Hacker News Reader

Comment by cdot2 | Hacker News Reader

So essentially the problem is they're sticking to their "violence is bad" policy when in this specific situation violence is maybe not bad.

View on HN

These black and white policies that discard nuance always run into these problems.

Similar to how the "zero violence policies" in schools means they punish the bullied because they're defending themselves.

No, they are hypocrites because there is plenty of violence related stuff funded through Patreon.

If you're been bullied then the school management behaves like hypocrites too.

> when in this specific situation violence is maybe not bad.

I'm pretty sure Russia would say the same thing if you ask them about their situation. That's the problem once you bring in subjectivity.

That being said, tolerating the account for a few more days would've probably been a better play.

EDIT: Just to be very clear, I'm not condoning Russian aggression in any way. My point is that not funding a war is an acceptable choice, since it's very easy to be wrong and a sure way to bring human suffering.

This is why trying "both sides" or staying "neutral" on every issue doesn't make sense.

> If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor — Desmond Tutu

The problem is there will be situations where it is less clear if it's bad or not.

Next step would be all kind of groups trying to get military funding.

Why not cross that bridge when those less clear situations happen rather than throwing about the false neutrality principle[1] as a defense now?

[1] Thinking about this https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/99574-we-must-take-sides-ne...

It's not about neutrality, it's about doing it the right way. In the end they only become a target of russia's cyber warfare.

There are better channels and ways of helping without making a civilian platform a war target.

That problem is a lot, lot smaller than the problem of people dying in Ukraine as they typed out that statement.

Officially supported funding would make them a legitimate target in war.

like how the US was supposed to send them $400 million in military aid? [0] Or the EU is sending them €1.2 billion?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Tr...

[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022...

The US/EU have military backing. What does pateron have?

The Ukraine has disabled some human rights 7 years ago and is actively engaging in violent war with several human right violations for over 8 years now.

I don't see how even this situation is as clear as people make it out to be.

Or maybe violence is still bad.

It's self-defense. Or is that bad too?

We all know the final outcome of this. In the face of the overwhelming force Ukraine faces it seems to me any help we provide is just going to prolong the agony.

That's not a given. And dragging out the fight gives other forces a chance, too.

What other forces? The West isn't going to intervene directly.

History of the world would be very different if people actually believed that.

Ukraine sees the overwhelming force for 8 years straight.

That didn't seem to be the case in Crimea.

That's all I can think of... I just don't see an outcome where Ukraine receives so much support from the West that it will manage to beat Russia and make it go home without accomplishing any of its goals.... people seem to think that's a possible outcome. I wonder why when Kiev seems to already be surrounded and the USA government (who was right about warning about an imminent invasion!) has already said (correct me if I am wrong) that Kiev is likely to fall within days.

Short of actual military action from the West, which is extremely unlikely as that would give grounds to retaliation by Russia, escalating the war outside Ukrainian borders, Russia seems only days away from removing the Ukrainian government...

The rational thing to do right now is to start planning for the aftermath: how to get Russia out of Ukraine as soon as possible once they've taken control of the country. IMO there's only one way: to dialogue with Putin and finally accept some kind of terms for their removal from Ukraine. This is not what anyone wanted, but now that we've let Putin get to Kiev, what exactly are the options?

Anyone who thinks sending money and weapons to Ukraine will help solve the problem (including, to my horror, the UK government) seems to completely ignore the reality of the situation and is hoping for a delusional outcome, and worse, opening the possibility for things to go wrong and foreign soldiers being killed while trying to reach Ukrainian troops - which may without a doubt trigger a counter-attack by NATO and total escalation of the conflict (which should be priority number one to avoid right now!).

Consider both the US and Russia eventually left Afghanistan.

Look at the cost though. Afghanistan is the poorest country in the world, people are actually starving there now, women aren't allowed to work, people are being murdered for their political beliefs. Just so they could give their invaders a bloody nose.

I think there is nuance there but it may derail the intent of my comment: It is not a foregone conclusion that an invasion with intent of regime change and control is actually a viable strategy. The point of the Afghanistan inclusion is that the relative miltary strengths were even more lopsided yet it was not enough for Russia nor the US to maintain control. Insurgencies are devastating and the more legitimate they are, the more likely they are to maintain support.

