I am struggling to see the benefits of fighting the Russian invasion militarily.

I think that Russia cannot, will not and could not hold Ukraine faced with the non-violent resistance of the people and the economic sanctions of the west.

If this is true, fighting causes unnecessary death and destruction.

The benefits are that a victorious Russia will move on to other objectives but a defeated Russia will be boxed for a generation.

If they hadn't defended, Russia would have got to Kyiv quickly and installed a puppet regime. And they'd have been emboldened for other actions.

And, frankly, who are we to judge people defending their country against an aggressor?

Russia may choose one unloved puffed up little island and wipe it from the face of the earth, a liitle décourager les autres.

I'm not keen on the idea of just wars as there is no justice in war. But this comes closer than most imo. Russia is a growing danger to the world.

However I am still conflicted.

I consider myself a pacifist, but when under attack I have always believed a proportionate response is acceptable.

Therefore I cannot condemn the actions of the Ukraine people, who can blame them for wanting to protect themselves and their country?

But yes such waste of lives of those fighting, horrors that will undoubtedly haunt those affected.

you sound like a Trump supporter at one of his rallies.

could not hold Ukraine faced with the non-violent resistance of the people

How?

How?

Lying down in front of the tanks, like Bozo promised to do, lying down in front of the bulldozers at Heathrow. Though as far as I'm aware he's done plenty of lying but not in front of bulldozers.

The benefits are that a victorious Russia will move on to other objectives but a defeated Russia will be boxed for a generation.

Hat - I agree But why must the defeat be military? Why can't it be the failure of unsustainable puppet regime?

Same outcome, less death and destruction.

If they hadn't defended, Russia would have got to Kyiv quickly and installed a puppet regime.

Which would/will fail. Faster than the USSR, hopefully!

And, frankly, who are we to judge people defending their country against an aggressor?

ok - but people are also judging when they applaud current actions, aren't they?

How?

General strike etc etc

it can take a very long time and a whole lot of casualties to rid oneself of even an unpopular imperial administration.

#12

But that presupposes the regime will only be mildly repressive.

What if it goes full Nazi/Communist and is willing to eradicate any and all opposition to the point of genocide?

Yes, it can, brook.

(And btw, I'm not myself ruling out fighting after occupation. Morally.)

(And of course it's for Ukraine to decide.)

But how many, compared to what's happening right now?

Mazz - it might. It might not. Tactics can adapt, accordingly.

But that's a possibility. I'm looking at the actuality of artillery shelling civilians right now. Plus 2m refugees.

you can't tell. how many died in Vietnam (and Cambodia etc.)? Ireland took about 800 years; how many casualties there (tossing in the famine etc.)?

Well, the current talk is that Russia loses because of the West's response.

I don't see Russia successfully occupying Ukraine for a year.

#17

But surely the logic of not fighting to avoid death then leads to not even using non-violent resistance to avoid repression?

Also if you make it clear you will surrender to extreme aggression you in fact encourage it.