The recent article by Noah Carl about moral concerns regarding weapons deliveries to Ukraine is wrong on every level. The main argument goes that, by providing weaponry, the West might prolong a war, and thus prolong hardship. The same argument could be applied to any military conflict, where it could be held that the military defeat of an enemy can, morally, be accomplished as soon as the aggressor is able to inflict sufficient harm on the populace of its enemy such as to render it ‘immoral’ for the defender to continue without accepting the loss of life as its responsibility.
This is an aggressors’ charter that is, in itself, utterly immoral. Simplified, it says: “Because I can hurt your people, you must surrender, or else you will be causing them harm.” Or, “Don’t stand up to bullies: they might hurt you.”
This line of argumentation needs to emphasise particular kinds of hardship – those suffered during a war – while minimising others. The value of freedom and dignity to the people at the receiving end becomes a ‘preference’ – something like a subjective value judgement – rather than an absolute moral right, and the hardships entailed by the loss of that freedom and having to live under a tyranny imposed by a foreign pariah state for – perhaps – generations is some far-off future imponderable not needing to be addressed.
But let’s consider for a moment the hardship of all those Russian tankers in their T-72s with those quick-detach turrets getting burnt to cinders by our N-LAWs. It must be absolutely terrifying for them. I feel sorry for the Russian conscripts who were apparently forced to sign contracts just before the invasion, making it then ‘legal’ for Putin to send them off to a foreign war. But should Ukraine lose this war, in the coming years those could be Ukrainian conscripts, forced against their will to fight in some foreign land. That’s just one obvious consequence of living under Putin.
But freedom is much more than just politically and personally advantageous. Much has been said about that topic in relation to Covid, but there’s a reason that freedom is the one thing that humans are consistently willing to fight to the death to hold on to, or to win back. The phrase “win back” is apposite: freedom – the freedom to think, to speak and to choose for oneself – is the ultimate right that, deep down, everyone knows to be inalienable. Slaves know it is secretly still theirs. To the atheist, it is as an inextinguishable divine spark.
Freedom can only be temporarily mislaid, never truly lost; even the choice to oppose that belief (in the comments section, perhaps) is merely an expression thereof. All dictators know this, necessitating elaborate countermeasures as part of an extensive state security apparatus, and in this case a bloody war of aggression that it is not only right but noble to oppose.
Noah quotes a figure of 400,000 deaths in the Syrian Civil War, or roughly 2% of the population. That is a tragedy, but to paraphrase another Russian dictator it is also a statistic telling us how those people value their freedom, that they are willing to pay so much in blood to achieve it. There were similar numbers killed in the U.S. Civil War. And while this current war isn’t technically a civil war, even were they equipped with only their own unguided and wire-guided missiles to fight against waves of Russian armour, I have no doubt the Ukrainians would still have fought what could well have been a much more protracted and bloody affair. At least it could easily have been much more costly in Ukrainian lives. Ukraine is not like the Syrian rebels, in that it already had enough weapons to fight an extended war, and in fact had and still has a large army with which to do so. So while I may only be a newly-fledged military analyst (adding to my credentials as a virologist), I wouldn’t concede that supplying sophisticated weaponry is likely to increase the final death toll or general hardship, except probably on the Russian side of the slate.
Noah goes on to criticise those who support a Western strategy of making this war so costly for Russia that it leads to a collapse of the Putin government and possibly the entire state, saying effectively ‘better the devil you know’ and also citing the danger of nuclear proliferation in that scenario. Nuclear proliferation didn’t happen in 1991, and neither was Yeltsin a worse leader on a geo-political level, but these are both risks, sure. However, there’s also a risk that Putin will try to use battlefield nukes if it looks like he’s losing badly in Ukraine, which could well escalate into a full-scale nuclear exchange. He’s also been helping the dangerously millenarian Islamo-fascist Iranian state in its nuclear proliferation efforts, so it seems like we’re already living in the world that Noah fears might come to pass as a result of a regime collapse in Moscow.
