I guess you missed the last word.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Why not help us out by defining what you mean.
It's obvious what I mean. If the west's decision to help putin's victims was based on morality then we'd be helping his victims from other non-european countries. If we want ukranian soldiers to keep fighting, we obviously have to help their families when they flee. It's war strategy, not a moral decision.
I'm obviously not talking about the many civilians who stepped up to help all across europe, individuals often do it for moral reasons. I'm talking about governments.
It's a bid odd having to point this out, I mean, you know how politics work.
I hope I'm mistaken and when the people in africa who don't get their food shipments from ukraine start starving and try to find any semblance of future in europe, we'll welcome them with open arms. They will be putin's victims too.
All of these issues are knock on effects tied to defeating Putin in Ukraine, which is correctly where all the attention and resources should be applied. The NATO/EU response to the invasion has been moral, geo-political, and strategic - none of which are mutually exclusive from one another. If there's a food shortage elsewhere, then that can be dealt with through the appropriate response by the rest of the world.
I don’t understand how letting Russia take over the worlds food supply is a good thing to be honest.
don't disagree with your overall point but morality and strategy are often mutually exclusive if not typically. national interest sets the agenda and that means governments often do very immoral things for what they justify as strategic interest. i'd say morality has almost nothing to do with the response here except for individual people, or general population, who think it's the morally correct thing to do (taking in refugees as one example). but this population is also the one which is usually most ignorant or uncaring about all the other immoral things they support, through their governments, in other parts of the world with not taking in refugees from crises the west created or helped create if you want in Libya and Syria and other places being another example.
on topic, i heard talk of potential UN agreement to move Ukrainian foodstuffs beyond the mined Ukrainian ports and the Russian blockade beyond that. would have to convince Russia, though, and I can only see India or China being able to do that.
author is basically pro-Russian from what I can garner but does have good insight into the economic situation if you overlook his pro-Putin bias.
https://thecradle.co/Article/columns/11928
on China, Russia, and others forming an alternative G8 and potential consequences.
Last edited:
OK, the moral part I think it's you living in dreamland, but lets leave that aside.
Since we know the food shortage won't be dealt with and millions will die, we should at least be honest about the consequences of our decisions. Supporting ukraine to fight till the end and concede no territory will have these effects elsewhere. Putin is to blame for starting it all, no question, but the response has consequences too.
I'm not happy with politicians completely ignoring the brutal devastation that prolonging this will cause in non-western nations.
It's easy having this "you shall not pass" attitude when it's other folks who will pay the price.
I'll repeat again because I feel it coming. I have no answer to this, it's a fecked up decision either way and I don't envy the folks having to make it. What I can not stand is completely ignoring the millions who will die when talking about these decisions. It's a bit disgusting really.
There is a strong moral component to it given that publics in democratic systems are saddened and appalled by a slaughter taking place on their own doorstep. That is obviously going to influence politicians, who may also independently have their own moral views, to where it all factors into their overall calculus on policy choices. This is why imo, morality and geo-political considerations are interwoven.
Last edited:
Its the Ukrainians' choice to defend their own country and its in the world's interest to not allow Putin to foment a potential genocide in Ukraine, then feel emboldened to continue his march into Europe. This would 100% happen if the west withdrew its support to appease your view. Would that be a favorable result for you in exchange for getting a bit more wheat to developing countries ?
The west is not the world. Or do you think the folk in countries where these famines will devastate communities agree with you?
Putin can't march into kiev, let alone europe.
I said multiple times, I don't have an answer and I'm glad I'm not the one making it.
My issue is with ignoring that prolonging the war will cause millions to die. We simply don't see that in the news, apart from a footnote here and there. Democracies and informed decisions, I guess.
That’s not what’s going to happen re food crisis. Feel there’s a bit of hysteria creeping in without any research here:
The only reason he has been thwarted so far is because of western military aid. As to your latter point, its up to the rest of the world to start chipping in resources to help those areas affected by resource shortages. Its not up to NATO and the EU alone to do all the heavy lifting.
If millions will die it is because of Putin. Ukraine are not giving an inch of their territory and the West are ready to support them for the sake of stability in Europe first and foremost. Asking Ukraine to forget about the damage caused, concede their territory and continue to live under further existential threat of Russia is immoral. The world needs to put pressure on Putin not on Zelenskyy. USA, UK and all neighbour countries are hell bent on keeping Ukranian territorial integrity and defeating russism once and for all. If you want to help Africa, talk to Putin. Zelenskyy is ready to deliver wheat and corn despite of the war. Putin, being the war criminal that he is, continues to kill Ukranians and is ready to kill millions through starvation. African nations need to address Putin. Ukraine have already paid way too much, far more than anyone else in this war.
kind of agree. i don't view entire states and political representatives as having no morality at all as they're people. just in the strict or almost pointlessly abstract sense there is often a conflict between what we think we stand for and what we actually do. helping to arm Ukraine doesn't fall into that though so long as there are boundaries between support and direct military involvement.
