What if Ukraine surrendered and resisted nonviolently?

[Mithrae]

Yes. It is appropriate for Zelensky to ask for aid from other countries.

Thankyou for the thoughtful reply It's appropriate for victims of aggression to ask for assistance ending the aggression, for sure. I'm asking about specifically using the visual/emotional impact of the additional suffering caused by fighting violence with violence - the men, women and children who likely would not have been killed, the buildings which would not have been destroyed, the refugees who likely would not have been displaced - as a way of shaming potential helpers into hasty action or for 'not doing enough.' For example, the call by many people for America to shoot down Russian aircraft over Ukraine would obviously be a dramatic step towards escalation, yet probably wouldn't resolve the conflict or end ground-based Russian aggression... and it's a call which could exist only in the context of Ukraine fighting back, not a Ukraine which had surrendered after token defense and opted for nonviolent resistance instead.

Have you seen many (any, even) Ukrainians calling for Zelensky to surrender?

Ukrainians want to keep control of their country and are clearly willing to fight and die, if necessary, to keep it.

Obviously it is the prerogative of any person or group no matter how weak to violently resist any aggressor no matter how powerful. We might even admire their courage in cases of such disproportionate power. But the question is should 'we' feel shamed or compelled - using the comparison in the OP for example - into charging headlong into a hostage situation out of sympathy for the poor guy who decided to fight back and is getting beaten up by the terrorists? Or is it more reasonable to harden our hearts to that part of the situation and stay true to finding a big picture resolution?

Kuwait did not attack Iraq. You’re misremembering history. Iran and Iraq warred previous to Iraq attacking/invading Kuwait.

Or you've chosen an uncharitable interpretation of my admittedly ambiguously-phrased sentence In contrast to Russia, Iraq was "a non-nuclear power which had similarly initiated full-scale aggression against Iran just a few years previously," as I said.

Answering your own question with your own answer.

As for my opinion, democracy is absolutely worth fighting for, and it’s worth helping others doing the same.

I agree; depending on the circumstances it can be worthy of both violent resistance and nonviolent resistance. But peace is worth something too, isn't it? And preservation of lives and infrastructure? And (most pertinently in the case of aggression by a country with a vast nuclear arsenal) minimizing even moderate risks of the collapse of human civilization?

An alternative scenario might have been a token Ukrainian resistance followed by organization of a mass peaceful protest and resistance movement; tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in each city, every day, showing the world that it's not some imaginary 'Nazi regime' but the entire country who oppose Putin's aggression. Thousands would be arrested under phony 'curfew' and 'security' orders... but how many would be killed, compared to the numbers dying in warfare? How many buildings would be destroyed, how many refugees left fleeing and homeless?

Would the rest of the world's resolve to force Russia out of Ukraine by economic pressure as a first effort and violence as a last resort be any weaker in that scenario? Would the sympathy of Russia's own public still come down as solidly in favour of their military when there are no Russian corpses to 'justify' the brutality and crackdowns? I don't have those answers, so pretty much the best way I can think of it is by analogy, and certainly in a hostage analogy I think it would be misguided at best to use the suffering of a resistant hostage as the basis for shaming, blaming or spurring hasty action on the part of intervening forces.

 

[Noodlegawd]

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?

Resist nonviolently, how exactly?

 

[Mithrae]

Resist nonviolently, how exactly?

An alternative scenario might have been a token Ukrainian defense and surrender followed by organization of a mass peaceful protest and resistance movement; tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in each city, every day, showing the world that it's not some imaginary 'Nazi regime' but the entire country who oppose Putin's aggression. Thousands would be arrested under phony 'curfew' and 'security' orders... but how many would be killed, compared to the numbers dying in warfare? How many buildings would be destroyed, how many refugees left fleeing and homeless?

Would the rest of the world's resolve to force Russia out of Ukraine by economic pressure as a first effort and violence as a last resort be any weaker in that scenario? Would the sympathy of Russia's own public still come down as solidly in favour of their military when there are no Russian corpses to 'justify' the brutality and crackdowns? I don't have those answers, so pretty much the best way I can think of it is by analogy, and certainly in a hostage analogy I think it would be misguided at best to use the suffering of a resistant hostage as the basis for shaming, blaming or spurring hasty action on the part of intervening forces.