In fact, we probably haven’t been this close to a nuclear war since 1983. But what’s worse, and where I do have serious qualms about all this, is that so many apparently quite young people aren’t as concerned as they should be about nuclear war. They’re either too young to remember or aren’t able to imagine that Cold War feeling of always being a few terrifying moments away from obliteration or – if you’re unlucky – surviving, for a ghastly but probably quite brief time, a nuclear exchange. These people are still trying to insist that NATO should start a shooting match with Russia in the air, and I can’t help but feel this idiocy is psychologically just an expression of ‘cancel culture’. The youthful Ukrainian Government – absurdly, while under attack – also called for Russia to be banned from Twitter. To paraphrase Wellington, I don’t know what effect this has on the enemy, but it terrifies me.
Noah goes on to offer some possible counterarguments to his main theme, such as that supplying weaponry makes a quick Ukrainian victory more likely. I’d say that it makes any kind of victory more likely, which is clearly what the Ukrainian people want and which is really the ultimate point. But Noah questions which, or how many, Ukrainian people want to fight, and which of them would be willing to suffer through an extended war. I don’t disagree that this has, in some sense, the seed of a valid argument. For instance, I think the Nazis should have given up much sooner, when they knew they couldn’t win; that many Germans, including German soldiers, lost the will to fight, and that their failure to surrender until they did resulted in huge and unnecessary loss of life and property on both sides. But when it comes to Ukraine, when and on what terms it chooses to cease hostilities in a defensive war are fundamentally matters for its people to decide collectively (although the Russian army also has a say, sadly), and not for us to second-guess, especially when it’s clear that there’s overwhelming support for the war amongst ordinary Ukrainians.
The bravery and self-sacrifice shown by every strata of the Ukrainian military and civilian population has at times brought me to tears, and the nobility of their cause (apart their, ahem, surrender to the EU) shines brightly through the fog of war. We can’t fail them so badly as to base our decisions to offer lethal assistance on a speculative critique of their will and courage to resist this evil, and the truth is that the Ukrainians do, collectively, want to fight for their freedom. And when they lit the beacon to call for aid, we rightly answered, honouring the promise we made them in 1994.
Ian Rons is the IT Director of the Daily Sceptic.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“The recent article by Noah Carl about moral concerns regarding weapons deliveries to Ukraine is wrong on every level. The main argument goes that, by providing weaponry, the West might prolong a war, and thus prolong hardship. ”
The writer has missed out a key part of the argument: If the West wants to defeat the aggressor, then pouring in arms is insufficient. The victims are given more weapons, but only the victims suffer – the West loses money but that is it. Noah Carl’s argument is not that helping the invaded country is pointless, but if you want to help, then you have to suffer as well. In this case, leaving the Ukrainians to fight, suffer and die is not fair/moral/whatever. That will prolong the war, increase the devastation and suffering – but the West only suffers monetary loss. That is not fair.
Biden said that implementing a no-fly zone would bring the West into the war (WWIII!) but that is exactly what the Ukrainians need – people to fight by their side, not over the border in safety.
BTW Since Biden said it, it is almost definitely wrong. So those who want to supply arms to the Ukrainians… Read more »
This is a great example of “road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Military aid, in weapons and especially volunteers, will be the destruction of Ukraine as it was the decision making, since 2014, which was done outside of Ukraine. I know, first hand, what outside forces do to a conflict, with their noble intentions. Let’s call those noble men the way we should, mercenaries. Their noble intentions don’t matter. They come from somewhere else and they will kill indiscriminately (because this is not their home ground) and selfishly (because their life is important, not some country or its people). Weird things in all this is that only parts under Russian control can have any hope of some type or order in next few years. When everything is settled and people from outside are no longer interested in Ukraine, whoever is left will have to pick up the pieces.
Note to the author: just because certain armies and their military and political leaders haven’t set foot in prisons of war tribunals, it doesn’t mean they are not by any moral standard responsible for genocide and war crimes. Do some learning of recent history, but not just through msm headlines.
Under Russian proxy governments, Ukraine was as corrupt as Belarus. Since Euromaidan it has been on a slow, painful climb towards success. Ukraine was on a path to win. If Putin gets control back, that’s over.
