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.
The government of Russia is still committed to this war, and as long as this is the case the sanctions against Russia and the military support for Ukraine just continue.
The fascists should not win this fight.
How prescient.
I mean, that’s probably a liberal democracy in a nutshell - where a fascist state would openly say we need to fight them, bcs they are subhuman - a liberal state would say - we need to fight them, bcs they lack our democracy… (whispering) …bcs they are subhuman
More tanks are always good.
The sanctions are working. But in a sense of turning Russia into a bigger NK or Iran. They don’t have inflation because they immediately restricted capital exchanges preventing any capital flight. They also increased their federal fund rate by a lot, which will prevent inflation but still hurt their economy.
Russia is suffering from ammunition shortages, which is why they are firing much less compared to the start of the war.
Ukraine made more progress in the last two weeks than Russia did in the last 6 months. It was always gonna be hard. Unlike with the Kharkiw counteroffensive Russia expects it and is dug in having built up defence in depth. It was always gonna be hard, specially in the early days. More like how the Kherson counteroffensive went which took over a month of heavy fighting to get going.
I’m not aware of Ukrainians just surrendering and refusing to fight. To me it looks like they are fighting quite effectively so far.
Lastly, if you are actually worried about the loss of Ukrainian live (which I doubt tbh) than maybe, just maybe you should instead support your Biden administration and encourage them to send more material so that Ukrainians can better defend themselves.
if you are actually worried about the loss of Ukrainian live (which I doubt tbh) than maybe, just maybe you should instead support your Biden administration and encourage them to send more material so that Ukrainians can better defend themselves.
If you actually care about the loss of any lives (Ukranian and Russian), then you should not support any action which does not immediately end the war. Providing more ammunition causes more deaths (what is ammunition used for? they aren’t shooting trees, they’re shooting and killing humans). How can you not see how hypocritical it is to suggest that more arms would lead to less death?
If the Russian soldier wants to survive he can just surrender or go home (although he might get shot by their own men).
If the Ukrainian wants to survive, he has to drive the Russians out of his country.
And you are right, I do not care whether the invaders survive or not. They decide to invade their peaceful neighbour to murder and rape the civilian population. Have you all forgotten Bucha already? I have not, and there are hundreds of Buchas in the occupied territories.
Are you seriously telling Ukraine they should just let the Russians genocide and rape them in peace instead of fighting for their survival? That’s a sickening take.
If the Russian soldier wants to survive he can just surrender or go home (although he might get shot by their own men).
If the Ukrainian wants to survive, he has to drive the Russians out of his country.
This is nonsense. Russia has not set out to kill every Ukranian. If the Ukranians stopped fighting back, Russia wouldn’t kill them all, they’d stop killing them in fact. I don’t understand how you think this is one-sided. As long as Ukraine is fighting back, they’re contributing to the loss of their own lives.
Are you seriously telling Ukraine they should just let the Russians genocide and rape them
Again, you’re acting like the goal is to genocide the Ukranian people. There’s literally nothing to indicate this.
I’ll say it once more simply, but I doubt you care about logical consistency: Both Ukraine and Russia can end this war by stopping putting anything in to continuing it; as long as a party is continuing, and not stopping the war, that party is in part responsible for the loss of more human lives.
Sunk cost fallacy implies that the West is supporting Ukraine for profit. They are supporting Ukraine because it’s the right thing to do.
States: well known for doing things because it’s the right thing to do.
Do you think helping create and fund coups is “the right thing to do”? Do you think we’d be in the situation we’re in right now if not for that? The USA is supporting Ukraine as an extension of what got us to this point: expansionist policy driven by greed for profit.
Helping build a bulwark against anything that challenges the hegemony of the Western Free-Market Economy is also another huge factor, and arguably the primary reason for Russia’s participation in the war as well. The USA is absolutely terrified of a competing ideological and economic system simply existing; the USA doesn’t destroy communist movements because they think they’re evil incarnate, they destroy them because they threaten their existing structure by offering an alternative (this is why sabotaging communist movements has proven so useful: if you make it look like they’re all bound to fail, you can perhaps prevent them from gaining as much support in the first place).
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.
Sunk cost fallacies don’t apply when your side has achieved 80%+ of its objectives
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
