What if Ukraine surrendered and resisted nonviolently?

[Questerr]

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.'

Because heat pumps stop invasions?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Interesting post considering...

thanks for trying to defend her disgusting posts.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because heat pumps stop invasions?

Yep, if we had a world full of (only?) grandmothers and infants (without income inequality) then invasions would surely be minimized.

If we (meaning the global population) had ended war (violence, crime, corruption and income inequality?) after WWI then this would have been easily been prevented.

 

[Indlib]

Failure?

Yep. Failure.

If you disagree take it up with Monica33.

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.


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.


Interesting post considering...


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



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.


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

I agree with your first sentence.


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

 

[Hypothetical]

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?

would you surrender Australia to China or Russia?

 

[ttwtt78640]

would you surrender Australia to China or Russia?

Likely not.

ANZUS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Antiwar]

Yep, if we had a world full of (only?) grandmothers and infants (without income inequality) then invasions would surely be minimized.

If we (meaning the global population) had ended war (violence, crime, corruption and income inequality?) after WWI then this would have been easily been prevented.

It wasn't hard to predict your disingenuous response.

 

[Questerr]

It wasn't hard to predict your disingenuous response.

It’s disingenuous for you to lie and claim you have a plan when all you would do is surrender immediately in the face of invasion like a coward.

 

[Fledermaus]

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

Interesting how wrong you are.

 

[Antiwar]

We have people that consider themselves to be right- and left-libertarian here. I suppose that means that they are culture war conservative or culture war liberal, and both flavors smoke weed. Maybe you don't have to be smoking a lot of weed to claim to be libertarian while also essentially advocating for USG hegemony and massive amounts of threats of violence and state violence as good solutions to the Russia problem.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It wasn't hard to predict your disingenuous response.

True, yet yours depended on the prior existence of (multiple?) things (conditions?) well beyond any nation’s control. The bottom line is that stopping (or at least interrupting) aggressive action generally requires the use of force - you are extremely unlikely to be able to reason a person out of a decision which they had already made.

 

[Questerr]

We have people that consider themselves to be right- and left-libertarian here. I suppose that means that they are culture war conservative or culture war liberal, and both flavors smoke weed. Maybe you don't have to be smoking a lot of weed to claim to be libertarian while also essentially advocating for USG hegemony and massive amounts of threats of violence and state violence as good solutions to the Russia problem.

It’s almost as if most people who aren’t Russian trolls or coward pacifists support nations defending themselves from invasion by brutal dictators.

Should Ukraine be conquered by Russia? Should they just surrender?

 

[craig]

Sounds like the Postbellum South.

 

[ataraxia]

No, no, no... not 5 months after the fact. The US under Republican President George H. W. Bush acted immediately (same day) after Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990 with Operation Desert Shield.

Republicans don't sit around making unkept promises and blaming others for everything - we act.

So what was Serbia?

 

[Antiwar]

True, yet yours depended on the prior existence of (multiple?) things (conditions?) well beyond any nation’s control.

The international justice system has been around for several decades- it's just co-opted by the Global North, especially the USG.

There are two broad types of control. One can try their best to control their behaviors, or one can try their best to control what everyone else does. Furthermore, one can seek cooperation or one can seek domination. I advocate for maximizing cooperation and minimizing domination. You're advocating for domination. You're essentially advocating for the USG to be the leader of the international equivalent of a domestic police state: a police world. In doing so you're also advocating for everything that comes with that international police state.

 

[Questerr]

The international justice system has been around for several decades- it's just co-opted by the Global North, especially the USG.

There are two broad types of control. One can try their best to control their behaviors, or one can try their best to control what everyone else does. Furthermore, one can seek cooperation or one can seek domination. I advocate for maximizing cooperation and minimizing domination. You're advocating for domination. You're essentially advocating for the USG to be the leader of the international equivalent of a domestic police state: a police world. In doing so you're also advocating for everything that comes with that international police state.

And Russia has told the outside groups trying to control their actions to **** off.

So what happens then? How does your “international justice system” stop the Russians from invading Ukraine when they tell the system to go screw themselves?

Should the response then just be to surrender to Russian demands, cowardly and meekly, rather than use military force to resist their invasion?

The Russians want domination of Ukraine. Do you oppose that domination?

 

[Antiwar]

Please stop trolling.

Thanks for calling me a troll when responding seriously to people's trolling.

 

[mrjurrs]

So, you really don't have any suggestions do you?

 

[Mithrae]

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.

Arguably the greatest opportunity to push for democratization and strengthening of the UN, nuclear de-escalation and progress toward a more lawful and just world order was in the 1990s and 2000s when the USA was essentially the world's only superpower and reforms such as those would first and foremost be restraints on itself, helping protect the rest of the world from American militarism. Instead America chose to not only maintain the vaguely autocratic structure of the current UN system, but even more dramatically underscore a might-makes-right world 'order' by rejecting the UN system itself and conducting multiple wildly illegal invasions of sovereign nations on the opposite side of the world under the ridiculous pretext of 'defense.'

To be fair, Joe Biden was among those who supported both of those invasions. But as we continue to watch this might-makes-right world unfold with China as a rising superpower and America hopelessly divided and waning, let's remember that the greatest share of responsibility for this direction of humanity lies with the governments of America's George Bush, UK's Tony Blair and Australia's John Howard and the people who elected them: Amazingly, all three of these warmongers were re-elected after their multiple illegal invasions.

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

I think you're overestimating how easy it is to 'disappear' a crowd of tens of thousands of protestors, let alone a whole country participating in general strikes etc. Moreover in a scenario of nonviolent resistance those protestors would have the choice whether to risk their freedom and lives in opposition to the occupying regime or whether to stay safely at home: In the scenario of open warfare we've got, the civilians being killed or reduced to homeless poverty have much less say in the matter.