Maybe, I just read what the WFP said in the report, an added 40 million in extreme hunger because of the ukraine situation. I assume they are on top of things and not making stuff up.
I would love to have your confidence that all the terrible things that are to come are solely putin's responsibility and all those dead will be morally justified.
But I'm not and I don't believe the public at large is well informed. Or worse, they are but because it's brown fold dying they kinda don't care.
I get your concerns. However, there are more stakeholders here. The Russians might not listen to the West but they'll perhaps listen to China. If more non-Western countries ask China to throw its weight at Russia, that could help solve the food crisis.
But it’s more nuanced than how you’re seeing it, which is basically stop the war and feck over Ukraine because there is a blockade. If the war stops tonight and Russia wins, it doesn’t fix the issues with shipping or allowing Russia (a nation desperate for money) to control the price of the grain they sell to these countries. Countries who can and will end up buying their grain elsewhere. Also the article you’re regretting to even states the food crisis came pre Ukraine for most W African countries due to covid and now is spreading Eastwards.
You’re essentially happy to destroy a country of 44million to appease an evil dictator, it won’t change anything re food crisis.
Seems you missed the point. Why don’t you ask Beijing to help instead of putting the responsibility on the West? It’s our neighbour and our continent under attack - we don’t have the luxury of providing assistance to the whole swathes of the developing world at the same time,, nor (unlike China) can we put much more pressure on Russia other than by direct military intervention with all the risks that entails.
I asked you how many lives is the donbass worth and you said everything. Not for me, eventually the price will become too high. We're not there yet, but if this lasts for years I think I'll change my mind.
If we talked about it more, the pressure would be greater on china.
Agreed!
When you say potentially tens of millions will die from the consequences of prolonging the war…how likely is that? On the flipside, what’s the likelihood of tens of millions of people dying from conceding the war?
You’re talking about these things as if they’re just no-brainers - if you do x then it leads to y - and this truth is being hidden from the public. The reality is that there are hundreds of unknown factors that determine all of those things. If there was such certainty in those outcomes then people would make very different choices.
Yeah, I'm happy
I may be misinformed. What I read said around 250 million in extreme risk and an added 40 million because of ukraine.
I know things wouldn't be fixed overnight but in recent days we have reports this can go on for years, so the devastation is pretty much guaranteed in that scenario.
I'm not chinese, I'm western so I can only really influence (in an infinite tiny way) what we do and opine about what's in our free media.
I've said literally multiple times these are fecked up decisions, I have no answer and I'm glad it's not up to me. You read that and come out with no-brainers. Mate, come on...
Do you believe we in the west talk enough about the possible consequences of a prolonged war to non-western countries?
Moreover, surrendering signals Putin and other dictators that they can get their way without consequences which will probably destabilize Europe much more. And if this war already has such severe consequences on the whole world, what will happen if this escalates even further and Russia isn't stopped?
I’m not saying you think the choice is a no brainer, I’m saying you’re describing the outcomes of one choice as a no brainer. You’re saying if we prolong the war then it will directly cause a food crisis and millions could die from it. But you don’t describe the possible millions that could die from the alternative choice. Nor do you explain that in fact there are many ways a food crisis could be avoided. Evidence of that exists right now from how India and co. have changed their crop production in response to this new reality, as described in that thread on the obvious page.
There were claims that we would run out of food to eat in the 70s due to overpopulation. Some alarming statistics were put forward and some very hard decisions were framed as essential. This was the result of some very rigorous analysis of trends up to that point and factors in existence then and there, it wasn’t just some conspiracy theory. Then the green revolution happened and none of those hard decisions needed to be made, and those alarming consequences were easily avoided. The world is just more complex than that.
Do we know if it would cause a food crisis, causing tens of millions to die? No. Do we know if Putin would feel emboldened by Ukraine surrendering and lead us into WW3, causing tens of millions to die? No. But you only describe one of those stories, and you describe it as if the story is being hidden for political motives. You seem to offer a level of credulity to one set of outcomes that you don’t offer to the other.
