• NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I wish I had a thorough answer for you, but I’m afraid it would be very, very complicated. This war came out of a complex situation and we (westerners) can understand only a fraction of it all.

    But I give you just a simple idea to think about:

    Imagine all these weapons would not have existed, on both sides, then maybe there would have been a war anyway, but probably much less killing and suffering.

    • Kor@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I agree with you in theory, but the current reality just does not give a fuck about wishful thinking. As long as there are despots like Putin, Xi Jinping, et al., who see our democratic values as a threat to their own autocratic views we simply have to live with the fact that we have to build weapons to deter their imperialistic goals.

      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Now that is not only too simple thinking, but it is also not true. As far as your weapons are used there, it is for your own imperialistic goals.

        • Kor@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          So you prefer autocracies over democracies? Am I understanding you correctly?

            • Kor@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I think I am understanding you very well. You say democratic imperialism is just as bad as autocratic imperialism, creating a false balance when you agree that autocracies are inherently worse for humanity than democracies. Furthermore, Ukraine was attacked by a far more capable force than their own. They, by the very definition of imperialism, cannot be imperialistic by simply fighting for its own survival against an autocratic and clearly imperialist Russia.

              • foenkyfjutschah@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                nonono, there’s no democratic imperialism. that’s not aligning with our values that we let Ukrainians die for. please mind the talking points and don’t mention Turkey.

                • Kor@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  I didn’t bring it up, NeoNachtwaechter did. I simply continued to use the term to point out their hipocrisy.

                  However, there certainly is such a thing as democratic imperialism. What else would you call Nixon giving the order to overthrow the newly elected socialist Chilean president Allende in 1970 and then condoning the fascist Pinochet’s coup to power in 1973? Or the USA’s “war on terror” post-9/11 by invading inter alia Iraq and Afghanistan? I could go on.

              • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                No, you still don’t.

                You say democratic imperialism is just as bad as autocratic imperialism

                I said nothing like that.

                I said that your imperialism exists and that your weapons are used for it. But I did not judge your imperialism as better or worse or equal.

                you agree that autocracies are inherently worse for humanity than democracies.

                I also did not say that. You are making up lots and lots of things :-/

                I don’t even know whether or not you are living in a democratic country (but I think I can deduct from your texts that you think you do).

                • Kor@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Carefully read your replies to my comments. My interpretation of your replies is made in good faith that you want to argue constructively against my position. Simply stating “no” to any of my questions just does not cut it without any evidence to support your opinion. I therefore must assume that you are arguing in favor of Russia, when you pull out whataboutisms and false balances about

                  your own [Western] imperialistic goals

                  without properly engaging and refuting my realist observations about Russia. You should learn debate discipline or to properly express your opinion to avoid such misinterpretarions, as your very open and underequipped replies leave just as much room to attack your position as Ukraine’s open and underequppied situation before the war sparked Russian aggression.

    • lycanrising@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      you make an interesting point and it reminds me of a counter point: that modern wars might have higher death tolls than historical wars, but modern wars - with modern weapons - end up costing less life overall compared to the populations of the time.

      for tribal conflict of humans past, victory could mean wiping out the other tribe - 50% death toll or higher. as weapons advanced and more efficient and more destructive tactics emerged, wars can be more violent and more deadly but shorter and with fewer deaths compared to the overall population. wars became efficient.

      all this is to say that if we didn’t have modern weapons there would be more killing - not less. “victory” would necessitate more deaths.

      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        wars can be […] shorter

        I’m not so sure about that - appears like a theoretical argument to me. Today’s real wars are going much too long to let this look plausible.

        You’d have to read historical facts if you really want to compare wars. I would simply think about some people fighting with bare hands, and they get exhausted after only a few minutes (and may decide to make peace then), while some people fighting with guns can do that easily for years.