Russia's Invasion of Ukraine (Official Thread)

[42 Monks]

I was asked for an example with three conditions on it and I provided one that fit all the conditions immediately as well as matching the Ukraine situation in several other unique ways, now you're going to move the goalposts so that a war between two major militaries and nuclear powers that involved thousands of casualties "doesn't count"? How many more conditions do you want to add?





The Indians sure as hell didn't think it was outside their territory. If you can't see a rough equivalence between the status of Kashmir and the status of Crimea then what's the point of even asking for an example?






I said it was a large factor. The Pan-European demonstration on August 1989 that demonstrated the collapse of the Iron Curtain between Austria and Hungary, the fall of the Berlin Wall which precipitated the fall of East Germany, the Velvet Revolution that freed Czechoslovakia from the Eastern Bloc, the demonstrations and protests that ended Communist Rule in Bulgaria, and the Solidarity Movement that freed Poland from the Eastern Bloc were all massive nonviolent movements that played a huge role in precipitating the end of the Soviet Union. Then when Yanayev and the rest staged a coup to preserve the USSR before Gorbachev could dissolve it, massive nonviolent resistance across the USSR brought down the coup and directly led to the final end of the Soviet state.

People's Century | People Power | Full Program Description

www.pbs.org

URL unfurl="true"]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/08/21/protesters-confront-tanks-in-moscow/38d0772c-4276-4b00-8f3f-ee5b773131d8/[/URL]

https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/03nvs/nvs-3-Soviet-coup.pdf

Revolutions of 1989 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Revolution (1989) | ICNC

Summary of the political history, nonviolent strategic actions, and ensuing events of Czechoslovakia's 1989 Velvet Revolution.

www.nonviolent-conflict.org

Poland’s Solidarity Movement (1980-1989) | ICNC

Summary of the political history, nonviolent strategic actions, and ensuing events of Poland's Solidarity Movement from 1980-89.

www.nonviolent-conflict.org

Who is arguing about "rights"? Where does a government get these "rights" from? What you call a right is nothing more than an international norm. Does "every power it has" include committing war crimes, attacks against civilians, the mistreatment of POWs, etc., or are there some limits to "every power it has"....again based on those international norms?

I try to argue for the best way forward. Claiming what a country has a "right" to do or not to do is a useless argument. I think Ukraine's argument for defending itself is a million times more valid than Russia's right to invade it, but if a peace option comes onto the table then the "right" of Ukraine's power holders to ignore it doesn't mean it's not the best path forward.





Lithuania literally publishes manuals for its citizens on how to use civil resistance to repel Russian invasion:

https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/GOV1501_WhitePaper_Bartkowski.pdf

lmao bro if you gotta over-explain a weak stance to this extent, the only person you're talking to is yourself. i am not a fool to disagree on the tangents and examples you're reaching at. if you cannot acknowledge that fighting has started and that the only way it reaches a point where diplomacy and reengagement can occur is after the fighting has changed from one-sided to "aite this problematic for my dreams of uncontested invasion now" - then you're either being intellectually dishonest or obtuse to protect some abstract moral high ground that doesn't even add up fully.

lithuania didn't have a convoy headed to its capital a few months ago. best believe their 'civil resistance' would've been if you can grab a gun and shoot, you're up as well....

a large factor? man look - if we're gonna detour to the fall of the soviet union in this, then it should also be immediately clear that the vast majority who wanted to leave ukraine based on the *possibility* of russia coming downhill again have left ukraine a generation ago. the people fighting are those tired of running and have democratically elected a government that stands on those principles as well.

and the indian/pakistan shyt is again, not on this scale *and with the threat of nukes from both sides* it hasn't escalated to anything near this because both sides of that area recognize the cost. so an uneasy armistice is still objectively better that open, conventional warfare.

I'm interested for both of you - what is your entire lifetime engagement with nonviolent resistance that allows you to make such a confident declaration?

Have you ever been involved in any nonviolent resistance of serious scale? Do either of you have a degree in the field? Have you even taken a single course, or read a single book on the subject? Have you ever carefully studied the history of nonviolent movements to understand under what conditions they have and haven't succeeded?


This, again, perfectly demonstrates what I was talking about with the propaganda. Your previous responses have suggested that you know virtually nothing about this - it's not your field, it's not something you've ever studied, it's not something you've ever even taken a serious interest in. And yet, completely uninformed, you believe that you know exactly how and when and where it works, and don't actually need to get informed....because your entire ultra-militaristic society has told you for your entire life that violence is the only final solution worth considering.

why do you need a character evaluation of me to make your point especially when i don't even wholly disagree with your distaste for it all. where we differ is simply that i believe that fighting is necessary when you've been threated with direct, wholesale violence.

if i was feeling like tripping over low bars i'd go on some rant asking at what point do you grab a gun as your daughter gets raped in front of you or something. that's not what this is though so spare us both that bullshyt. how you gonna go the intellectual route then run for that? lol

if you want a quick resolution to fighting after it starts - you can start winning or start losing harder. a lot of the theoreticals, historical measuring sticks, etc don't mean much if you don't respect the full picture.

and i choose the word 'respect' for a reason.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

@Rhakim, imagine someone breaks into your home, continuously claims it's his now, physically assaults your family and starts a fire. You are able to somehow force him back into your living room so now he's saying that just the living room is his and you should stop fighting him for it.

