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.
@
IvanSkooby1, Ukraine didn’t start this war, and Ukraine isn’t the one continuing it. They have to fight or they’ll lose their freedom and self-determination. Look again what happened in Bucha, where Russian forces had control.Simply rolling over and letting Russia win won’t save Ukrainian lives, it’ll cost a lot more of them.
The only way this war ends is if Russia leaves, or loses. Any alternative goes against everything the USA and the west stand for.
You said the quiet part out loud, this is a proxy war and you can’t openly admit it, lol.
It’s not a sunk cost fallacy. We cannot let Russia run rampant over other sovereign nations. Make no mistake, there is 0 legitimate reason for them to be fighting Ukraine. Letting them do so sends the message to them that we are all talk no show, and also shows China the same thing.
However, we’ve lucked into a great situation. Ukraine fought back fiercely; the US can just proxy war Russia through money now. No cost of human life, we aren’t exactly going balls to the wall in sending equipment either. The EU gets the same benefit.
Also, I don’t know what you mean by the war is costing too many Ukrainian lives. RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE. It isn’t on the US to stop donating to force the Ukrainians to roll over and accept it? In what world do you tell the citizens to just lie down and take it for their own good? That’s the most asinine thing I’ve seen.
So if your country’s neighbors decide to murder you and abduct your kids, what would you like the rest of the world to do?
You are not “the world”, it’s just you and your group of white first world imperialists friends, samo, samo.
I guess the list of countries providing aid to Ukraine didn’t fit your narrative?
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
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.
Sunk cost fallacies don’t apply when your side has achieved 80%+ of its objectives
90% of gamblers stop playing when they’re about to win.
So what’s your solution? Should the Ukrainians surrender and become a Russian vassal?
Yes. Dude literally said it’s costing too many Ukrainian lives.
To defend their country from their aggressor. Guaranteed this dude is from lemmygrad…
I had hoped it would take a while for the copium huffing ruskies to arrive on this site, looks like they’re already here.
Your account was made 12 days ago. The original instances of this site were ostensibly left-leaning to the point you’d call them “copium huffing ruskies”. The people you are probably having issues with have been here years. You’re coming into an existing space and attempting to commandeer it.
They were on lemmy.ml from the start. Take a guess at what the “ml” stands for.
It stands for Mali?
Well, Yes but not here. The fediverse doesn’t have to follow the same domain extension standards people are used to with websites hosted on centralized servers in various countries. Spin up an instance of your own and you can choose whatever extension you want and they chose one as shorthand for Marxist-Leninist. They’re not shy about it, Dessalines even has essays on communism hosted on their github.
Oh, I see. Thanks, I didn’t make the connection between ml and Marxist-Leninism. Although I was aware that sometimes domains aren’t used for their original purpose like .to, .io or .me who normally aren’t used for Tonga, British Indian Territories or Montenegro respectively.
No, you were actually correct before. They just chose .ml cause it’s free
You’re welcome and I didn’t make the connection at first either, I doubt a lot of us newer people have.
The fediverse doesn’t have to follow the same domain extension standards people are used to with websites hosted on centralized servers in various countries.
I’m not sure you understand how domain names work. A .com can be hosted in any country on the planet (and even from space if someone wanted to). Similarly for most domain extensions (TLDs). Some TLDs are restricted to geographic location or intent (eg .gov), but even then, it’s tied to the registrant not the server. A company in Brazil can register a .br domain but host their servers in, say, the USA in one of Amazon’s data centers. Most country-code TLDs (ccTLDs, such as .tv, .it) are not even geo-restricted.
Spin up an instance of your own and you can choose whatever extension you want and they chose one as shorthand for Marxist-Leninist.
This is the thought process for literally any domain for any website or product: you can choose whatever extension you want. As far as the specific choice for .ml, I’m sure the fact that ML commonly stands for Marxism-Leninism is not an unwanted coincidence, but .ml is a free domain registrar (and off the top of my head I don’t know of any others), and as such if that is the stated reason there’s no reason to assume that you’re being lied to. Why would you pay for something you can get for free?