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.

America's exaggerated sense of self-importance, it's self-appointed role as 'world policeman' - or under Bush, global bully - is a significant part of the reason this mess came about to begin with. Might makes right, in this world; if America can invade other sovereign countries on a whim, you've got zero standing to object when Russia does the same. Most European countries at least opposed the second and more egregious of Bush's wars, and obviously have a more direct interest in European affairs. The military budgets of Germany and Italy alone are bigger than Russia's; if it comes to direct military engagement against Russia, a combined EU force (perhaps minus the nuclear powers of France and UK to reduce the risks of nuclear escalation) would be up to the task. Heck, Ukraine alone is doing remarkably well in stalling Russian progress, yet you're so full of self-importance that you think no-one else in the world can accomplish anything without Uncle Sam swaggering in swinging his supposed manhood around and practically daring Putin to use his nukes? If they actually want to help (in the hopefully avoidable scenario of direct military engagement) US politicians can and should offer to provide financial support to help cover the costs of a European coalition... but I'm sure that won't sound sexy enough for the warmongers to consider, will it, and more to the point won't send enough tax dollars to America's arms manufacturing companies.

 

[Mithrae]

would you surrender Australia to China or Russia?

As I've said repeatedly, this isn't a question of 'should' Ukraine have surrendered; that's entirely their call to make. They made some brave decisions against the odds, and considering how much the progress of Russia's military has been stalled so far it's entirely possible that it was also a soundly rational decision, not just some ill-fated death or glory last stand. Other countries have made different decisions; apparently Kuwait's military was largely stood down with many members on leave despite Iraq's sabre-rattling and military buildup in the month before the invasion, while France is famously (if perhaps unfairly) mocked for its surrender in WW2. If I were ever in the position of leading Australia in the face of overpowering invasion I imagine I'd have to assess the options at the time; I certainly wouldn't adopt some pseudo-macho notion that surrender is 'weak' and getting everyone killed in a hopeless war is somehow glorious!

It’s disingenuous for you to lie and claim you have a plan when all you would do is surrender immediately in the face of invasion like a coward.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between your (perhaps overly pessimistic) militarist pragmatism in terms of international relations on the one hand - the apparent view that there need to be big countries with big armies willing to fight each other because nothing else will work - and on the other, if memory serves, your ardent support for left-libertarian anarcho-socialism with no countries or governments whatsoever as somehow a viable ideology rather than the utopian pipe-dream most people see it as.

Throwing schoolyard insults into the mix doesn't exactly improve matters.

Still a major step up in quality from post #2 of the thread though, I'll give you that

 

[Questerr]

As I've said repeatedly, this isn't a question of 'should' Ukraine have surrendered; that's entirely their call to make. They made some brave decisions against the odds, and considering how much the progress of Russia's military has been stalled so far it's entirely possible that it was also a soundly rational decision, not just some ill-fated death or glory last stand. Other countries have made different decisions; apparently Kuwait's military was largely stood down with many members on leave despite Iraq's sabre-rattling and military buildup in the month before the invasion, while France is famously (if perhaps unfairly) mocked for its surrender in WW2. If I were ever in the position of leading Australia in the face of overpowering invasion I imagine I'd have to assess the options at the time; I certainly wouldn't adopt some pseudo-macho notion that surrender is 'weak' and getting everyone killed in a hopeless war is somehow glorious!






There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between your (perhaps overly pessimistic) militarist pragmatism in terms of international relations on the one hand - the apparent view that there need to be big countries with big armies willing to fight each other because nothing else will work - and on the other, if memory serves, your ardent support for left-libertarian anarcho-socialism with no countries or governments whatsoever as somehow a viable ideology rather than the utopian pipe-dream most people see it as.

Throwing schoolyard insults into the mix doesn't exactly improve matters.

Still a major step up in quality from post #2 of the thread though, I'll give you that

Governments would most definitely exist under Anarcho-Socialism. *States* wouldn’t.

And those government would retain the right to defend themselves and the people they represent from hostile foreign invasion. It’s not militarism to defend yourself from aggression.

 

[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.

Seven consecutive posts to answer 'what other options' and all you have is, give up immediately? Or...it was all just more verbal diarrhea to try and hide the fact that you have no idea?

Is either of those accurate, yes or no? If so, which?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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.'

What better way to emphasize the need for aid?

As for the damage and death that could’ve been avoided by surrendering to Putin’s illegal invasion, I will not criticize, or agree with others criticism that Ukrainian’s should’ve surrendered.

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?

If one feels ashamed it is because that person chooses to take blame upon themself, not because another attempts to shame them.

America started out as an underdog fighting against a tyrant king. Had our ancestors simply surrendered after offering only “token resistance” instead of choosing to put their lives on the line, and had we not received considerable help from other European countries, we would not now be the most powerful country on earth, and the world’s oldest continuous democracy.

While I understand your viewpoint, and respect your right to your opinion that peaceful protest is a viable alternative to fighting, I cannot agree with any action that includes surrendering freedom and autonomy.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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.

Why should Ukraine be agreeable to negotiate with foreign invaders? To avoid damage and bloodshed? Would that be good enough reason for you to surrender your freedom?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Seven consecutive posts to answer 'what other options' and all you have is, give up immediately? Or...it was all just more verbal diarrhea to try and hide the fact that you have no idea?

Is either of those accurate, yes or no? If so, which?

@Antiwar ’s primary contribution to any conversation. It’s easy to criticize violence of any sort, but often much harder to offer a viable alternative.