History has shown that the western powers are not entirely blameless in the current mess, ignoble perhaps. Whilst Russia may have been trying to influence Ukranian politics for some time to achieve their aims, the west has been doing very much the same and then some. So, this “freedom” being fought for is what exactly? Autonomy, clearly not quite, “freedom” to be swayed by the western powers to signing up to an EU flavour of liberalism and “western values” through their society?
We’ve seen throughout the pandemic exactly how the EU treats the concept of “freedom” and it doesn’t look good. Look at the propaganda and censorship right now, is this “freedom”?
I support the argument that going full neutral (ala Mearsheimer plan) was the better idea, rather than being where we are now – feeding in more armaments and bringing about more death and destruction whilst further backing Russia into a corner. Perhaps this would have been a better pursuit of “freedom”, it might seem like the ship has sailed on this one but I think there is probably still time.
Putin is after swallowing up a next door sovereign state. Hardly anybody else has tried this since WW2 (Saddam Hussein being a notable exception).
When a dictator is deposed, with out without Western support, some form of government has to take over. The Western approach is that this should be a democracy.
Is that so wrong? What would you suggest instead?
stick to IT
Yes. All Noah Carl’s arguments amount to appeasement of aggression and blaming of victims and their allies. No amount of clever-dick sophistry alters that basic fact.
Ian Rons is a globalist apologist plank end of
How about the moral necessity of allowing Dr. Sam Bailey the right of reply?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A0DeNDirbI&ab_channel=TheDuran
Zelensky’s speech to US Congress. Putin’s speech to the Russian people
Incidentally there are no Russian conscripts fighting in Ukraine despite what the Western MSM says.
What does Russian MSM say?
Do you believe them?
Who knows? The Russian MSM has been censored here in the freedom loving West.
Rubbish, you can watch it any time you like.
Amongst other things they have claimed: we won’t invade/there is no war/we’ve had no casualties/Ukrainian people are delighted to be invaded.
This is supposed to be a forum for sceptics.
There is no “moral necessity” to take sides in any conflict.
All conflicts are the result of failures on both sides to resolved the root causes of the conflict. It is mever crystal clear that one side is utterly blameless.
Conflicts are exacerbated and prolonged, not diminished or shortened, by foreign interference.
Let them fight it out amongst themselves.
And the next country invaded?
Well there are a lot of chaps from France invading England in rubber dinghies. Do I get a prize?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133804/Brazil-helped-Argentina-Falklands-War-supplying-aeroplanes-bombs-ammunition-fight-British-forces.html
So, Brazil covertly assisted Argentina.
Imagine the outcome if they had decided it was a “moral necessity” to overtly ally with Argentina!
“Moral necessity” isn’t so clear now, is it?
Wars are a moral jungle.
“Moral necessity” is mere propaganda for political determination to get involved.
In fact there is a difference between invading a country in order to wipe it off the map, versus intervening on behalf of either the government or rebel group who are more legitimate/ less vicious than the other side.
“Luxury department stores have been blasted for continuing to sell Russian goods after MailOnline revealed Harrods was offering £90 Beluga vodka bottles ‘under the counter’ and Selfridges proudly stocked £150 pariah state’s spirits.”
“Sanction Harrods.”
“TUI the holiday company frequented by brits has ties to Russians are you all going to now cancel your holidays to Benidorm?”
“Everyone is still buying Russian oil so banning the sale of Russian vodka is meaningless and pathetic.”
£90 Beluga vodka bottles ‘under the counter’
reading that made me laugh, its now got to parody levels, imagine if the state had to give back all the russian investment they had taken over the last say decade.
The line doing the rounds today:
“The United States intends to fight Russia right down to the last Ukrainian”
In the world of international relations, might is right, and Russia intends that the border nation of Ukraine will remain neutral.
That’s just like the US preventing Russia putting missiles in Cuba, Mexico or Canada.
Russia will neutralise Ukraine, and Russia will succeed in doing so. The only question is how many people will die doing it.
Because when it boils down to it, the West isn’t prepared to send sons, fathers and brothers to their death in Ukraine. No boots on the ground means the war is already lost.
Bringing people to tears implies emotionalism is at work here – pushed by the propaganda of the Western media. That won’t do in international diplomatic relations where Realism is the only way of avoid endless more casualties.