The way you have framed it is: hold on now and potentially kill tens of millions from a food crisis, or concede now and potentially cede some territory to Russia? Why don’t you frame it as: potentially kill tens of millions either way? What makes one scenario a legitimate doomsday outcome, and the other one not worth a mention at all?
I don't think anything is being hidden for political motives, it's just the way our media works, so let's get that out of the way, there's no conspiracy here.
I'm obviously focusing on one because in my view most people aren't considering it. Why would I repeat arguments made hundreds of times?
If you read this thread you see people defending supporting ukraine whatever happens because we gotta stop putin and it's the right thing to do. I sympathize with that, but shouldn't we be open to the fact that if this drags on for long, the price to pay (if the worst predictions about famines materialize) might grow too high? Suggesting this seems to be some sort of betrayal when it's a possible outcome that should be taken into account.
If we find ways to control the food problem and answer putin's blackmail, great, let's keep going. But if the situation spirals out of control we have to open to the horrible prospect we might have negotiate with putin and give him something.
I don’t think it’s betrayal, I just think it’s painting a very one sided view as seeing the bigger picture. You’re still doing it now. You’re framing the position as: stop putin and do the right thing, or stop a food crisis and save potentially tens of millions. But the people who think stopping Putin is the right choice, morally, also think it’s the right choice in all sorts of other ways. They worry he might invade other countries. They worry he might manipulate the food supply that he’s taken control over from that Ukrainian territory. They worry he might lead us into a nuclear war. They worry, just like you, that tens of millions might die. They’re valid concerns too. They aren’t just ignorant moral positions.
The dichotomy you’re presenting simply isn’t real. Continuing a war with Russia could cause millions to die. Conceding a war with Russia could cause millions to die. The reason these kinds of scenarios exist is because none of those outcomes are certain, all people are making imperfect judgments with imperfect facts, and there’s a lot of guesswork involved. You’re describing the guesswork from one position (millions could die from a food shortage) as a legitimate concern we don’t talk about, while ignoring the guesswork from the other position (millions could die from the geopolitical implications of Russia stealing Ukraine). And then you’re using that to frame the argument as moral vs practical. But there are moral and practical arguments for both. It’s just a question of how much weight you apply to him. And in every case you’re guessing.
From that perspective, it’s a bit distasteful to suggest the people who are advocating for Ukraine to fight to the end are not considering all of the potential lives that decision could impact. They are. They just don’t really know what the impact will be, and they’re making judgments from the best position they can.
Not if you’d read the thread on grain production, multiple large countries have massively increased their wheat production in response to Russia’s aggression so conversely the longer it goes on the easier it will become as those counties will get their grain elsewhere. Also more product equals lower prices. It’s bad right now because there was already a crisis and it’s been made worse.Yeah, I'm happy
I may be misinformed. What I read said around 250 million in extreme risk and an added 40 million because of ukraine.
I know things wouldn't be fixed overnight but in recent days we have reports this can go on for years, so the devastation is pretty much guaranteed in that scenario.
Also the grain hasn’t just disappeared, Russia has reportedly moved it to Syria to sell so those countries will just pay money to Russia instead of Ukraine or chose a different supplier. Ukraine is the one who loses double fold here - they’re being invaded and, should they somehow win, they will need huge amounts of money and at least some of their usual customers for grain will have other supply lines setup that didn’t exist before.
Russia invaded a country, blockaded their ports, caused the price of wheat to skyrocket, stole the wheat to then sell themselves and your solution is for Ukraine to surrender because Russia has exacerbated a food crisis?
This framing is a tad annoying. Is it your solution to let Israel continue on with their ethnic cleansing? Is it your solution to let the people in Yemen starve so we can still buy oil from Saudi Arabia? Maybe, but probably and hopefully not. It is, however, a political reality that we will allow these things to happen either because of direct benefits to us or because the costs involved with stopping them are deemed too high. Likewise, helping Ukraine has costs in all sorts of ways, and at some point those costs will be deemed too high as well. Luckily for Ukranians we're willing to bear way, way, way higher costs to save them over Palestinians or Yeminis, and where that limit lays still remains to be seen.
You’ve genuinely lost me.
No quite sure what you're saying here, but are you conflating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Yemeni civil war with the "West's" (assuming US+UK+EU) response to Ukraine and saying that there is hypocrisy there?
Not sure why you think it costs more to "save Ukraine" than to save "Palestinians or Yeminis". The cost of doing nothing in Ukraine is far higher than the little we're doing now. Were we to appease Russia, we'd pay for it tenfold in the future. Arguably, we're paying for the years of appeasement now and it's a shame that we didn't tighten the screw and fully divest from Russia the minute they proved to be bad actors (Georgia 08 at the latest).
