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.
Just because you haven’t been paying attention to developments doesn’t mean things don’t add up. You seem to be unaware that sanctions are only mildly effective, Iran and China and North Korea are helping Russia, Russia is losing ground and poised to lose all of their gains since this invasion and possibly even into the 2014-era holdings like Crimea, but they’re also entirely committed to it and Crimea specifically is a peninsula that will be very hard to take from the outside.
Sunk cost fallacies don’t apply when your side has achieved 80%+ of its objectives despite starting out in a situation where a full and immediate loss was expected on all sides. The sunk cost fallacy is actually on Putin’s side: just because he had tanks occupying large parts of Ukraine doesn’t mean that continuing to fight will ever result in substantial gains again. If anything he’s poised to maim every soldier-aged man in his country for nothing.
90% of gamblers stop playing when they’re about to win.
That’s precisely how sunk cost fallacy works. You’re using past results to justify continuing: it doesn’t matter if you had been steadily winning or steadily losing, the sunk cost fallacy comes in to play when you say that your actions to continue or quit are based on that history of winning or losing. You’ve fallen in to the exact trap of sunk cost fallacy but somehow you think you have managed to avoid it.
Now I’d also agree that sunk cost fallacy could be applied to Putin, but it’s simpler than you say. On both sides, identically, the idea that you must keep going because otherwise what you’ve already done will be wasted effort, is precisely where the fault lies. That is sunk cost fallacy.
I’m not saying that Ukraine must continue because they’ve invested so much into the fight that it would be awful to stop now. That’s the core fallacy, that you owe it to all the past pain and effort to keep trying even if things are looking bad: just because you lost a million men getting here doesn’t mean you won’t suffer total defeat trying to get to the finish line.
What I am saying is that Ukraine would be foolish not to continue because they’re in an incredibly strong position with a track record that defies all odds against a weak retreating struggling foe. Now, it’s sure possible that Crimea is a hard target full of Russian loyalists ready to fight to the death, but it’s also possible that it’s full of Ukrainians who are tired of Russian rule and ready to go back to how things were. I can’t know, I’m not there.
Don’t quit while you’re ahead is a very different thing from don’t quit because you’ve given up so much to get this far.
Ok, that was not how I interpreted it, so thanks for clearing it up. I still disagree with it being justified, but I can’t say it’s logicaly inconsistent, now it’s more about pragmatics and ethics.
I do understand the notion of continuing when you’re ahead, but I think that’s only justified if your goal is to “win”. If your goal is to end the war, and thus to save human lives, it’s still not an acceptable plan of action.
I think this is rather disingenuous. The 2014 referendum was something like 95% of votes in favor of Russian control. Yes, that was some years ago now, and things can and likely have changed, but that is quite a large margin such that to propose that it has changed in the complete opposite favor would require some solid justification.
I really do feel like I’m talking either in circles or to the void, because my fundamental goal here is: preservation of human life. As such, the only stance I find acceptable is ending the war. I find it fallacious to assume that Ukranian surrender could somehow lead to more loss of life. Just because humans were killed for a “good cause” doesn’t mean those deaths were justified. I also find it annoying when people imagine that my assertion that Ukraine’s actions are leading to deaths somehow means I think that Russia’s actions aren’t also; I’ve not said as much, and the assumption seemingly just serves to attempt to discredit the rest of what I’m saying.
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?
He can surrender without being assassinated; there doesn’t even have to be one person killed here.
Humans killed in the name of a good cause are still humans who have been killed.
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.
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.