Once again our country is racked with hysteria amongst people who let feelings cloud their judgement. And that is leading to poor decisions.
At this point, it looks very unlikely that Putin will capture Kyiv, let alone the rest of the country. He may not even get Kharkiv, which is right on the border with a supposed pro Russia majority. They aren’t pro Russia now.
“To the atheist, it is as an inextinguishable divine spark.”
This one sentence bears testimony to a very muddled article. To the atheist, there is no inextinguishable divine spark because to the atheist there is no such thing as the divine.
And morality is neither absolute nor relative, it is either ontologically objective or subjective and it can only be ontologically objective if God exists. The Church has long considered what might be necessary for a just war and one requirement is that there must be a serious prospect of success. Is there a serious chance of victory by the Ukraine?
Freedom has been a rarity in human history. The West is currently in the process of abolishing it, which is why it is impossible to get a balanced account of how the war is going. We’re told the Ukraine is doing well, but we’ve only got the BBCs word for that and the BBCs word is worthless. And let’s face it, the conduct of the West, the US, the EU and NATO is what has brought us to this conflict.
I said, “To the atheist, it is _as_ an inextinguishable divine spark.” That is to say, like a divine spark. I choose my words carefully.
The article is right to counter the Noah Carl viewpoint, which says “look the other way” to speed Ukraine’s annexation by Russia, rewarding the aggressor.
It is possible to extend Carl’s logic and get NATO to also attack Ukrain, to speed their defeat. After all, it would be for their own good!
There are only two outcomes from agression, one side wins or both sides lose. I would say it is odds on for the latter. An early end means losing less.
go away woody
Ukrainian flag flying atop a (new) flagpole in the centre of town today. I regard it with the same contempt as prior Covid visual propaganda. Which is sad and confounding; I have nothing against Ukraine at all and wish the fighting would come to an end and those affected be left to get on with their lives. But I will not be told how to think by a morally bankrupt government /media complex seeking to manipulate my emotions for what can only be nefarious reasons.
If we are going to talk about things that are morally wrong – using the authorities, symbols and tax resources of the nation to virtue signal on behalf of causes favoured by sections of the nation, regardless of how big the section is.
Especially wrong when it is local government, whose concerns should be roads and sewers, and certainly not foreign affairs!
With the public just as adept at identifying propaganda as they have been for the last two years.
Just a normal continuation of the Spanish Inquisition style of governance firmly established throughout the pandemic.
Yes. The question is, is this realpolitik or Phase 2 of a globalist coup? Answers on a non fungible blockchain postcard.
By thinking the exact opposite of what your are told by “gov/media complex” you are not actually having your own thoughts. You are just rebelling.
and having you point out the “disconnect” you parrot the narrative of Govt.
Go away woody.
If the US were putting gain of function biolabs in Ukraine, then it is very much the same situation as the USSR putting missiles in Cuba. So, the idea that Russia is necessarily in the wrong is far from clear.
Be careful about believing russian propaganda.
Er, its not Russian propaganda.
Nuland who admitted the US were doing so is a US official.
Be careful about believing MSM / Soros funded propaganda.
These were Soviet bio labs which the US agreed to part fund after the break up of the SU, in order to safely decommission them as weapons centres. They also funded aspects of Eastern Europe’s nuclear industry, for fear that the nuclear plants would fall into disrepair. All this has been entirely in the public eye for many decades.
you’re trolling doesn’t work here
leektree, most people actually research the subjects before gobbing off, I know that’s an alien concept for you, but still…https://armswatch.com/author/dilyana-gaytandzhieva/
Be careful about believing anything without checking it for yourself from sources you trust. Be especially careful of people who claim that propaganda only comes from one side.
Why would the world suddenly decide to annihilate itself? MAD has been very successful. Nobody is going to respond to non-nuclear attack with nukes unless they have nothing they care about in the world.
Battlefield nukes may be an edge case. But I think that it is suicidal for Putin. He would be signing up for a world war personally targeting him.
The way it would happen would be by step by step escalation.
