I can’t help but wonder if there would be less war if supporters had to have skin in the game.
Like how many supporters of military action are fine with sending other people to war, but would change their mind if it meant them having to go.
Like how many supporters of military action are fine with sending other people to war, but would change their mind if it meant them having to go.
"Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah"
This war is already lost by Russia precisely because the generals and leaders are too far from the frontline. They are using people as pawns.
The only reason this war appears so dangerous is because of nukes. This will be the first time in history that a non-American nuclear power is losing a war.
I thought Russia was losing generals left and right in Ukraine?[1] Certainly, Putin and his sycophants are not on the front lines.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_generals_kille...
That is hard to believe but I am unable to contradict it.
Soviet invasion of Afganistan?
"Can you think of anything funnier than a man having the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the river and his king quarrels with mine, although I don't with him?"
Blaise Pascal, Pensées, circa 1660.
Or we could build giant dueling death robots who decide wars 1-on-1 instead of pointlessly wasting human lives like in classic Sci-Fi schlock Robot Jox [0]:
> Fifty years after a nuclear holocaust, mankind is decimated and the surviving nations—the American western-influenced Market and the Soviet-Russian-influenced Confederation—have agreed to outlaw traditional open war. In their place, disputes are settled with gladiator-style matches between giant robots operated by pilots called "robot jox" [...]
CCR answered this question back in the 1969:
https://genius.com/Creedence-clearwater-revival-fortunate-so...
> Why even stop at war?
Because it's an act. Poverty isn't.
When it did any good, yes, I did my share of protesting. I even did some politics, I'm actually still a party member.
Meanwhile in Putin’s Russia you can get jailed for just calling it a war.
All states, regardless of professed ideology, are only concerned with matters that affect their stability. Nobody in US power elite gave an F about people stretching for miles in DC and NYC. And many in the country were not even aware of the scale of the protests.
Look at what any state suppresses without remorse and that is where their vulnerabilities are.
In countries like Russia, China, and Iran, where the notion of a "leader" is significant in maintaining state cohesion, public displays of division undermine the psychological barriers that any person (anywhere) creates internally, in a very similar fashion to taboos. Public rebuke of leadership breaks taboos that maintain the 'magic circle' of power. It is all psychological, with local variations based on history, culture, system timeline, etc.