I'm not arguing that the young are all like me, but rather that I applaud my generation for being skeptical, at least from an intervention POV. I still side strongly with Ukraine but this is a complex issue and rolling the tanks against a country with less GDP than NY does not make the world inherently safer. The older generations, on the other hand, were raised in the context of Russia being a world power while at this time they've revealed themselves to be objectively not.
However, a Sino-Russian alliance would be an absolute nightmare scenario and direct military involvement would give China a possible excuse to back Russia. As long as they remain neutral-ish then it's safe to let this play out, particularly given how things are going so far.
Now, the area that concerns me is how many are openly supporting Russia. Skepticism is great but I don't think there's any reason to voice support for Russia at this time.
Putin takes Luhansk and Donestsk, consolidates the southern coast, and links to Transnistria. Ukraine is now a landlocked welfare case for Europe, with millions of refugees streaming out and a government in collapse. Just like that, Russia has a salient into Western europe, and the world order of national sovereignty comes to an end. There is no complexity to the issue. This is the clearest, most mortal threat to Western civilization since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Do not fall for "let's hear both sides" whataboutism.
It doesn't happen often, but sometimes in life there is simply right and wrong.
Further, would you take landlocked Ukraine and possible welfare state over a Sino-Russian axis? I think I would.
This isn't "let's hear both sides" it's "this will get really nasty if we pull the old so-i-started-blasting strategy."
It already is really nasty. Ask the people of Bucha. I think my overall point here is that the war has already begun, and we in the West are sticking our heads in the sand and praying for it to go away. History shows that evil men will stop at nothing short of a forced hand. And any talk of negotiation with Russia at this point sounds painfully like "peace in our time". There is no "choice" to avoid this conflict anymore. I wish to god that there was. But that choice was made 20 years ago when Ukraine was alienated from NATO. Our only option now is to accept the reality of our state of war with Russia, or to sit by and watch them win.
So you want boots on the ground? Whose? Yours? Your children's? Do you think that will lead to less bloodshed? Negotiation is the way out.
Negotiation isn't a way out against an aggressor who isn't convinced that you can and will use force otherwise.
What you have then is at best surrender to their current demands and hope they don't decide to see what they can take you for next after that. This isn’t novel territory.
Boots are already on the ground. Ukrainians childrens boots. They are already fighting the largest land battle in european history since World War II at this very moment. Russia has already taken greater losses than Germany did with the invasion of Poland.
Ukraine's fate is our own. And the longer we pretend this is just another foreign conflict, the more danger we will be in.
Okay. How do you get the two sides to come to an agreement? Right now, one side wants the other side to not exist [1], the other side appears to be willing to concede status quo ante bellum.
[1] To be more precise, they have given several conflicting answers as to what they actually want. I personally find this answer to be the most likely to be true, especially given that the other side is willing to agree to the demands implied by several of the other answers, and yet this side is unwilling to accept such agreement.
How? Putin isn’t going to leave if you ask nicely, and hasn’t left with increased sanctions or when bloodied.
What is the negotiation? Give him half Ukraine?
This was started in 2014 and thinking it will go away if only Putin gets a big enough chunk of Ukraine is, I think, wishful thinking.
I mean, it worked with Hitler and Czechoslovakia, right? “Peace for our time” and all that...
Those are not alternatives, they are a package deal; if you accept the first, the second comes along free for the ride. The Sino-Russian axis exists now, the only way to disrupt it is defeating one of the poles in a way which results in a realignment (and, more likely, that weakens rather than fully disrupts it.) Permitting it victory just makes it stronger.
The “separatist areas” are a product of the first wave of the current Russian invasion; they weren't pure homegrown movements, Russian troops, both regulars and the Wagner “private” military company that is Russian and appears to work exclusively for Russian state interests were involved in the fighting which established them, around the same time as the Russia also seized Crimea.
We’ve know the justifications of the wave of Russian invasions starting with Georgia in 2008 has been bullshit since the beginning, and people who haven't figured it out in the last 14 years aren't particularly like to click over with a new round in Moldova.
Your comment is spot on, but this is strange. It is complex; there are two sides. The ideals of "Western civilization" aren't held by the globe, so it's important to understand why things work the way they do. It isn't "good" versus "evil".
NAP. Don't start nothing, won't be nothing.
Russia started something. There is now something. Failure to respond and restore the equilibrium is tacit acceptance of Russia setting terms, which sets a precedent.
It's pretty clear.
How many more bodies do the mass graves need to qualify as genocide?