Russia (legitimately) targets with cruise missiles a Polish base, say, used to supply weapons into Ukraine. Amid the hysterical pandemonium of sanctimonious outrage we are now used to in the modern US sphere, whoever in the US regime is responsible for changing Biden’s nappies authorises some kind of demonstrative punitive strike. Russian authorities get a mistaken warning that they are facing a possible first strike, with seconds to decide how to respond…..
Add in as many steps as you need.
Likely? Probably not very. But how likely are you comfortable with?
Why would your first step be legitimate?
Because bases providing active military support to enemy forces are legitimate targets in war. You can’t claim neutrality as a defence if you aren’t neutral.
Though on reflection that’s too sweeping – to give legal as opposed to moral legitimacy the assistance would probably have to be more than just passing weapons along. Allowing Ukrainian pilots to operate from it would do, as there have been (doubtful imo) rumours might be happening in Rumania.
But there isn’t a war. Russia says so.
How do you know what Russia says? The Russian media have been cancelled by the freedom loving, democratic West.
This is absolutely not the way things work. Every single conflict since WW2 has been funded and supplied by outside players – the SU/Russia being prominent among them.
Under Putin, Russia has no moral objection to the use of battlefield nukes or chemical weapons. Yes, he is cautious of using them for fear of retaliation.
Unfortunately Putin has decided that the west lacks the courage to actually use their own nukes. At this point MAD breaks down.
To me the main issue is should we be actively involved at all? There has been a civil war going on in Ukraine since 2014 with estimates varying between 14,000-20,000 civilians killed in Eastern Ukraine by their fellow countrymen.
However bad one perceives the Russian regime to be, the Ukrainian government and military are infiltrated at all levels by far right extremists, a situation so serious it has been subject to investigation at UN level over concerns that Ukrainian fascists have been training far right extremists in the USA.
I also held the view that the west was justified in condemning and sanctioning Russia until someone asked me a question – how is Russia’s intervention to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine different to the west intervening in the Balkans to stop that genocide? I didn’t have an immediate answer and was prompted to investigate further. In the US at least, the same people now railing against Russia are those who shouted loudest for the West to intervene in the Balkans.
It could be suggested that Russia has gone way beyond protecting ethnic Eastern Ukrainians, but without regime change in Kiev the ethnic cleansing through Ukrainian state sanctioned guerilla action would… Read more »
Who cast the first stone?
What is a stone in this context?
bloggers – this is a 77th sealion
It engages, then asks a lot of leading questions on a conservative blog. Ignore the tr0ll.
AKA leek; rational.
In the Yugoslav wars, the west not only declined to intervene, but also imposed an arms embargo on all sides. In effect this gave the Serbs a huge advantage because they took the great majority of the military kit with them after the break up. So, this was not a neutral decision, it greatly favoured the Serbs.
We then had a grandstand seat while the Serbs bombed the crap out of Sarajevo and massacred civilians at Srebrenica.
In the Donbass, the situation is very different. The rebellion has from the first been heavily supplied by one of the world’s military superpowers. Russian military equipment and indeed manpower not only started the rebellion, but has sustained it for all these years.
This is the exact reverse of western policy over Bosnia and Croatia.
Hillary Clinton seems to want Ukraine to follow the proxy war pattern used in Afghanistan in the 1980s (perhaps as many as 2 million dead) and Syria (400 thousand dead).
https://twitter.censors.us/ggreenwald/status/1498658078232920069#m
Screw the Ukraine, what’s the UK government (joke of) doing about protecting our borders?
Overflowing with compassion.
Why do you hate the British so much?
Why would you ask that. I am British. Why would I hate the British?
I don’t have a worry about borders, don’t mind immigration. In general it is a very good thing, especially European immigration.
I am unlikely to be agreed with by right wing people, but so be it.
your English is very suspect. No natural shortening of verbs.
And you’ve only been here since 4th Jan.
Bog off
Brimming with 1-dimensional gibberish.
‘But freedom is much more than just politically and personally advantageous..’
So the moral necessity for arming the British citizenry is clear or is freedom only for Ukrainians?
i am having difficulty seeing the difference between the ruling luvlies in the laughably called free West and Putin or Xi, although I concede Kim Jong-un might be leading the pack by a nose.
