• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What if Ukraine surrendered and resisted nonviolently?

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
8,230
Reaction score
4,065
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?
 
That's what they were repeatedly offered but Coke Head Z went for virtue signalling and has lost thousands of troops as a result .
 
I don't believe that Ukraine or any other country should surrender, but under Biden's democrat US rule, I would tell any country that unfortunately while the US is under such weak rule, don't count on US military support.

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.
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.

The actual 100-hour war against Iraq was Operation Desert Storm, February 1991.

~35 countries participated in the Gulf War.


The Iran-Iraq war occurred from September 22, 1980 – August 20, 1988 under presidents democrat Jimmy Carter (through January 20, 1981) and republican Ronald Reagan (through the end of the war). The US supplied both sides militarily during the war - Iraq overtly and Iran covertly.

For more about a Goliath v. David war, look up the USSR's invasion of Finland just before WWII started. Stalin initially got his ass kicked.

 
Last edited:
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?
yes they should
 
w
I don't believe that Ukraine or any other country should surrender, but under Biden's democrat US rule, I would tell any country that unfortunately while the US is under such weak rule, don't count on US military support.


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.

The actual 100-hour war against Iraq was Operation Desert Storm.

~35 countries participated in the Gulf War.


The Iran-Iraq war occurred from September 22, 1980 – August 20, 1988 under presidents democrat Jimmy Carter (through January 20, 1981) and republican Ronald Reagan (through the end of the war). The US supplied both sides militarily during the war - Iraq overtly and Iran covertly.

For more about a Goliath v. David war, look up the USSR's invasion of Finland just before WWII started. Stalin initially got his ass kicked.

what would have trump done?

Why do we think the world revolves around our president
 
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.
 
w

what would have trump done?

Why do we think the world revolves around our president

Putin didn't need to invade Ukraine while Trump was president. He had Trump undermining Ukraine, NATO and the European Union. He didn't have to worry about Ukraine getting too tight with the west as long as he had Trump in office.

Trump was standing with Putin on foreign soil saying how he trusted Putin over his own intelligence agencies.

Putin would have just kept scratching his orange poodle behind the ears and Trump would have kept doing Putin's dirty work for him.

So, your question is moot. Trump never would have faced this side of Putin.
 
Putin didn't need to invade Ukraine while Trump was president. He had Trump undermining Ukraine, NATO and the European Union. He didn't have to worry about Ukraine getting too tight with the west as long as he had Trump in office.

Trump was standing with Putin on foreign soil saying how he trusted Putin over his own intelligence agencies.

Putin would have just kept scratching his orange poodle behind the ears and Trump would have kept doing Putin's dirty work for him.

So, your question is moot. Trump never would have faced this side of Putin.
This has been long in the works regardless of Trump

The world doesn't revolve around America, believe it or not
 
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, exactly, does that (bolded above) mean?
 
What, exactly, does that (bolded above) mean?

You'd like me to 'exactly' describe several different ways that bad behaviors could be dealt with much differently? Am I supposed to believe that you're genuinely interested?
 
You'd like me to 'exactly' describe several different ways that bad behaviors could be dealt with much differently? Am I supposed to believe that you're genuinely interested?

One would do. When many thousands of well armed thugs invade your country, start destroying buildings, killing folks and make demands (clearly bad behavior) then what would you suggest?
 
'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?
Yes. It is appropriate for Zelensky to ask for aid from other countries.
Zelensky and other Ukrainian leaders presumably knew that they would suffer more death and destruction by putting up a serious defense.
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.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait - a non-nuclear power which had similarly initiated full-scale aggression against Iran just a few years previously
Kuwait did not attack Iraq. You’re misremembering history. Iran and Iraq warred previous to Iraq attacking/invading Kuwait.
- despite instant and unanimous condemnation by the UN Security Council it was still five months before international military operations against Iraq commenced.
Politics of building a coalition in the Middle East, plus giving Hussein too many (IMO) chances to peacefully withdraw.
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.
Still not reason enough to simply surrender.
their decision to fight was more or less a decision to fight alone for months at least;
If necessary.
does that make it acceptable to be used as a hook trying to drag everyone else into WW3 by rapid escalation?
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.
 
One would do. When many thousands of well armed thugs invade your country, start destroying buildings, killing folks and make demands (clearly bad behavior) then what would you suggest?

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

Desert Shield was the buildup to Desert Storm. No direct action against Hussein happened during Desert Shield.
 
You'd like me to 'exactly' describe several different ways that bad behaviors could be dealt with much differently? Am I supposed to believe that you're genuinely interested?
Please stop trolling.
 
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.
Standard @Antiwar drivel.

There are no “good” wars, and nobody pretends that there are.

There are just wars though. Knowing your POV, there’s no reason to even try explaining.
 
Last edited:
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.
One would do. When many thousands of well armed thugs invade your country, start destroying buildings, killing folks and make demands (clearly bad behavior) then what would you suggest?
I've never seen commentary from you that would lead me to believe that you're genuinely interested.
I'm genuinely interested. I'd like to hear your suggestion.

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

giphy.gif


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:

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Sooooo...Ukraine gets invaded, their cities get demolished, their people get killed and not only is it their fault for resisting the assault but they are putting the world at risk by doing so?

I, uh...well...you see...just...

Are you serious?
 
Back
Top Bottom