- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 7,390
- Reaction score
- 3,584
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Suppose an armed robber starts breaking down someone's door; they call the cops but obviously it'll take some time to get there, so the homeowner tries to fight the robber themselves, unarmed. Or a little more appropriately in light of Russia's nuclear threats, terrorists start taking hostages and the police are trying to resolve the situation, while the first hostage refuses to be tied down, fights back and starts getting beaten and bloodied for it. Do we blame the police for the injuries these people suffer at the hands of their aggressors?
I wouldn't headline this with 'should' Ukraine have surrendered; ultimately that's their decision, the decision of everyone confronted with aggression whether or not to fight back. We might even admire their bravery in doing so if the odds are obviously stacked in the aggressor's favour. But equally there's no shame in acknowledging the difficulty or impossibility of fighting back and choosing to avoid the heavy toll which violent resistance will incur.
My real question is should the visual and emotional impact of that violence - initiated by Russia and justifiably answered by Ukraine, the numbers dead and wounded, demolished infrastructure and so on - should it become or be used as a reason to draw third parties in and escalate the violence still further?
That seems to be the most common argument we're seeing from those who believe enough isn't being done, and especially those who want direct military involvement by third parties: Look at all this suffering in Ukraine, how can we stand by and let it happen! Some folk even express anger or blame against leaders in other countries for it. But while reasonable people know that the blame for the suffering belongs fully and exclusively with Russia's leaders, the fact remains that Zelensky and other Ukrainian leaders presumably knew that they would suffer more death and destruction by putting up a serious defense. When Iraq invaded Kuwait - a non-nuclear power which had similarly initiated full-scale aggression against Iran just a few years previously - despite instant and unanimous condemnation by the UN Security Council it was still five months before international military operations against Iraq commenced. Ukraine's leaders surely must have known that aggression by a country with a UN veto and vast nuclear arsenal would likely be as or more intractable.
I'd welcome any better-informed opinions, but it seems to me that their decision to fight was more or less a decision to fight alone for months at least; brave and even admirable, but does that make it acceptable to be used as a hook trying to drag everyone else into WW3 by rapid escalation?
I wouldn't headline this with 'should' Ukraine have surrendered; ultimately that's their decision, the decision of everyone confronted with aggression whether or not to fight back. We might even admire their bravery in doing so if the odds are obviously stacked in the aggressor's favour. But equally there's no shame in acknowledging the difficulty or impossibility of fighting back and choosing to avoid the heavy toll which violent resistance will incur.
My real question is should the visual and emotional impact of that violence - initiated by Russia and justifiably answered by Ukraine, the numbers dead and wounded, demolished infrastructure and so on - should it become or be used as a reason to draw third parties in and escalate the violence still further?
That seems to be the most common argument we're seeing from those who believe enough isn't being done, and especially those who want direct military involvement by third parties: Look at all this suffering in Ukraine, how can we stand by and let it happen! Some folk even express anger or blame against leaders in other countries for it. But while reasonable people know that the blame for the suffering belongs fully and exclusively with Russia's leaders, the fact remains that Zelensky and other Ukrainian leaders presumably knew that they would suffer more death and destruction by putting up a serious defense. When Iraq invaded Kuwait - a non-nuclear power which had similarly initiated full-scale aggression against Iran just a few years previously - despite instant and unanimous condemnation by the UN Security Council it was still five months before international military operations against Iraq commenced. Ukraine's leaders surely must have known that aggression by a country with a UN veto and vast nuclear arsenal would likely be as or more intractable.
I'd welcome any better-informed opinions, but it seems to me that their decision to fight was more or less a decision to fight alone for months at least; brave and even admirable, but does that make it acceptable to be used as a hook trying to drag everyone else into WW3 by rapid escalation?
