The Government of Canada is hammering down on its stance against the use of cluster munitions following the U.S. decision to send the controversial weapon to Ukraine.
These weapons are not banned by civilized countries because they hurt the enemy too much, but because they hurt civilians too much. But it’s great that you are aligning with countries that care a lot about human lifes like the USA and Russia.
Again, and for the last time, not kicking the Russians out of Ukraine as quickly as possible will hurt the civilians more. There are no good options, the US and Ukraine are choosing the lesser evil. If you disagree with that and think that there is a good way of kicking the Russians out quickly without hurting civilians, please, share.
There is a very real possibility that Ukraine is going to lose this war, and I’ve not heard realistically say this war will be over soon. In which case a plausible argument could be made on humanitarian grounds that a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible is the best of the bad options. But seems not to be what the United States or Ukraine wants, so. It’s really quite fucked up.
Like I don’t know how I would feel if I were Ukrainian. I absolutely think they are on the right side of this. What the Russian soldiers have been doing to Ukraine is despicable. But with cities being destroyed, nuclear power plants at risk, massive oil pipelines being bombed in the ocean, millions of people displaced…
Negotiated settlement? GTFO of Ukraine now - that’s the negotiated settlement. Russia doesn’t want it. Instead, they are murdeering Ukrainian civilians every day.
a plausible argument could be made on humanitarian grounds that a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible is the best of the bad options
Absolutely not, that idea is based on a total lack of historical memory and amounts to nothing more than kicking the can down the road. Russia will not accept anything less than keeping the territories it currently occupies, and that’s not an option. This invasion happened because Russia had been getting away with this kind of stuff for two decades. It’s not Putin’s first land grab. It was Chechnya in 2000, Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, the rest of Ukraine in 2022. They took a small bite at first, and when they got away with it, they took a bigger bite next. And again, and again. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Allowing Russia to get away with this and keep the territories it took guarantees another repetition of the same pattern less than a decade later with yet more devastating results. If we had nipped this in the bud, the war could’ve been avoided entirely. The second best time is now.
Forgive me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying here, but it sounds like you’re saying for the sake of human life Ukraine should just negotiate being taken over and give up?
In my opinion, you’re better off losing, all the way down to the last man, rather than living as a slave. If Russia wins those people are not getting their lives back in any way that leads to happiness.
That’s exactly what these tankies/far tight types think but they dress it up in faux humanitarian and class consciousness rhetoric.
The don’t seem to notice that it’s Russia that’s feeding the working classes into the grinder where as all Ukrainian men and some of the women regardless of class are fighting for their country
I don’t think anyone here is suggesting we are in a movie or video game situation. A lot of the arguments here are rooted in history.
I believe the argument you made is simply beneficial to authoritarianism which is why folks are leaving intense replies. If the idea you’re proposing is saving lives at all cost, then it is no different functionally from the ideology of “might makes right.”
Quickly negotiating a defeat to save lives means that the USA, China and Russia can and should invade every square foot of land that they desire as fast as possible. The blame would then be on the victims for not giving up quicker to save lives.
What I said was that Western nations funneling increasingly deadly weapons into a brutal war might not be the best of all options, and that maybe, maybe, working towards a negotiated settlement that ends the war, even if it means territorial losses for Ukraine, would be better. That is not “saving lives at all costs”, that is not “blaming the victims for not giving up quicker”. The idea that the only options are complete and unambiguous Ukrainian victory or the extermination of everyone in Ukraine, (an argument being made here by people, incidentally, who clearly have no skin in the game), is the logic of armageddon.
The logical gymnastics here are just astonishing. To suggest an alternative to military escalation makes me a tanky. To suggest negotiations makes me an authoritarian. To advocate for peace is to advocate for “might makes right”. This is the logic of nationalism.
I am not referring to you as a Tanky like other folks, to be clear. I’m more civil than that :)
I think the issue I personally have with your argument is that I do not think there is an “advocate for peace” option left on the table. Functionally, what would that look like today? Losing autonomy over your land, your culture, your people, so that Russia will stop blowing things up. That to me does not seem to be advocating for peace, it seems to be advocating for defeat and potentially, a long-game genocide.
Hey, I don’t agree with you, but I also don’t agree with others here putting words into your mouth. But just like I’m asking others to take a breath, I’m going to ask you the same.
I think you could have been better served here by disengaging instead of escalating. Or maybe, by answering the question posed, and re-starting your view without being argumentative. You’re falling into the trap of generalizing the same way a few of the comments below you did.
I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong in asserting that this is a behavior of the groups you mentioned, but it’s important as far as we can to remember the person. In this specific case I don’t see conclusively that @whelmer@beehaw.org is expressing any of that.
I understand your emotion, but another time, please try to remember to respond to each person like a person. We’re trying to talk to each other here and not take turns stating positions to a crowd. You know? This isn’t a warning or anything like that, but I am asking you to try to avoid generalizing when you’re responding in conversations with specific people. Before we can assume bad faith we do have to actually establish that the specific individual is acting in bad faith. It’s one thing that can help make this community different to reddit.
These weapons are not banned by civilized countries because they hurt the enemy too much, but because they hurt civilians too much. But it’s great that you are aligning with countries that care a lot about human lifes like the USA and Russia.