They’re not shy about it, Dessalines even has essays on communism hosted on their github.
Two things I’d like to say here. One, is that even with Dessaline’s essays on Communism, it is a logical non sequitir to say that due to his ideologies, the domain choice had to be made in the way you suggest; one doesn’t logically follow from the other. Second, people keep mentioning his essays in passing, attempting to frame it as something that’s bad (here you say “not shy about it” which implies that being shy about it would be the good or normal thing; you’re making a value judgement implicitly): do you have a particular issue with the contents of any of the short essays in that repository? From the people I’ve seen say this, their sensibilities are more shocked that someone would have the gall to talk about such a subject in the open; they’re not bothered by the content per se (in fact they haven’t even bothered to read it).
They literally used that domain because it’s free, for fucks sake, could you quit with that conspiracy? The admins are openly Marxist-Leninists and we have an instance for us, there’s no need to “uuhh, lookie how baddy the ml domain can you guess how bad are”.
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).
In April of 2022, people began to ask if Russia could run out of artillery shells. The arm-chair generals laughed, and said that Russia had enough shells stored up to keep this pace until December! Then October rolls around and the shelling decreases to a level just above their production.
At the start of the war, every day there would be long range missile barrages. Now they save up what they produce over the course of 2 to 3 weeks and shoot them all at once (which is a better tactic, overwhelm anti-air, too bad they aren’t hitting anything of military significance).
At the start of the war, they were using brand new high tech tanks, and even having contests and parades using the old tanks. Now Soviet era tanks are on the front line. At the start of the war, when sanctions started, the Ruble went up! Now even Moscow is admitting a spending deficit. At the start of the war, Russian patriotically signed up to serve. Now Wagner can’t even recruit prisoners with full pardons.
Ukraine has near-infinite weapons and finite people. Russia has near-infinite people and finite weapons. The looser of the conflict will be who runs out first: Russia’s weapons or Ukraine’s people.
Well, I mean, to produce a human takes 25 years, to produce a gun…
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.
Now who’s the tankie
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.
“Yes your Honor, it’s her fault I’m raping her. If she’d just consented I wouldn’t have to rape her!”
Do you even listen to yourself?
Russia wil NEVER by a Iran or a North Korea, this is why precisely the sanctions failed horribly. With the size of Russia, they have a country that can almost autosustain itself, at least in the most basic of things, and they have infrastructure that was built by the Soviets, so they don’t have a country with great resources but now way to extract them (like Venezuela with oil, for example). Besides this, the US having sanction half of the Global South at this point doesn’t realise that we people from the third world are just going to give a fuck a start trading amongst us. Every step they give it’s easier, if Russia didn’t have an explicit reason to openly trade with Iran or North Korea, now they have. You’re just isolating from the world and the only allies you’ll be left off are a decaying Europe with no production and a decrepit fascist Empire, the US.
Russia and China are already trading extensively with NK and Iran and have been for decades lol
Iran also has a well industrialized economy, not unlike Russia and they will look quite similar once the western machinery that is extracting all those resources starts breaking down without being able to be replaced appropriately.
Yes, you read right. All that machinery comes from decaying Europe and the decrepit US.
Who doesn’t need more tanks? Seriously, who are you?
The entire goal from the US perspective is to make this conflict last forever. It’s a lot like when the US armed Afghanistan against the soviets. The whole point is to get Russia to waste as many resources as possible.
Yeeeees. I’m sure the US would hate it if Muscovy decided to fuck off from Ukraine and stopped invading it’s neighbours.
The entire point of eliminating Russia’s military potential is to force them out of Ukraine and prevent them from invading anyone for decades to come, you know?
We could’ve drone striked Putin a bajillion times by now
I don’t think you understand how politics work, or wars, or attacks, or diplomacy.