 

[Questerr]

There are other options besides more militarism, more environmental destruction, more human rights abuses, etc, etc. Governments and people would have to DECIDE to deal with unwanted behaviors differently than we have. Most don't want to even consider that; they just want to pretend like there are governments and people committing good wars and bad wars.

How would you deal with Russia invading Ukraine? Should Ukraine have surrendered?

 

[Noodlegawd]

.... mass peaceful protest and resistance movement....

Like the ones in Russia where everyone who participates is being disappeared?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I've never seen commentary from you that would lead me to believe that you're genuinely interested.

That’s a poor substitute for simply saying that you have no plan, much less many of them. You pretend to have answers which you think gives you the right to put down the replies which others give. Typical trolling BS.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Chicken shit response.

His bluff got called.

 

[ChickenTendies]

This method is definitely more likely to succeed, since sustained loss of combat capabilities and a lack of operational momentum have forced Russia back to the negotiating table, and they are now saying "realistic progress" has been occurred in terms of security guarantees and NATO status. We've all seen how Russia deals with protests, however. Ukraine could've also negotiated with Russia's demands with an open mind, and had such an effort proven successful, I doubt such a war would've occurred in the first place, and the resulting peace deal that is in the process of being drafted will probably involve accepting a number of Russia's original demands anyway.

 

[beefheart]

That's what they were repeatedly offered but Coke Head Z went for virtue signalling and has lost thousands of troops as a result .

And your pal Z Putin jerks off to bombing innocent civilians and shooting children.

Your Russian propaganda is disgusting.

 

[Amelia]

This has been long in the works regardless of Trump

The world doesn't revolve around America, believe it or not

Putin took Crimea when Ukraine was getting too close to the west during Obama's time.

During Trump's time, Putin had a stooge who was blowing up western alliances and blackmailing Ukraine. Putin could bide his time and enjoy Trump's shitshow without any military expense or any cramping of his economic enterprises. His investment in throwing confusion into the 2016 election was paying off beyond his wildest dreams.

With Biden in office, western ties with Ukraine were improving again and Putin's sense of threat started to grow again.

And here we are.

 

[Linc]

your posts are disgusting.

As they will be on the next surge of omicron.

 

[jcgriff2]

What does Trump's socialist vaxx failure have to with the topic?

Failure?

w

what would have trump done?

Why do we think the world revolves around our president

Trump wouldn't need to do anything as Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine if Trump was commander-in-chief.

We'll find out how a Republican president will deal with Putin's aggression in January 2025.

There are other options besides more militarism, more environmental destruction, more human rights abuses, etc, etc. Governments and people would have to DECIDE to deal with unwanted behaviors differently than we have. Most don't want to even consider that; they just want to pretend like there are governments and people committing good wars and bad wars.

In a perfect "UN world" maybe, but that's not realistic here now regardless of the democrat's claims that this mess Biden allowed can somehow be dealt with peacefully. This will end up being the next competent US president's mess, along with the long list of other Biden cluster****s.

your posts are disgusting.

Interesting post considering...

Thousands would be arrested under phony 'curfew' and 'security' orders... but how many would be killed, compared to the numbers dying in warfare? How many buildings would be destroyed, how many refugees left fleeing and homeless?

No they wouldn't - they would either disappear or be murdered on the spot like Russian soldiers have been doing since the invasion began.

Would the rest of the world's resolve to force Russia out of Ukraine by economic pressure as a first effort and violence as a last resort be any weaker in that scenario? Would the sympathy of Russia's own public still come down as solidly in favour of their military when there are no Russian corpses to 'justify' the brutality and crackdowns? I don't have those answers, so pretty much the best way I can think of it is by analogy, and certainly in a hostage analogy I think it would be misguided at best to use the suffering of a resistant hostage as the basis for shaming, blaming or spurring hasty action on the part of intervening forces.

The only "rest of the world" = United States of America. All eyes are on us. If we do nothing, no one else will do anything either other than accept refugees. Who else could possibly stand up to Russia besides the US? The EU? I don't think so.

This has been long in the works regardless of Trump

The world doesn't revolve around America, believe it or not

The world does and has been revolving around the US since at least 1898.