Do you even fight him when he first enters your house? Would you address the initial invasion with non-violence? Where exactly do you think that ends up?

Let us play it out.

Feb. 22, Russia invades and no military resistance is offered. Kyiv is taken, Zelenskyy would be in prison or dead and many more Buchas (those civies you keep bringing up). Do I got it about right? What part of this sounds appealing to you?

It's pointless to engage in the subject with someone who knows nothing about it and doesn't care. Do at least some very basic background reading so that you can at least begin to understand how this would work:

https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/GOV1501_WhitePaper_Bartkowski.pdf

https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/03nvs/nvs-3-Soviet-coup.pdf

Why Civil Resistance Works | Columbia University Press

For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts in achieving t... | CUP

cup.columbia.edu

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

Lithuania literally publishes manuals for its citizens on how to use civil resistance to repel Russian invasion:

https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/GOV1501_WhitePaper_Bartkowski.pdf

The word repel doesn't appear once in that manual. The title says "resist". Big difference. The means of resistance offered are mostly just not helping Russians. But if you want to repel them (your word) that's gonna take force.

 

[jj23]

I'm interested for both of you - what is your entire lifetime engagement with nonviolent resistance that allows you to make such a confident declaration?

Have you ever been involved in any nonviolent resistance of serious scale, or do you closely know anyone who has? Do either of you have a degree in the field? Have you even taken a single course, or read a single book on the subject? Have you ever carefully studied the history of nonviolent movements to understand under what conditions they have and haven't succeeded?


This, again, perfectly demonstrates what I was talking about with the propaganda. Your previous responses have suggested that you know virtually nothing about this - it's not your field, it's not something you've ever studied, it's not something you've ever even taken a serious interest in. And yet, completely uninformed, you believe that you know exactly how and when and where it works, and don't actually need to get informed....because your entire ultra-militaristic society has told you for your entire life that violence is the only final solution worth considering.

So how would you go about a non violent response to the Russian invasion.

 

[42 Monks]

do i have a degree

imagine demanding credentials when someone disagrees with you

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

It's pointless to engage in the subject with someone who knows nothing about it and doesn't care.

I care more than you realize, breh.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

nah you straight up dodging the fact that people are getting maimed, raped, and killed for simply being around

A warmongering society makes its adherents so blind that they'll use the horrific shyt that is happening in the war as an argument for why war was the right option. Can't you even see that it is YOUR option that those atrocities are occurring under, not mine?

Those people aren't being maimed, raped and killed because Ukraine chose nonviolent resistance. They aren't being saved from maiming, rape, and killing by the war. And yet somehow their rapes and deaths are used to justify more of the same.

Like I already said (though you falsely claimed I dodged it), the consistent trend is for such atrocities to become MORE common and MORE severe the longer that a war goes on. And more often than not the level of peacetime atrocity that immediately follows a war can be predicted by the length and intensity of the war that preceded it. Atrocities can occur during a nonviolent resistance too, but they are virtually always lesser in quality and number because they're not accompanied by the loss of humanity and stress-fueled hatred that soldiers inevitably fall victim to under the constant pressure of violent battle and threats to their lives.

The Amritsar massacre was an absolutely horrific action, and it completely shocked and humiliated the perpetrators because it came in response to a nonviolent resistance. As a result, British soldiers generally walked around scared to do shyt for the rest of the conflict until India was free - the same soldiers who committed numerous atrocities across the world both before and after that happened. If the Amritsar massacre had occurred in the midst of violent war instead, it wouldn't have stopped jack shyt - the violence would have just continued and probably gotten worse.

Marcos's soldiers literally refused orders to shoot because the protesters were nonviolent. We're talking a dictator of extreme brutality, with soldiers famous for not having any chill (even nowadays under Duterte the Filipino death squads have a horrific reputation), and yet they couldn't bring themselves to shoot the protesters and a regime fell just like that.

There are no guarantees in human behavior, the but the trend is clear as hell. Against strong nonviolent actions, even brutal regimes often become hesitant to use force and the worst of atrocities are rare, not so much because the leaders give a shyt but because their own populations rebel against it and soldiers don't even want to obey their orders. They can't justify to themselves committing such actions against an enemy people who hasn't threatened their lives as easily as they justify it under active war. Whereas against a wartime enemy fighting just as violently as you are, soldiers will justify virtually anything and the propensity for horrific atrocity against civilians during wartime is a cold hard fact.


Are you interested in reading any of those previous links I dropped, or no?