I'm sure you'd also tell someone being raped to not defend themselves so it's over faster?

Jesus Christ, how do you people get so callous? What is wrong with you? who hurt you? What made you give up empathy and humanity?

I'll never understand you people.

Agreed, this is beyond disgusting.

Do you really think Ukraine has a reasonable chance of resisting this invasion? It doesn't look like it to me. So what are you offering other than prolonging the agony?

Ukraine resists for 8 years straight. How many years you need to accept that Ukraine is stronger than RF?

Ah the 'lets roll over for the enemy' group. Yes, we had those here in NL as well when WWII broke out.

Let's just say that when the invaders eventually left - as they always do - that group didn't fare particularly well. It's called cowardice, if coupled with actions that benefit the enemy it's called collaboration and is usually dealt with for what it is: treason.

I have no dog in this particular race other than that I know both a number of Russians and a number of Ukrainians so consider my views 'balanced' for what that is worth: down with Putin, and I hope that the Russian soldiers know that they may win the initial push but the price will be substantial and eventually they will lose.

The weird thing is that if anything the result of this is that NATO will expand, precisely to ward of this sort of idiocy.

As for agony: some prefer to fight rather than to suffer under an invader, which is a special kind of agony, which tends to last a lot longer and which will endanger not just you but also your family, your children and so on. Russia has a long history of invading other countries and it invariably spells utter misery for the occupied people.

> The weird thing is that if anything the result of this is that NATO will expand, precisely to ward of this sort of idiocy.

And many seem to have forgotten under Putin's propaganda of "the NATO provocations" that the free and democratic societies of the former Soviet Union / Eastern Bloc chose to join NATO after Russia's military actions, particularly after the events of 1991-1996 (Transnistria conflict, Abchasian separatist conflict, "intervention" in Chechnya).

It is the fault of Russian politics that NATO is so close to its borders!

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Of course they have a chance. Their current strength is about 465k men (and women). Add on top the general mobilization happening now. They're also strongly motivated, which the Russians aren't. Ukraine can definitely do this.

Also, giving up doesn't guarantee people will be safe. Russian occupation forces aren't usually very nice.

Did Ireland ever have a reasonable chance of resisting British invasion? Did Afghanistan ever have a reasonable chance of resisting Soviet/US invasion? Did Vietnam ever have a reasonable chance of resisting US/Chinese invasion?

Northern Ireland has never looked so close to reunification and that is largely because the republicans renounced their violence.

Would you have thought the Taliban and IS did in e.g. Afghanistan? Twenty years later and the US got tired of trying, pulled out, and they're back in power.

They can't win a guerilla war.

Yep, fighting without considering the consequences is what people should do. Let's destroy all of Europe if we need to, just so we can say fuck you Putin! Beyong disgusting , me? I am sure you're the best person in the world and ready to pack your bags and bear arms against any invincible opponent without even thinking about the costs as they don't matter a single bit.

Your position is called 'appeasement'. It's understandable, if not very good in the long term because that means that Putin gets to rule the world.

Somewhere you have to draw a line, you can choose for yourself whether that line is the Ukrainian border, Kiev or France. But you too will find that you have a line. Or maybe you don't.

> destroy all of Europe if we need to, just so we can say fuck you Putin

"just so we can say fuck you Putin"? Really? That is how you are attempting to frame the situation of a clear victim defending itself against an aggressor that has been appeased for years now?

So you believe that the attacking entity should always win, no questions asked? Is conflict to be avoided at all costs? Can I come into your home and just claim your house if I threaten to escalate with violence? You wouldn't want any conflict, so the right move would be to just give it to me.

>So you believe that the attacking entity should always win

Nobody is saying that.

Unwillingness to differentiate between different types of violence (like attacking vs. defending) under any circumstance is exactly "saying that".

Depending on the topic you can easily call it victim blaming too.

My country was in a similar position 30 years ago. A laughable army compared to the 5th largest army on paper in Europe that attacked us. The USA didn't want to get involved.

Today we are richer than Portugal.

Not at all.

1. Appeasement is not an option. It just encourages them to do it again.

2. It is up to the Ukrainians if they want to fight to the bitter end. We can't make them, we can't stop them, but we can have their backs.