I agree with your first sentence.

Putin took Crimea when Ukraine was getting too close to the west during Obama's time.

During Trump's time, Putin had a stooge who was blowing up western alliances and blackmailing Ukraine. Putin could bide his time and enjoy Trump's shitshow without any military expense or any cramping of his economic enterprises. His investment in throwing confusion into the 2016 election was paying off beyond his wildest dreams.

With Biden in office, western ties with Ukraine were improving again and Putin's sense of threat started to grow again.

And here we are.

A beyond wildest post filled with garbage. A weak president like Biden always invites trouble.

 

[Lursa]

There are other options besides more militarism, more environmental destruction, more human rights abuses, etc, etc. Governments and people would have to DECIDE to deal with unwanted behaviors differently than we have. Most don't want to even consider that; they just want to pretend like there are governments and people committing good wars and bad wars.

What other options?

 

[Lursa]

Got it, person who is so against war that he is super-righteous. But tell me, what shows that you are "genuinely interested"? On the one hand is hot war with Russia. On a second is the hardest sanctions we can convince everyone to impose. On the third is... well, other ideas. Like OP's.


twwtt responded to:



You were being asked to defend this idea that there is some antiwar/non-military idea involving dealing with unwanted behaviors differently, by way of explaining what the idiotic trollish crap you were referring to.

So if this isn't just a giant trolling exercise, explain yourself.


pro-tip: every possible response will explain yourself in one way or another.

I asked him similar in 2 other threads, multiple times.

I got *crickets*

 

[Antiwar]

In a perfect "UN world" maybe, but that's not realistic ...

@jcgriff2 kind of identified one part of the equation to a much better world, but he must believe that the path we're on is realistic (and sustainable).

Pretty much every 'liberal' and 'progressive' principle is broken by militarism/warring. Let's start with the principle of the Hippocratic (versus the hypocritical) oath: First, do no harm.

Next, 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.' Most people are trying to cure geopolitical and human rights problems with more force, threat of violence, and violence. Would you tray an infant that way? No. Then we shouldn't be treating anyone that way.

Another saying: If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem starts to look like nails. Militarism/warring/force/threats/violence/sanctions/etc are all hammers. It's not hammer time; it's the 21st century.

 

[Antiwar]

Continuing:

One might think that our Internet friend @Mr Person might know about restorative justice.

Does anyone have any environmental concerns? USG militarism burns boatloads of fossil fuels, and that's in "peaceful" times. How about all of those explosives- are they good for anything environmental?

Then there are the big explosives. Those will be great for the environment.

How about cops shooting people? Are you for drastically reducing (eliminating, really) that? The same principle applies to warring.

Oh, but 'we have to maim and kill bad people.' 'We'll never have nonviolent technologies,' right? Yeah, let's all repeat the absurd post- Sandy Hook slaughter NRA slogan while pretending that we don't have the technical knowledge to be nonviolent.

 

[Antiwar]

More:

What could be done, now that the Doomsday Clock is twitching? Wrong timeframe. Some people started implementing international justice systems after the 'first war to end all wars.' Maybe it was before then:; the details don't matter. How's that 'warring to end wars' principle working for us?

 

[Antiwar]

Still going:

"Democracy." Someone tell us how Democratic it is for the USG to be ... Oops, I almost forgot that most people are in a highly emotional highly nationalistic state.

Bernie's main thing, economic inequality. Is any of it helping to reduce that?

How about the dreaded feminist notion of the patriarchy? Short answer: Would grandmothers run Earth into the ground and be gangsters? Not many of them.

 

[Antiwar]

Next, 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.' Most people are trying to cure geopolitical and human rights problems with more force, threat of violence, and violence. Would you tray an infant that way? No. Then we shouldn't be treating anyone that way.

"Tray" should be 'treat,' obviously.

 

[Antiwar]

I didn't fully catch what someone said to the effect of 'We should be shipping Eastern Europe heat pumps (to lessen the dependency on fossil fuels) rather than sending weapons.'

 

[Antiwar]

Yeah, Putin's a dick.

 

[Razoo]

I don't believe there is any such thing as resisting non-violently in Russia under Putin. Putin wants Ukraine back under the old umbrella. Putin ego will allow nothing else. HE WILL KILL NON VIOLENT RESISTERS.