 

[42 Monks]

"why civil resistance works"

as ukrainians prepare to dig up more mass graves

please don't be this guy in reality lmao. or maybe you should go for it idk

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

@Rhakim in this thread taking lumps like

Spoiler

only to come back on some ole

Spoiler

If MLK and Ghandi had a child together and then did a Fusion Dance to combine, they would still get murked trying that peace shyt. No disrespect to the peace movement generally speaking as can be used in conjunction with the war effort by those already under occupation, but to say that's the only tool in the box is just silly.

 

[NZA]

some people say poland just got hit with russian missiles...i hope it's wrong

 

[42 Monks]

A warmongering society makes its adherents so blind that they'll use the horrific shyt that is happening in the war as an argument for why war was the right option. Can't you even see that it is YOUR option that those atrocities are occurring under, not mine?

Those people aren't being maimed, raped and killed because Ukraine chose nonviolent resistance. They aren't being saved from maiming, rape, and killing by the war. And yet somehow their rapes and deaths are used to justify more of the same.

Like I already said (though you falsely claimed I dodged it), the consistent trend is for such atrocities to become MORE common and MORE severe the longer that a war goes on. Atrocities can occur during a nonviolent resistance too, but they are virtually always lesser in quality and number because they're not accompanied by the loss of humanity and stress-fueled hatred that soldiers inevitably fall victim to under the constant pressure of violent battle and threats to their lives.

The Amritsar massacre was an absolutely horrific action, and it completely shocked and humiliated the perpetrators because it came in response to a nonviolent resistance. As a result, British soldiers generally walked around scared to do shyt for the rest of the conflict until India was free - the same soldiers who committed numerous atrocities across the world both before and after that happened. If the Amritsar massacre had occurred in the midst of violent war instead, it wouldn't have stopped jack shyt - the violence would have just continued and probably gotten worse.

Marcos's soldiers literally refused orders to shoot because the protesters were nonviolent. We're talking a dictator of extreme brutality, with soldiers famous for not having any chill (even nowadays under Duterte the Filipino death squads have a horrific reputation), and yet they couldn't bring themselves to shoot the protesters and a regime fell just like that.

There are no guarantees in human behavior, the but the trend is clear as hell. Against strong nonviolent actions, even brutal regimes often become hesitant to use force and the worst of atrocities are rare, not so much because the leaders give a shyt but because their own populations rebel against it and soldiers don't even want to obey their orders. Whereas against a wartime enemy fighting just as violently as you are, soldiers will justify virtually anything and the propensity for horrific atrocity against civilians during wartime is a cold hard fact.


Are you interested in reading any of those previous links I dropped, or no?

.....they were non-violently resisting aka enjoying independence, behind their borders minding their own business.

i get skipping the crucial parts then typing up a huge response is crowd pleaser in TLR but come on. i'm not even shooting at you like that and you don't have to throw a character on me to fit a narrative either. if you can't respect people willing to die to protect their families when the actual threat is real and in action, then you're not as empathetic as you think.

"would you like some reading?" isn't the mic drop you think it is. if you really want credentials that bad, @987654321 will tell you I got more humanitarian aid experience than most.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

"why civil resistance works"

as ukrainians prepare to dig up more mass graves

You did it again.

You're using mass graves that are the literal result of war as prove that war works. I can't even.

Those mass graves didn't happen due to civil resistance, dumbass.

do i have a degree

imagine demanding credentials when someone disagrees with you

Not because you disagreed, but because you expressed certitude on a subject you didn't seem to know anything about. If you had expressed certitude on a physics question, despite appearing ignorant about the relevant physics, then I also would have questioned your background in the field.

No problem with having opinions in areas that you aren't an expert in. But claiming to be certain that your opinion is correct while knowing nothing about the entire subject looks pretty silly.

I understand though - as I've pointed out, our warmongering society has done everything possible to assure you of that certitude your entire life.

"would you like some reading?" isn't the mic drop you think it is. if you really want credentials that bad, @987654321 will tell you I got more humanitarian aid experience than most.

The fact that you had to reach for something that completely irrelevant in response to those questions suggests that the actual answer to all of them was "no".

 

[42 Monks]

You did it again.

You're using mass graves that are the literal result of war as prove that war works. I can't even.

Those mass graves didn't happen due to civil resistance, dumbass.





Not because you disagreed, but because you expressed certitude on a subject you didn't seem to know anything about. If you had expressed certitude on a physics question, despite appearing ignorant about the relevant physics, then I also would have questioned your background in the field.

No problem with having opinions in areas that you aren't an expert in. But claiming to be certain that your opinion is correct while knowing nothing about the entire subject looks pretty silly.

I understand though - as I've pointed out, our warmongering society has done everything possible to assure you of that certitude your entire life.






The fact that you had to reach for something that completely irrelevant in response to those questions suggests that the actual answer to all of them was "no".

im using it because who started the war? you are continually misframing this to stick to some weird nonapplicable non-violence vibrational energy lol - not even as a misunderstanding but as a personal thing you need to feel better talking down to people

 

[Payday23]

some people say poland just got hit with russian missiles...i hope it's wrong

 

[JetFueledThoughts]