[sebastiennight]

> They're fighting for their country's existence. I would use every weapon in my disposal; and I'm a pacifist who hates violence.

I'm not sure it's accurate to define yourself as a pacifist if you believe safeguarding the concept of a nation-state is more important than human life, ethics, or the downstream effects of using "every weapon at your disposal".

I don't think you realize the creativity and variety we humans have put to use when designing weapons. If you can imagine a biological, chemical, radiation, concussive, or other weapon, it's been worked on. There has been more than one project to build a "world-ending weapon" and go way beyond the MAD theory.

[inigyou]

They're fighting for their own existence. Russia has killed, enslaved, and/or tortured most of the citizens of the regions it's already captured, and replaced them with ethnic Russians.

[dash2]

I think "killed, enslaved, and/or tortured most of the citizens of the regions it's already captured" is an exaggeration. That is not to deny Russian war crimes, which are clearly large-scale and horrendous. But I don't think the majority of people in those regions have been killed or enslaved.

I'm a big supporter of Ukraine and have donated to the war effort and hosted Ukrainian refugees.

[inigyou]

What happen to Bucha and Mariupol? Why did they get wiped off the map? Was it a tsunami?

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> I'm not sure it's accurate to define yourself as a pacifist if you believe safeguarding the concept of a nation-state is more important than human life, ethics, or the downstream effects of using "every weapon at your disposal".

Wait till you hear that I'm also an anti-nationalist :P

But I'm also pragmatic. Nations aren't going away and they have armies and they like to invade each other. If my country were to be invaded (not a zero probability; I'm Greek and if NATO collapses...) I would put the good of my people above my personal beliefs before you could say "peacenick". C'est la vie.

>> I don't think you realize the creativity and variety we humans have put to use when designing weapons.

I think I do but why do you say this? I didn't understand how it connects to the rest of your comment, or to mine.

[somenameforme]

But don't you think Greece, if nothing else, emphasizes that a country isn't defined by whoever happens to declare it as part of their borders, but the people within those borders? Greece persisted for millennia, even when there was no Greece. The state disappeared but the people persisted.

I'm not at all a pacifist but there is no country I would fight, let alone die, for. Because when we say that we're really speaking of fighting and dying for politicians, not a country. And there is no political group that, in my opinion, deserves anywhere near that level of loyalty.

[john_strinlai]

>I think I do but why do you say this? I didn't understand how it connects to the rest of your comment, or to mine.

not the parent, but i have a guess.

they mention the variety of weapons because some weapons are abhorrent. designed to be maximally painful, for the maximum amount of time, purely to bring about maximum suffering.

"every weapon at your disposal" includes those weapons. and that is really difficult to square with "im a pacifist", even when considering conditional pacifism.

[somenameforme]

Using every weapon at your disposal would entail, at the extreme end, unleashing weapons which could viably kill every person on this planet - to defend a state. It's not exactly a typical foundation for pacifism.

[elteto]

Being a pacifist doesn’t imply being a doormat. At any rate, I don’t think Ukraine would have attacked Russia under any credible circumstances.

[wat10000]

I don't think you realize the creativity and variety we humans have put to use when oppressing conquered peoples if you think resisting an invasion with every means available is the incorrect choice because it kills people.

[victorbjorklund]

I bet you think it was wrong to fight against Hitler.