By that definition I would say quite a few more mass graves, along with a coordinated effort to stamp out Ukrainian language, customs, intelligentsia, and identity. I understand that Russian state media calls Ukraine "one people" with Russians, but it's a far way to go between a talking point and indiscriminately killing civilians as part of a brutal war and genocide. It's pretty obvious that word is being said for political reasons, not because the current situation obviously meets the definition.
I am absolutely horrified by Russia's war, but I reserve the right to be vastly more horrified if they begin an organized campaign to exterminate the Ukrainian people.
It seems like people have forgotten that wars last longer than a month. This will be a years long proccess of attrition if it isn't stopped.
There have been much greater refugee crisis' (Syria, for example) that has not resulted in the entire fall of civilization.
Having a prolonged conflict over Ukraine would be great for Northrup Grumman and Delloit. Finding a peaceful, quick diplomatic resolution will be better for the rest of the world.
Ukraine has, as of now, produced 4.7 million refugees, with another ~7 million internally-displaced people. That is over the course of 6 weeks.
The Syrian Civil War took 4 years to reach that refugee population, and currently stands at about 6-7 million refugees with roughly an equivalent number of IDP.
If the Ukrainian war persists for several months (which sadly seems likely), then the Ukrainian refugee count will eclipse the decade-long Syrian refugee count by the end of the year. Syria's refugee crisis--itself the biggest since WW2--isn't exactly "much greater" than Ukrainian's refugee crisis; if anything, it's the other way around.
Call me a cynic...
Especially since Ukraine, being the leading source of neon, is also a sizable link in the U.S. semiconductor supply chain. Not quite as big ticket as TSMC, but big enough to serve as a useful gauge for strategists and planners.
Gen Z has little or no exposure to outright saber rattling. Just proxy wars, which globalization somewhat optimized for until realpolitik came back around to start biting once folks started understanding the soft power play of post cold war economics.
3 generation rule at play. We've got the direct witnesses of heavy geopolitical action on the way out.
The boomers->X->Millenial know the aftershocks, and at least know what didn't work for the "The Greatest Generation". Z and forward are a refreshing breath of fresh air in de-bullshitting, and have access the way more information than any previous generation had all at one time, but that's a vulnerability at the same time without strong bullshit filters, and a collective sense of both unity and the real. The Real* is not entirely a "here's your canned reality" from the media, but a collective and relatable ground truth experience that crosscuts the population. I'm afraid one thing we've really dropped the ball on is as teachers, and institutional raisers and propagaters of strong bullshit filters. Especially given the information augmented battlefield of today.
Definitely keep doing what you're doing though. Ain't no way to get the head for it but to do it.
Russia and China have a weird relationship. They were, in a way, born together into their current statuses, but Russia isn't Soviet anymore and they don't necessarily represent the image China is going for. Meanwhile Russia wants China for it's economic might and China probably has an interest in resources and land north of Beijing, but at the moment any agreement wouldn't net much for China and represents a great deal of risk in the long term.
I take great issue with Western portrayal of China as an antagonistic threat when it's the West that has done the lion share of provocation, the West that continues to believe it deserves a say in East Asian affairs.
Uhhhh 0_o
That seems like a good reason in its own right... Right? That said, they're suffering a lot of consequence at the moment so it's worth letting that pan out. The west drastically overestimated their capability, by that standard NK is a world power. I get it, I don't think your position there is wrong but...semantics.
>China is not going to [go to] war with Russia against the US
Never claimed that. The game for China is if they don't provide material aid, they get to maintain better relations with the west. I think the west broadly misunderstands their goals for international standing. They want to be recognized but if push comes to shove they'll just buddy up with Russia. Best to not provoke that. If the US decides to world police some more, along with three EU, that makes world policing the standard for world power and China will happily rise to that. They're very much watching what we do here.
Thus the people in power need to control information and unify the population in order to stay in power. If the west doesn't directly provide ammunition for this information war, they will just make it up. And they already do this. I have come to realize over the last 5 years or so that China and Russia have ZERO information in maintaining a truly friendly relationship with western (there needs to be a word for this that doesn't ignore Japan and Korea) democracies. They will continue to act in whatever fashion preserves the power structure, and that will include simply inventing threats. Such as Ukraines doomed bid to join NATO.