“So while I may only be a newly-fledged military analyst (adding to my credentials as a virologist)”
Very obviously newly-fledged, not fully fledged -so the tentative flight path looks like leading to a deservedly humiliating crash landing.
A little advice:
Don’t give up the day job and if you are going to persist in this kind of ill- informed and dangerous encouragement to western war mongers to increase the Russian death toll in Ukraine, do try to find sources other than the UK/ Western media ‘fake propaganda’ news-( fresh from its success in lying to the people for 18 months over the Covid Scamdemic )- before penning such a dangerously misleading piece of partisan support for a potentially disastrous policy, designed to extend the war and sustain the corrupt CIA/ Neo-con run regime in Kiev (with its Azov Nazi Wolfsangel wearing supporters), who openly advocate genocide against Russians.
It appears that the writer knows nothing about the Ukraine conflict other than what the BBC has told him and yet by seeking to reduce it to a binary conflct between “Good and Evil” seeks to encourage more pointless deaths among its population.
Not really..the only rational analysis is what happens from this point forward.
The endless stream of sceptics repeating each other in justifying Ukraine’s demise is somewhat distressing to see… And why..because they feel duty bound to object to the dominant view.
I know they all say it is not just god’s vs. bad and you need to look at both sides. Funny how they nearly all fall on one side, after claiming to be objective.
Not difficult to see why, as they reject all information from the other side outright.
And yet here you are again. What would you like to see happen in Ukraine, tree?
I would like Russia to depart.
Would I be in the minority in wishing that.
No I think that’s what everyone wants, including the Russians. You’re not big on nuance are you?
So why are all the folk on here lining up to justify the invasion and speed Ukrainian’s defeat.
Regardless of the background, this is not a nuanced situation. It is binary..either the Russians are invading, killing destroying or they are not.
or the Azov Brigade clusterbombing civilians.
you’re eastern European with bad Google translate.
Off Subject
Eight hundred P&O staff are about to feel the real effect of the so called lockdown
Hurry up someone and put a piece of lead between Putin’s ears
Six putin supporters so far.
Were you George W Bush’s speech writer?
12 Putin supporters now
it can’t count
and one dense forest
did you see the Ukrainian balaklava-faced police drag the fired employees away?
Sorry, but this article by Ian Rons is puerile nonsense.
“The bravery and self-sacrifice shown by every strata of the Ukrainian military and civilian population has at times brought me to tears”.
Anyone who states this proves they have been receiving all their information from a blatantly biased main stream media.
I have been studying world affairs for 40 years and I soon learnt to obtain the facts from a variety of sources.
The images on our screens are straight from the play book of the Western trained terrorists in Syria.
Empty a hospital, employ artillery in it’s grounds and empty buildings, shell opposing civilians, garner a response from those defending those opposing civilians, use human shields and/or actors, video the carnage and send it to the Western media hungry for a so-called atrocity.
How convenient that a pregnant social media star was snapped by a top Ukrainian photographer with state of the art equipment and not a first responder with their mobile phone descending the ruins of a hospital that Russian officials had told the UN was empty only days before which is what they were told by Ukraine.
We are being played by the US presstitutes in the… Read more »
Indeed. It all looks very reminiscent of the Syrian playbook.
So when Russian media tell you there’s no war on, you believe them?
There has been a war for the last 8 years with the neo-Nazi’s ethnic cleansing the Russian speaking citizens in the east of Ukraine forcing them into the Donbass killing thousands.
Putin has instigated an incursion to “de-Nazify and de-militarise” Ukraine so that ethnic Russians can live peacefully and Russia is not threatened by a US backed Ukraine on their doorstep.
Given the same circumstances most countries would have done the same.
Yes, there’s been a Russian proxy war on in the Donbass for the last 8 years, supplied by Russia and with Russian troops on the ground. Just because Putin says something, it might not be true.
(‘There is no war in Ukraine’ – Putin)
My main problem with this kind of argument is that it is so emotive, which imo makes it manipulative rather than persuasive. This is another manifestation of the poison in our society and culture that has allowed us to be so easily manipulated.