Again, and for the last time, not kicking the Russians out of Ukraine as quickly as possible will hurt the civilians more. There are no good options, the US and Ukraine are choosing the lesser evil. If you disagree with that and think that there is a good way of kicking the Russians out quickly without hurting civilians, please, share.
There is a very real possibility that Ukraine is going to lose this war, and I’ve not heard realistically say this war will be over soon. In which case a plausible argument could be made on humanitarian grounds that a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible is the best of the bad options. But seems not to be what the United States or Ukraine wants, so. It’s really quite fucked up.
Like I don’t know how I would feel if I were Ukrainian. I absolutely think they are on the right side of this. What the Russian soldiers have been doing to Ukraine is despicable. But with cities being destroyed, nuclear power plants at risk, massive oil pipelines being bombed in the ocean, millions of people displaced…
Negotiated settlement? GTFO of Ukraine now - that’s the negotiated settlement. Russia doesn’t want it. Instead, they are murdeering Ukrainian civilians every day.
Absolutely not, that idea is based on a total lack of historical memory and amounts to nothing more than kicking the can down the road. Russia will not accept anything less than keeping the territories it currently occupies, and that’s not an option. This invasion happened because Russia had been getting away with this kind of stuff for two decades. It’s not Putin’s first land grab. It was Chechnya in 2000, Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, the rest of Ukraine in 2022. They took a small bite at first, and when they got away with it, they took a bigger bite next. And again, and again. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Allowing Russia to get away with this and keep the territories it took guarantees another repetition of the same pattern less than a decade later with yet more devastating results. If we had nipped this in the bud, the war could’ve been avoided entirely. The second best time is now.
I’ve heard the war would end by May. May of 2022, that is, where Russian sources said they almost surrounded Azov
Don’t believe everything you read. This war is going into 2024, unless the US brings more weapons for Ukraine to finish it earlier
Forgive me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying here, but it sounds like you’re saying for the sake of human life Ukraine should just negotiate being taken over and give up?
In my opinion, you’re better off losing, all the way down to the last man, rather than living as a slave. If Russia wins those people are not getting their lives back in any way that leads to happiness.
That’s exactly what these tankies/far tight types think but they dress it up in faux humanitarian and class consciousness rhetoric.
The don’t seem to notice that it’s Russia that’s feeding the working classes into the grinder where as all Ukrainian men and some of the women regardless of class are fighting for their country
I’m sorry, did you just accuse me of being a far-right tanky for suggesting that a negotiated peace might be the best of bad options?
What exactly do you think the word “tanky” means?
It’s interesting how everyone is anti-war until there’s a war, then everyone is suddenly a nationalist. This isn’t a video game, this isn’t a movie.
I don’t think anyone here is suggesting we are in a movie or video game situation. A lot of the arguments here are rooted in history.
I believe the argument you made is simply beneficial to authoritarianism which is why folks are leaving intense replies. If the idea you’re proposing is saving lives at all cost, then it is no different functionally from the ideology of “might makes right.”
Quickly negotiating a defeat to save lives means that the USA, China and Russia can and should invade every square foot of land that they desire as fast as possible. The blame would then be on the victims for not giving up quicker to save lives.
Surely you can see how this is a problem?
What I said was that Western nations funneling increasingly deadly weapons into a brutal war might not be the best of all options, and that maybe, maybe, working towards a negotiated settlement that ends the war, even if it means territorial losses for Ukraine, would be better. That is not “saving lives at all costs”, that is not “blaming the victims for not giving up quicker”. The idea that the only options are complete and unambiguous Ukrainian victory or the extermination of everyone in Ukraine, (an argument being made here by people, incidentally, who clearly have no skin in the game), is the logic of armageddon.
The logical gymnastics here are just astonishing. To suggest an alternative to military escalation makes me a tanky. To suggest negotiations makes me an authoritarian. To advocate for peace is to advocate for “might makes right”. This is the logic of nationalism.
I am not referring to you as a Tanky like other folks, to be clear. I’m more civil than that :)
I think the issue I personally have with your argument is that I do not think there is an “advocate for peace” option left on the table. Functionally, what would that look like today? Losing autonomy over your land, your culture, your people, so that Russia will stop blowing things up. That to me does not seem to be advocating for peace, it seems to be advocating for defeat and potentially, a long-game genocide.
Hey, I don’t agree with you, but I also don’t agree with others here putting words into your mouth. But just like I’m asking others to take a breath, I’m going to ask you the same.
I think you could have been better served here by disengaging instead of escalating. Or maybe, by answering the question posed, and re-starting your view without being argumentative. You’re falling into the trap of generalizing the same way a few of the comments below you did.
I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong in asserting that this is a behavior of the groups you mentioned, but it’s important as far as we can to remember the person. In this specific case I don’t see conclusively that @whelmer@beehaw.org is expressing any of that.
I understand your emotion, but another time, please try to remember to respond to each person like a person. We’re trying to talk to each other here and not take turns stating positions to a crowd. You know? This isn’t a warning or anything like that, but I am asking you to try to avoid generalizing when you’re responding in conversations with specific people. Before we can assume bad faith we do have to actually establish that the specific individual is acting in bad faith. It’s one thing that can help make this community different to reddit.
The US, Russia and Ukraine are not signatories to the cluster munitions treaty, so it does not apply to them. This is a voluntary treaty.