As I read it, the poll was not about the wisdom of intervention. I think even the older generation is extremely wary of direct military action by the West againt Russia. Rather, the poll is about the relative moral position of the two combatants. And I think the sympathy for Russia among the young reflected in the poll probably stems from comparative indifference and skepticism about world politics (leading to a tendency to simply ignore the subject), and different media consumption habits. Young people don't watch nearly as much television news, they tend to absorb their news through social media (which of course is filtered through their friends, who also tend to share the same indifference to global politics). It becomes a case of the blind leading the blind.
Peace for who? America just formally ended a 20 year long war, with very little to show for it. Someone who is 18 today, has only known America in a time of war. How can you call this peace? (I know how, it's because you only talk about peace as peace for western nations.) Anyone would immediately be skeptical to the thought that we should immediately enter another war several thousand miles away.
It's only when majority white western christians are being blown up that we are at the "knife's edge of peace". What is it called when it's muslims in the middle east or northern africa being blown up? I'm not convinced America needs to be proactive in an engagement with Russia to hold up what you consider "the knife's edge of peace".
I think you already know the answer to that. When the 20 year old war is mostly all about sending some soldiers over to the middle east to bomb it, then it doesn't really feel like a war. For people in the US who choose to ignore it, they absolutely live in peace every day.
That doesn't make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq right or just (I don't believe they were), but Europe has long been an extremely dangerous powder keg. We have had relative peace in the last 70 years because European great powers have successfully avoided actively shooting at each other. This move by Russia is a major threat to that stability and is categorically different than the invasions in the Middle East not because of race but because of the likelihood of escalation.
Sort of, but Pakistan might not agree.
The disastrous Iraq invasion had huge consequences for neighbouring countries and people argue over its contribution to significant knock on effects like the Arab spring.
And nobody gives a damn about "white western Christians." We set whole cities of white western christians on fire in WWII, and bombed white western Christians in the 90's on behalf of a Muslim population (Serbia / Kosovo).
I don’t think this is true. I read Sapiens by Harari and he presents lots of info on how early man, living in small groups was very violent. With gravesites from the time showing violent deaths at young ages.
I romantically would like to think this but believe the reality is that humans are violent and it’s large civilizations with complicated rule of law and interdependency is the reason for peace. Sort of the Leviathan argument that humans are evil and it’s a struggle to overcome and improve on that nature.
Although I hope that one day this changes and we eventually evolve to be more peaceful.
Evolutionarily speaking I think violence was too much of a shortcut to survival so mammals evolved against peace.
This phrasing reminded me of a comment I favorited a while ago, so I went through my favorited comments and found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5847789
"It took thousands of years of human civilisation before we got relatively benign governments. Power structures are not inherently benign; they must constantly be pressured to prevent malignant people using them to leverage their actions. A non-authoritarian government is an historical anomaly. It's a ball balanced on top of a hill, pushed there by the deaths of millions, and kept there by the vigilance of those who care.
Please start caring."
I think overall I agree with your post. We truly do suck as a species. The past few decades were a massive aberration in our history ( and even that relatively peaceful -- for a westerner -- period saw some horrifying conflicts that just did not make the front pages ).
I do not wish for another major conflict. No sane person does. We should do what we can to prevent it.
Still, I personally see one on the horizon. Best I can do is talk to my social circle, but even that seems futile. The actual decisions about matters like these happen way outside those.
If anyone is gonna set out on a path of "real violence" it's likely going to be a subgroup of millennials.
Edit: the above only applies to the US
That doesn't seem like thought that supports the position of the old, as characterized here, who are encouraging the escalation of a war against a nuclear power with a ruined economy.
I blame the generational gap on that particular US generation who has lived through major wars but never had to worry about war on their own territory, who have gone through wars where only an extreme minority have had to participate (and that being privileged enough to be in college or to have an important job was enough to get you out of participation), and who have been hammered by propaganda their entire lives that the final battle would be the commies vs the bootstrappers.
Half of them are praying that this will be the end of the world, like God said it would be.
They supported every war except Vietnam, because Vietnam was the only war they were in danger of participating in. Those wars didn't affect them badly at all, in fact the wars helped the economy because everybody got jobs creating expensive things that would be burned (in the occupied homes of Iraqi families.)
I would call them a reflection of Russian nationalist aggression, but they're really not, because Russians have known suffering from war. Russians have pretty good excuses not to want NATO weapons, missile defense systems, and troops stationed on their border. Americans are afraid of their vital fluids being corrupted by the demonic Russians and their sole goal of creating discord by spreading propaganda that the issues that everybody who isn't an old wealthy retired homeowner is concerned about aren't something that should be completely ignored.
Young people generally see them as insane chickenhawks that are useless domestically and hyperaggressive internationally, and rightfully so.