kantor@swrdghcnqstdr @stux not like Ukraine is going to rapidly de-radicalize as a result of the treaty they'd consider deeply shameful, and not like Russia would do so if they get to win. So, in a cruel twist, it may make more sense to end up with one fascist regime fewer than to keep them both alive and conflicting.
Willow@swrdghcnqstdr @stux but arming the weaker fascist against a stronger one may make sense, that's what I'm saying. It increasingly seems that this conflict will end with one of these regimes crumbling to ashes and that means one fascism less — let it be the stronger one. Yet again — I don't think that we have a proper precedent for this kind of a situation, so one can't really rely on past experience, you gotta figure it out in situ
@kantor @stux This seems extremely inadvisable for several reasons.
1. The Ukraine seems only interested in retaining “its” territory, not destroying Russia.
2. If we arm Ukraine to the point of being able to defeat Russia, then we have potentially a more unstable fascist state on our hands, with all the arms of Russia and of the west, and no experience using it.
1. The Ukraine seems only interested in retaining “its” territory, not destroying Russia.
2. If we arm Ukraine to the point of being able to defeat Russia, then we have potentially a more unstable fascist state on our hands, with all the arms of Russia and of the west, and no experience using it.
@swrdghcnqstdr @stux Russia is already in a very bad shape and it's more or less accepted that Putin can't retain control of the state if he loses miserably — so let's make him to. He knows that, he stacked all his chips on this. Military juntas won't work in Russia for it's vast and somewhat decentralized, so the next guy in charge might have to actually listen to people to keep himself afloat. One doesn't need to arm Ukraine to its teeth, but to tip the scale for Ukraine ever so slightly