It’s mostly based upon a spurious category difference between the two parties to this conflict (neither of whom we are allied with or owe anything to, beyond minding our own business).
The category difference is set up in two ways here, both flawed. First, there is the pretence that Ukraine is “free” and Russia is “unfree”. In fact there’s no real overall difference of any substance. Freedom is not about being allowed to choose between corrupt party apparatchiks answering to oligarchs and ideologues very few years – something we in this country are beginning to learn.
The second is based upon the fact that Russia are the initiators of the war, and the Ukraine are not. That’s a technical legal point, but not particularly morally significant one here, given that the Ukraine has been assaulting Russian separatists on the borders for years and clearly intended to launch a full scale attack upon them, and in a more… Read more »
This is something I’ve come to despise about our Western “democracies” – the constant appeal to emotion and shaming of any critical opposition.
But as a way to get the majority of people to go along with any diabolical strategy you can come up with it’s entirely appropriate. I’m reminded of the old Myers-Briggs tests that divide personality types into Extrovert/Introvert, Sensory/Intuitive, Thinking/Feeling and Perceptive/Judgmental.
We are ruled over by ENTJ psychopaths and their allies that manipulate the feelings of weaker emotional types through mass media. Anyone that doesn’t go along with the torrential flow of feelings is either hateful or a conspiracy theorist if they try to engage your brain over your all-important feelings.
It’s actually painfully easy. So easy they’ve gotten used to their privileged position and are completely unaccountable and driving society off a cliff.
We are ruled over by ENTJ psychopaths and their allies that manipulate the feelings of weaker emotional types through mass media. Anyone that doesn’t go along with the torrential flow of feelings is either hateful or a conspiracy theorist if they try to engage your brain over your all-important feelings.
This describes the situation in China and Russia just as well. I’ve spent plenty of time in both those places to know this from personal experience.
This is an aggressors’ charter that is, in itself, utterly immoral….has at times brought me to tears,
Warfare is a serious business, and emotions pay no part in it. If you cannot win, you should surrender to save lives. If you will lose, but can make continuing to fight costly for your enemy, you should fight to extract better surrender terms, which is where the Ukraine is now. If your enemy can wield irresistible conventional force, you should surrender your conventional army, and move to guerrilla warfare. For every move, there is an appropriate counter-move. Crying is not one of them.
if you’re unlucky – surviving, for a ghastly but probably quite brief time, a nuclear exchange.
Nuclear war was quite survivable at the height of the Cold War – no matter what slogans CND spouted. It is far more survivable now, with much smaller but precisely targeted weapons.
Not that anyone would want it to happen – but if it did, it is perfectly reasonable to want to survive it.
what I find quite weird is that the ukrainian leader zelensky is been on video calls and giving speeches in government houses i.e. house of commons and the US senate etc etc asking for weapons and money and also apparently no fly zones etc. Does this not seem to be political interference and meddling in another countries affairs? in the era of the west complaining of Russian and Chinese political hacking and interference, the spectacle of a leader of another country is actively giving demands to politicians in other countries by video call, the optics of this is quite odd.
I thought Zelensky was in the trenches on the front line? Perhaps he found them difficult to negotiate in high heels.
he’s in Colorado
“I don’t know” is a valid argument either way and should be deployed far more liberally than we do.
Indeed.. most around here profess to “know” with absolute certainty. And to absolutely reject any mainstream source of information.
as yourself does
Comment before reading: Please shelf your morals. This isn’t a sunday school discussion of some abstract issue of guilt and innocence but a war, ie, an armed conflict between states with conflicting interests. And the people who are still discussing if strategic air warfare, ie, mass-killing of non-combatants and wanton destruction of non-military targets, can’t somehow be made to work as they’re so much in love with the concept have no moral leg to stand on, anyway.
Just one problem with arming the Ukrainians: it’s no different from ‘boots on the ground’, and ‘no-fly zone’. It is, in fact, just the same: an act of war. The Russians aren’t calling it that at the moment, but, if they start seriously losing, they will. What do we do then?
The Russians haven’t acknowledged the invasion, they are undertaking.
poor punctuation