19699

I think you’re correct to some degree, and that their main problem stems from not realizing that making concessions to militant autocrats doesn’t end the fight, because those autocrats will just keep invading new territories until they are met with force.

The thing is though, I honestly don’t get how people fail to grasp this concept.

Also, it’s probably worth noting that some non zero chunk of these folks are useful idiots who are being manipulated by Russian propaganda and disinformation. Russia has plants in those groups, just as it has plants in right wing crackpot groups, who feed them terrible ideas that these groups think are coming from their own organizations, and then mindlessly promote.

19700
19701

So proof that NATO is using Slovenian mercenaries to assemble dirty bombs in Ukraine

19702

I think the issue is with the propaganda and disinformation uses of the reality you point out. On the one hand, you have a valid point but on the other hand the idea that aggressive regimes must be met by force has been not just used properly, but also over-used, misused, exploited and manipulated throughout US history. So I get that folks would be skeptical. The difficulty is in balancing legitimate concern over aggression with legitimate skepticism towards the exploitation of that aggression.

A great example is Saddam and the “WMDs”. On the one hand keeping dangerous regimes from developing WMDs is a legitimate national security interest of the US. On the other hand, we’ve already seen very substantial evidence of how this can be manipulated and exploited. So the next time an issue like that arises, good judgement has to be used. For example, if someone came forward with an argument that “Iran is going to build a nuke tomorrow and we must bomb them today!!”, it’s not idiotic to be skeptical and ask for solid evidence. On the other hand, when you we do have very solid evidence of aggression or danger, as in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, then we do have to deal with that reality.

It’s a balancing act.

19703

I was thinking Art Greenwald.

19704

I’m sure these people also teach their kids not to fight, even when somebody else is bullying them. They fundamentally think that the answer to violence is to refuse to stoop to it, and to resolve all conflicts with some kind of rational bargaining process. I think that doesn’t really account for the realities of some people in the world, and they’re being naive and unrealistic. On the other hand, they’re probably nicer people than I am.

19705

Well, in fairness it’s a very Christian view… Folks like Ghandi made it work.

So, maybe it can work, but probably not when the person you are trying to convince is a crazy autocrat with no value for human life.

19706

Raytheon reporting 2 NASAMS are now in service in Ukr.

19707

There’s a great Harry Turtledove short story from about 25 years ago about an alternate history where the Nazis occupied India and Ghandi attempted to use non-violence against the Nazis. It went about how you would expect. The story is called “The Last Article” for those who want to search the intarwebs for it. I cannot recall which collection its in now.

19708

“Remember that thing I said? I didn’t actually say it. Or maybe I did. It depends on who’s asking.”

19709

I’ve read it. Great story. I’ll try to find the anthology it’s in.

19710

Well, non-violence and civil disobedience are not predicated on avoiding harm to oneself, only on doing harm to others. Gandhi’s people and the SCLC marchers in Birmingham and Selma understood that their stances would result in many people getting hurt; in fact, one of the strategies that proved so effective was doing things they knew would engender violence on the part of the oppressors, who would then be condemned for it. Of course, someone has to pay the piper for that sort of stand; non-violence is a very hard row to hoe.

19711

It’s been published a bunch of different places, including the intarwebs.

19712

Thanks for the link @Aleck. I hadn’t read story that in a long time. It holds up, in a grim and ugly way. It’s speculative fiction and alternate history of course but I feel it’s also pretty predictive of how that particular encounter would have turned out, had it happened.

19713

I appreciate this and was planning to say something similar. It’s not like non-violence works immediately, and there will be a tremendous amount of suffering before it does work.

The example of Gandhi is instructive. We remember it as a story where non-violent resistance worked because the British were capable of feeling shame. But resistance, both violent and non-violent, had to go through many, many years, and a whole lot of British overlords, before they finally found the British who were capable of being shamed into change. A lot of people suffered and died before that happened.

19714

It’s also a scar from the Bush years, where it felt like it was foreign intervention for the sake of empire and neoliberalism, and got out nothing but destroyed lives and lots of treasure lost which could have been used to stop late stage capitalism.

Reality is less cut an dry, but that’s how a lot of the left feels, and Ukraine feels less like a holy cause and more of another chapter to that crowd.

19715

Maybe, but I hate to think they’re too stupid to tell the difference between the two situations. It seems uncharitable.

19716

It’s more they are just tired of spending treasure on foreign adventures, even if it’s Ukranian and not American blood being spilled. It’s fatigue more than anything else.

Sometimes you have to punch a bully in the mouth though.

19717

I can completely understand that, but Ukraine isn’t a foreign adventure. It’s a security crisis on the European continent, on the doorstep of NATO allies. A democratic nation has been invaded by an aggressive authoritarian regime which has publicly stated their intent to re-exert their control over eastern Europe which would involve NATO and thus the United States. And all this for the crime of Ukraine operating as the independent country that they are.

I know you know all that, so it’s not directed at you, just the kind of person you’re talking about. You would think that after all the angst about Russia meddling in 2016, funneling money into the NRA, and using troll farms to stir up social unrest they would have at least some understanding that Russia is an adversary that can affect us here at home.

19718

I think part of it (for some people) is feeling smarter than / superior to the rest of us. Like, they’ll retweet (ad infinitum) Chomsky’s quote about how “you know it was a provoked invasion because the media keeps repeating that it was unprovoked” and other stuff like that to let you know that they see through the propaganda.