• whelmer@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    if dropping ten of these prevents the Russians from dropping one of theirs you are coming out ahead in terms of UXO

    Hmm. However justified one feels Ukraine’s struggle is, it’s hard to understand how sending more weapons into a brutal war will result in less violence. NATO supplying Ukraine with weapons is not having the effect of shortening the conflict, it’s having the exact opposite effect. You can make an argument that the U.S and its allies should continue to support Ukraine so that Ukraine can hopefully win this conflict, but that’s a different argument than the humanitarian angle of shortening the conflict.

    This is a very, very dangerous game that is being played. Russia has nuclear weapons. It’s a real tragedy what’s happening one way or another.

    • jhulten@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the objective was shortening the conflict, then we would have told them they were on their own. The objective is for a sovereign nation to remain so.

      • SenorBolsa@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I thought it was a given that Russia also can’t win but I suppose you can look at it this way, Russia could end the war right now if they wanted. It’s a whole can of worms but I think it’s vital for global security and stability that Russia does not take over Ukraine. Long term a win for Russia will cause more pain and suffering for everyone including Russian civilians.

      • FIash Mob #5678@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The objective is for a sovereign nation to remain so.

        The US has spent the last eight years helping Saudi Arabia starve and decimate Yemen, so it doesn’t make sense to me to use this kind of moralistic language like we’re good guys here.

        • jhulten@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh we suck for sure, but not doing the “right” thing because we also do the wrong thing seems like a shitty way to live.

          • FIash Mob #5678@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not having health care because your government funds other countries’ wars is a shitty way to live, without question.

    • iopq@latte.isnot.coffee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because Ukraine is advancing too slowly. It prolongs the fights in certain areas, allows Russians to shell cities.

      If Ukraine were to reach Crimea in the South, the frontline would shrink appreciably.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because if you do not stop the violence, it will continue. Ukraine is defending itself from an invasion. Providing the tools to resist the invasion saves lives. If Ukraine were to stop resisting, Russia would murder millions of people like they have already tried to do.

      Following that, Putin and his cronies have declared that they would invade Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic, and every former member state of the Soviet union. Many of these nations are currently NATO member states which would directly kick off of a Third World war and which lead to nuclear war in Asia and Europe.

      Russia can peacefully and the war that anytime by withdrawing. Why haven’t they? They are the instigators and they can end it.

    • query@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The alternative to fighting back is to do nothing against the country that’s committing genocide and want to end another country’s existence.

      • whelmer@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t believe the only options are to do nothing or to use horrific weapons which primary kill civilians and which have been banned by over 100 countries, including major U.S allies who, unlike almost everyone in this thread, are quite critical of the United States for sending these munitions to the battlefield.

        If the logic of supporting Ukraine and ending the conflict as quickly as possible supports the use of cluster bombs, why not chemical weapons? Why not nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line with this logic of escalation?

        • query@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was replying to the idea that sending more weapons was wrong, not these specific weapons, but I’m sure Ukraine would accept more of something else in their place. Ideally something with more range.