[nickspicer1993]

Your comment suggests the best outcome of any situation is the least violence. But it's not what I believe or I imagine what most people believe, I would rather fight for certain values to be upheld - in this case the freedom to agree as a collective rather than bow to the person with the most force. If someone comes to your house and takes it by force you should let him because it's the path to least violence right?

[vaidhy]

Awesome!! Does the same principles apply to other countries outside US and Europe? I see this a massive racist and hypocritical statement by US and EU to the rest of the world that they only care if the country is majority white. Where was the same outrage for all the brown and black people?

The only sane justification anyone can make is that we have progressed, but the tragedy for the rest continues.

US and EU war economies need an enemy and for long time, it was something abstract like drugs, terror etc. Now, they have something concrete in Russia and I see the rest as propaganda set to grow the outrage and anger to start another long war so that money can be minted.

[nickspicer1993]

Of course the same principles apply, if there is injustice I'm not aware of we can also fight I am more than happy to fight with you just tell me where you want me to spend my effort. But I wouldn't mistake ignorance for malice. And worse I wouldn't forgo someone else help because I didn't receive help myself.

[jmyeet]

> Your comment suggests the best outcome of any situation is the least violence.

No, it doesn't. It says that different rules apply when you're fighting a nuclear power. There is no military option here. None. That's the point. When there are no military options your only options are a proxy war (GGs for Ukraine) or a diplomatic solution.

> I would rather fight for certain values

You're not fighting for anything, most likely. It's pretty easy to sit in perfect safety thousands of miles from a war and tell other people they should fight for certain values.

But you've actually made my point. You're more interested in the principle (being right) than the outcome (winning).

> If someone comes to your house and takes it by force you should let him because it's the path to least violence right?

Does that person have 6000 nuclear weapons?

[nickspicer1993]

I think we can simply agree different values then, if the person had 6000 nuclear weapons not only would I still fight for my house, I would fight for your house. I did offer to go to Ukraine actually but they are not taking untrained civilians.

[jmyeet]

What we can agree on is you're overly susceptible to appeals to emotion ("what if your house was invaded?"), your analogies are bad and you have no conception of the consequences of what you're suggesting.

Russia being a nuclear power, "winning" probably means the house is destroyed and the land its own is littered with weapons and mines for years to come and I can't possibly afford to rebuild it.

> I did offer to go to Ukraine ...

Noble.

> ... but they are not taking untrained civilians.

Ok, I get it now. You simply have no conception of the realities of war and the aftermath. Got it.

[keewee7]

Putin and Lavrov have said Ukraine is a historical mistake. They want to assimilate Ukraine into Russia and commit cultural genocide.

Ukrainians have every right to kill the Russian invaders. The West has every right to put sanctions on Russia and support the Ukrainian resistance.

[331c8c71]

he said the ukranian statehood is a mistake. where does this cultural genocide thing comes from? there are at least two public appearances when putin switches to ukranian (briefly).

no one doubts that the west has every right to do that but i fail to see how it helps to stop casualties

[Zpalmtree]

You're signing up to fight yourself then? Or just want other people to fight for you

[nickspicer1993]

I did offer yes, but they arn't taking untrained civilians who don't speak the language.