If Ukraine is able to replace or recover damaged vehicles why is Zelensky still asking for more tanks (in Switzerland right now)? I thought the sanctions were going to trigger massive inflation and unrest in the Russian economy and their desire to support the war would disappear. I thought the Russians were out of ammunition last year and now they’re bombing relentlessly. I though their morale was so low they were going to capitulate when this attack happened, yet their first main line of defensive trenches hasn’t yet been touched. If Ukraine morale is high and Russian morale is low why are Ukrainians surrendering or refusing to fight on the front lines?

Austin told us all that he had high expectations for the counter-offensive two days before the Pentagon leaks revealed there were actually low expectations. Why believe the boy who already cried wolf, especially when his words don’t align with reality? There’s been too much lying. The war is costing too much in terms of tax payer dollars and Ukrainian lives. This Biden administration is stuck is a sunk cost fallacy and needs to stop.

  • zkikiz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So do you think the most ethical thing would be to allow Zelinskyy to be assassinated and Putin take control of Ukraine in order that only one person is killed instead of many? Is forcible occupation by a murderous corrupt tyrant not worth fighting against? If I point a gun at you and say “sell me your house for $1 or I’ll kill you” do you acquiesce in order to prevent bloodshed?

    • 133arc585
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      So do you think the most ethical thing would be to allow Zelinskyy to be assassinated and Putin take control of Ukraine in order that only one person is killed instead of many?

      He can surrender without being assassinated; there doesn’t even have to be one person killed here.

      Is forcible occupation by a murderous corrupt tyrant not worth fighting against?

      Humans killed in the name of a good cause are still humans who have been killed.

      If I point a gun at you and say “sell me your house for $1 or I’ll kill you” do you acquiesce in order to prevent bloodshed?

      Yes. This is the same instructions store clerks, bankers, nearly everyone receives and adheres to: if someone is threatening your life, nothing is worth so much that you should rather die than acquiesce.

      • zkikiz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sorry, I think the pure pacifist route unfortunately enables centuries of mass abuse. At some point people would rather die than live under an abusive regime or lose their homes, a story repeated across millennia and a right honored in most moral codes. The invader is in the wrong, not the defender. Untold and unceasing crimes are committed alongside these kinds of things: ethnic cleansings, assaults, deprivation both material and emotional. I myself am pretty dang pacifist, but evil is allowed to proliferate when good people do nothing: it’s our moral duty to punch and shoot Nazis, even if we die in the process, because the alternative is so much worse and cannot be allowed to progress.