For all the talk of Europe being hampered by the sanctions on Russia, they will stunt Russia in the long run. You only have to look at Iran to see what savage sanctions can do to the economic output of a once growing economy. People often say "sanctions don't work" because they never affect regime change, however who needs regime change when you can just cripple an economy and neutralise a threat. Wars are also undoubtedly expensive, just look what happened to Iran and Iraq after their war. Iraq ended up skint (leading to the Gulf War) and Iran has probably never truly recovered. In 30 years you'll likely see a weakened, sidelined, Russia with China having swallowed them up economically. The US and EU will still be there.
Assuming we're not all dead from nuclear war/famine/global warming obviously.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/294233/iran-gross-domestic-product-gdp/
estimates on Iran's gdp in nominal terms seem to vary. the world bank puts it at a fraction of what the UN and the IMF report. but if you take the UN and IMF figures, or split the difference, then Iran's economy is relatively booming. sanctions definitely hit them but they're on course for solid growth. more so now that the Eurasian Union is rising and Iran is central to the BRI. they're richer than Saudi Arabia in nominal terms and ppp terms if you rule out the world bank's estimate. in ppp terms they're by far the richest economy in the middle east by whichever estimate you use. i think sanctions will be to russia what oil and gas is to europe. a short term problem that it will workaround in the longterm, just like Iran. Asia is rising and all of these countries will benefit by mutual trade.
turkey largest in ppp terms in middle east actually which makes sense. but the trend is interesting when you think how few trillion dollar economies existed only ten years ago and now see the likes of Iran in that group.
Last edited:
No, I am simply talking about costs and benefits. "We" are willing to bear higher costs in this conflict because we value the benefits much higher, but at some point that's not necessarily longer the case. This started with talk about a hunger crisis, which I don't actually think is very relevant because the people who in that scenario will die of hunger don't matter to the people deciding things. Increased cost of living in Western countries do matter, though. How much? We'll see, I don't know.
If you (and others talking similarly) are going to suggest 47 million people are going to die and their is no other possible way to prevent this than to force Ukraine to give in to the demands of a fascist warmonger (this is what you are alluding to in the context of this conversation) then please provide some sort of citation/reasoning.
Mate, come off your high horse. It's cute that you think you're the only one who knows about all the bad stuff that happens around the world but you really aren't. If that's your feeling, maybe you need to surround yourself with other people. It's nothing special to be informed, it should actually be the norm. And just for the record, my grandparents came to Germany as refugees as well and fled from interment camps in Serbia - a genocide (>60.000 dead) that to this date is barely even admitted by the local governments. But it doesn't matter. When injustice goes unpunished it sucks but that doesn't mean that it is okay to look away when another one happens. And you are not bringing these things up because you want to direct attention at them, you do so because you backed yourself into a corner and now try to distract (pretending to care) from a simple fact:
Ukraine doesn't want to surrender. The people actually doing the fighting don't want to surrender. You criticized me as a keyboard warrior, but you are actually the one trying to tell the people on the front what they should do. So put your money where your mouth is and shut up.
[/QUOTE]
Im backed in a supposed corner yet you're running away from every question of mine as "you don't mean it!"
My money is where my mouth is. I want this war to end and I've proposed obvious unpopular opinions on here. You on the other hand want the war to continue but at someone else's expense.
You're western privilege in a nutshell.
Thank you. Certainly sounded like a few people swallowed something out of Putin's arse to me.
Since you brought up Iran to corroborate your point:
"Iran has amassed enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon, according to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency viewed by several media outlets Monday"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewal...-un-watchdog-reportedly-says/?sh=36836b86b51e
That incidentally happened after Trump ripped up the JCPOA (to which Iran was adhering) and re-installed "crippling sanctions" so as to "make it impossible for Iran to ever have a nuclear bomb".
And all the sanctions placed on North Korea simply made the Kim regime speed up their nuclear programme, with the result that they are now a nuclear power and openly threatening their neighbours.
I don't get what "threats" are "neutralised" by sanctions.
Last edited:
A very unprepared Ukraine and foreign aid was able to to defend Kyiv with success at massive losses to Russians. I really don't understand how some think they'll bulldoze through Europe when they couldn't get to Ukraines capital.
The examples people give too: Georgia, Chechnya etc. It's like anyone is going to care if Russia messes with a country with little geopolitical importance.
When Chechnya was being massacred by Putin @Zehner was probably making Messi goal compilations.