of yet Increasing Peace and Prosperity in the region): What options does the United States have left to help Ukraine? Do you want to lace up your boots and go to war for them? Or, is it just, do you want to send them another hundred billion in military aid, so the war can continue in a stalemate for another three years?
If you take the view that “Peace and Prosperity” can only be achieved by surrender, the. Putin will simply do what he’s always done. Invade neighbouring countries then sue of “peace”, and will keep doing that until he’s claimed the entire of Europe. And all of Europe will live under whatever “Peace and Prosperity” Putin deems we’re allowed.
And yes, funding this war will ultimately result in a longer, better peace, and greater prosperity, by making it clear to Putin that he can’t just take what he wants. Otherwise we might as capitulate now and give Putin his every demand, regardless of how absurd it is, because apparently “Peace and Prosperity” means handing everything over to the most violent individual in the room.
Zelenskies aim is for his country not to be conquered. There are no open demands from Russia to satisfy.
No other way from stoping Putin.
/s
Right now Europe needs time to build. The calculus has radically changed. They need to build out in a fashion that is massive, but also both quick and quiet. This situation is too serious for rash action. Especially where victory is not guaranteed.
Europe is already in this war and it is costing us money and European lives if we want or not.