Biden is planning on $800 million more in military aid however this must weapons that can disable tanks, missiles and drones.

How can the USA disable the Russian nuke weapons system? This is something I would look into though it's most likely impossible so so so so so.

I keep reading how unprepared the Russian military is however they are delivering much damage to Ukraine.
Maybe other countries should begin lobbing a barrage of missles into Moscow thus the Ukraine war will have to take a back seat.

OR EVRYONE COULD SIMPLY DECIDE WAGING WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER AS MOST EVERY COUNTRY/GOVERNMENT HAS LEARNED YET KEEPS TRYING TO WIN SOMEWHERE THOUGH INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE THE ONES LOSING LIVES IN THE LARGEST NUMBERS.

 

[Mithrae]

Like the ones in Russia where everyone who participates is being disappeared?

"Everyone"? I doubt it, even in Russia, and it's pretty much axiomatic that the world turns a blind eye to governments' abuses within their own territory far moreso than would be the case with the whole world watching an occupied Ukraine.

Violent resistance depends heavily on access to equipment and weaponry and primarily involves engagement by healthy young men; in contrast nonviolent resistance can take on many forms of protest, civil disobedience, economic non-cooperation, general strikes and so on, engaging people from the entire demographic range. Domestic nonviolent resistance movements on average have tended to be four times as large as violent ones, and succeed in their objectives twice as often. A few examples of successful, largely nonviolent resistance campaigns would be:
Indian independence movement in 1920-47
South Africa's anti-Apartheid movement in 1950-1991
American Civil Rights Movement in 1955-68
People Power Revolution in the Philippines in 1986
Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989
Singing Revolution in the Baltic states in 1989
Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003
Tunisian Revolution in 2011
Revolution of Smiles in Algeria in 2019

Some of these campaigns were successful against regimes even more oppressive than Putin's Russia and - again - often without as much benefit of international observation and support as Ukraine has. They're not some kind of magic bullet of course; despite being successful twice as often as domestic violent resistance campaigns, nonviolent campaigns still fail almost half the time. But crucially, no campaign of non-violent resistance has ever failed when it achieves the active, sustained support of ~4% of the population. I imagine that it's safe to say that could have easily been attained in an occupied Ukraine!

What is the '3.5% rule' of revolutions?

Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

www.bbc.com

So obviously this isn't pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; it would have been (and perhaps still could be) a real and viable alternative to violent resistance. IMO these are facts which should be taught to every schoolkid, but it seems like even most adults barely hear about any more than Gandhi, MLK and Nelson Mandela - and even then more as cultural heroes than about the actual logistics and reasons why nonviolent resistance can be so much more effective.

But again, in the case of this invasion violent resistance is obviously also a justifiable, brave and even admirable response: My question is not whether Ukraine 'should' have opted for a token defense, surrender and non-violent resistance - that was entirely their call to make - @RaleBulgarian also, it's whether the more devastating results of violent resistance should become an additional reason to shame or spur hasty/escalating/military responses from the rest of the world?

 

[Questerr]

@jcgriff2 kind of identified one part of the equation to a much better world, but he must believe that the path we're on is realistic (and sustainable).

Pretty much every 'liberal' and 'progressive' principle is broken by militarism/warring. Let's start with the principle of the Hippocratic (versus the hypocritical) oath: First, do no harm.

Next, 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.' Most people are trying to cure geopolitical and human rights problems with more force, threat of violence, and violence. Would you tray an infant that way? No. Then we shouldn't be treating anyone that way.

Another saying: If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem starts to look like nails. Militarism/warring/force/threats/violence/sanctions/etc are all hammers. It's not hammer time; it's the 21st century.

How do you prevent Russia from wanting to invade Ukraine when they want to own its territory again?

 

[Questerr]

More:

What could be done, now that the Doomsday Clock is twitching? Wrong timeframe. Some people started implementing international justice systems after the 'first war to end all wars.' Maybe it was before then:; the details don't matter. How's that 'warring to end wars' principle working for us?

International justice systems have never prevented powerful nations from going to war when those nations want to go to war.

And what would they do anyways? Send cops to Moscow to arrest Putin?