[ajkjk]

I guess I'm part of that generation you're talking about, and it it really feels like only one of the things you listed matters:

> Why would I, ever shoot someone just like me because his/her/xyr government has forced them to point a rifle at me?

It's irrespective of the western order being evil or anything to do with climate change. Sure, there's a sense that the elites are the only beneficiaries of war, but even before that you'd have to explain why it's okay to shoot someone for someone else's _benefit_, even if it's our own. The very idea is absurd.

I think most millennial sorts are on board with the idea of a "war to stop atrocity", but that's about it. Why would you hurt someone to get what you want? How medieval.

[jacquesm]

That works, right up to the point that it is your country that is invaded. Then all those theories go right out the window.

[rhn_mk1]

That works only when nationalism is your worldview. It doesn't make sense to care about the country being invaded if country has no value to you.

[jacquesm]

This is somewhat shortsighted. You can replace 'country' by 'place where you live' and then you can decide what you're going to do about it, let it all happen, don't care while your family and children are being murdered because it doesn't really matter to you but that's not how it works in practice. In practice people will defend the place that they live in from external aggression.

[pmontra]

It doesn't matter if you care about countries. When the place you live gets invaded a lot of the people you know die or worse.

[rhn_mk1]

It does absolutely matter if you care about countries, because "country" does not have to be how you slice your world when asked "where do you live".

You may have your family spread across the continent, on your island, or concentrated around a single town.

[pmontra]

Wherever your family lives, scattered or concentrated, when the place you live gets invaded a lot of the people around you die. You might be willing to flee all the time with no particular attachment to any place. This is uncommon but not impossible. Anyway war or submission will get you sooner or later.

[rhn_mk1]

Which is my point: if you don't care about "your" country, the theories don't go out the window. You might stay consistent and move instead of deciding that killing the invaders is what you do now.

[gnramires]

I think in this case it's more than that... Russia (or at least Putin) is trying to impose a certain worldview that's very regressive: pro-oil, heavy censorship, against several human rights (including LGBT), autocratic regime. I think there's a lot of merit to resisting this regime, resisting being taken by force and turned into the opposite of what they want (which was to join more progressive European countries, from what I gather).

It's all connected... if you let oil-hungry autocrats rule the world, climate change is completely out of the window. Also human rights and ideals we should all stand for.

I do want peace as soon as possible. I believe a compromise might be necessary. I think Putin's worldview has been shown critically dated, so hopefully Russians can rise against this sort of government eventually. It's very difficult to rise up when your life is threatened by the regime though, but reason and truth tend to find their way through the cracks.

---

I am specially moved because of the parallels to Nazi invasions. Doing nothing proved a grave mistake, not standing up for human rights, giving fascists the benefit of the doubt cost so many lives. I've said "never again" too. It's easy to fact-check the fascist lies in this case.

I suggest any new generations read Anne Frank's diary if you can.

---

Also: don't believe narratives of doom. There's no doom incoming immediately, not from nuclear war (it's been shown it would doom civilization at least), not from climate change (we're in a pathway for significant damage, but it will be decades until it reaches its consequences, and it`s certainly no doom[1]). Doom narratives and hopelessness can create inaction, which is not what we want. Hope is the most powerful weapon for change.

[1] See Kurzgesagt on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw

[jacquesm]

> I suggest any new generations read Anne Frank's diary if you can.

Seconded, in fact I would suggest every read it and re-read it every decade or two or so.

[gnramires]

Yes, I wrote much but that was my main message :)

Also, I don't want to come off as a cultural absolutist, I think other countries can have different cultures than standard western; but conquering and imposing culture with violence does not respect basic humanity. Also, we should be able to defend and evolve every culture with peaceful discussion, communication and schooling instead of bombs; and even incorporate other cultures as we see fit (this is a big theme here in Brazil related to our modern art week :) ).

[jacquesm]

Ideally, yes. But democratic countries have a fatal flaw that we don't really have a good solution for, democracy can vote itself out of existence to be replaced with fascism and the only way to reset it that we know about is through war. This is a real problem.

[ajkjk]

That's fine, but that's not really the kind of war I was talking about. In case you're wondering yes, I'd be in favor of self defense as well.

[blindmute]

This attitude dissolves when the opposing army comes to your city. It's kill or be killed, and there are many people who do not share your pacifism. How detached from reality must you be to write this comment and the ones following? Frankly I'm surprised such genes have survived in the pool this long; your beliefs are dysgenic and suicidal. When the enemy comes, or they 'just' seize your farms, you fight or you die.

[hungryforcodes]

No you just leave. Countries are there to serve people not the other way around. Genes survive to reproduce another day.