3. The purpose of resisting an illegal occupation is to drive up the cost of staying as high as possible. This works, even without economic sanctions. Just ask Vietnam or Afghanistan.

4. In a proxy war, countries officially "ignore" inconvenient facts because acknowledging them will cause a more complicated conflict. This happened all over the Cold War, but as recently as Afghanistan the US had to turn a blind eye to Pakistan's behavior.

5. Nothing is predetermined or strictly predictable. History is chaos. The only thing we know for sure right now is this will be hell for the Ukrainians.

My argument is if all you do is extend the inevitable by a few days or weeks then what have you gained? Just more misery with the same outcome.

Depends on Russia's goals. From this other front page (lengthy) discussion[1], they posit Russia likely made a mistake if their goal is regime change. Insurgency's work, especially when they are legitimate. I expect if Ukraine forces survive, they would recieve long-term and well-financed backing indefinitely from the west. Now if Russia's goals are not regime change but just to destablize / make a mess, or even to just make a statement and leave (if that's politically viable? idk), different story.

[1]: https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-...

I personally don't expect Russia to conquer all of Ukraine. It's a big country with 40 million people iirc. When Germany invaded Ukraine in 1941 they had 3 million soldiers.

I honestly don't know what Putin is expecting to gain from this. The occupation won't pay for itself and Russian economy is already bleak.

On paper with raw soldier numbers you may be right, but look at the map, and check once again how many troops russians deployed. Its not possible to really conquer country so vast with so few soldiers. Maybe 5x more, maybe 10x. Not if civilians are armed, full of hate and can actually shoot their guns and plan diversions effectively.

Yes they can bomb the bases and airports, capture few important points, but if population offers resistance in form of guerilla warfare, russians will bleed and will bleed hard and achieve nothing. Not that russian oligarchs like Putin ever cared about casualties even on their side.

I am not claiming its the best approach overall, maybe even the worst in terms of casualties. But there is something in human nature that reacts wildly when oppression comes and freedoms are being taken. Americans should understand this very well.

I personally think his game is just to install pro-russian government forever and few military bases and withdraw most of the army. Something like second Belarus. Look at the map - he will have 500km wall from rest of Europe. Now the billion $ question is, what he thinks about baltic states, since they are part of Nato.

No, because Russian soldiers get demoralised the longer they stay or fight: noone waits them in Ukraine with hugs, its not their land. Not just Ukrainian soldiers fight with them, but also civilian people resist, especially those who sign for local (in-city, in-town, in-village) defence groups.

> its not their land

I have my suspicions that a few of them believe the opposite.

Plus it is hard to call "agony" a defense of your land, your way of life (and I mean freedom here) and people you live with and love.

Please fix your comment, you're basically saying that Ukraine should just roll over. What happens next? Think before replying, you may come across as a Russia apologist.

the Taliban and IS dragged out the conflict in the middle east for 20 years and came out victorious against an army that spent trillions on that conflict. That was after said army was defeated in Vietnam as well.

>the Taliban and IS dragged out the conflict in the middle east for 20 years

At what cost? America and their allies would have left a long time ago without the Taliban.

Really think this through...if the Taliban had rolled over and let the US win, then there would be a more "stable" western influenced government in place, which is exactly what they were fighting against the whole time.

There is an important but subtle difference between violence and force, and people use both terms as if they were the same. They are not.

Violence is exaggerated force.

You can kill a man and not be exerting violence (like in self-defence).

The only party committing violence here is Putin and his cronies, the guy doesn't even have the backing of the Russian society - he's been ruling by fear for many years now.

To stand aside and claim "violence is bad" while someone is attacked is supporting the attacker, not the innocent attacked.

Who would take up the role of morality police though?

I mean would you still support it if the Ukranian military capture a Russian soldier and torture them?

What if it's not the Ukranian military but IS? Or the US army, which is also guilty of war crimes [0]?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base

Are you arguing that we shouldn't support Ukraine?

If that gives you moral pause you should perhaps stop paying U.S. taxes as a U.S. citizen and see where that gets you.

This is called "sticking to your principles". It's a rare thing these days.

I have different principals than them

Good for you.

No, they still allow all the gun-advocacy patreons and things like that. It's more because of regulations that make it harder to exist if your platform materially supports foreign war efforts. Cowardly stance, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com