this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
225 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
60346 readers
5038 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Another possibility is that the Ukrainian government values it's manpower more than Russian government.
That’s not exactly a high bar
Ukraine has no interest in putting even more of its population into Russia's meat grinder... because they will obviously lose a war of attrition.
No no no, Ukraine is the one that doesn't
Only because they have fewer men. Have you seen the draft gangpress measures? People are being sent to be cannon fodder, under-equipped and underprepared.
The Ukrainian government requires much more support from it's population than the Russian government. Ukraine is a hybrid regime that was making progress towards joining the EU which has strict democracy requirements for entry. Russia is an authoritarian regime.
"Hybrid regime" is just a fancy name for oligarchy, and the argument that Ukrainian state cherishes the lives of its military aged men is a bit silly. Democratic states and authoritarian states are equally as capable of using human lives as currency when they view a war as existential. They weigh that against demographic and economic concerns. That's all.
Don't strawman, my argument is
Do you have any evidence or arguments to counter my initial claim?
This is how it went:
You said Ukraine values its manpower more than Russia.
I agreed with you, and added that it is because they have less manpower.
You then brought up some democracy index like that was relevant to the topic.
I inferred from this that you were explaining that you believe they value manpower more due to their hybrid regime versus Russia's authoritarian regime and disagreed with you on that cause.
You called my inferrence a "strawman" and then asked for evidence against your first claim, that I agreed with.
Please read more carefully.
I read your responses carefully. This is you apparently agreeing with me and adding that it's because they have less manpower.
I bought up the democracy index to illustrate that the Ukrainian government requires support from the Ukrainian population more than the Russian government requires support from their population. The Ukrainian government does not value their manpower just because they have less of it, the Ukrainian government is also more accountable to their population (as they are not an authoritarian regime). That is why I brought up the democracy index as it is a quantifiable measure of government accountability to their populations.
And I was disagreeing with you on that point, so I don't know why you challenged me on the very first point you made, which I agreed with.
I don't agree that the democracy index is really a quantifiable measure as it has several arbitrary criteria, but you could just assert that Ukraine is more democratic than Russia anyways, which is a matter of common sense.
Your argument that "democratic accountability" has something to do with it doesn't make any sense and doesn't follow. Ukraine has a draft. Drafts are drafts, there is no "democratic" objection to being drafted for war. Russia also drafts men as needed and the process looks quite similar sometimes, but in Ukraine it has become a severe social phenomenon.
Do you agree that the Ukrainian government is more accountable to it's population than the Russian government?
I'd prefer you respond to my arguments instead of rehashing what's already been discussed. Or we could just stop here.
I'm attempting to align so that we can move our discussion forward. I'm just going to assume that you agree with the following statement.
Both democracies and authoritarian regimes have drafts. The difference is that democracies can not continue an unpopular draft because the government will be voted out.
The more accountable a government is to their population, the less that government can afford to enact unpopular policies.
You seem hung up on the fact that Ukraine has a draft. What's actually important is, does Ukraine have a draft that is supported by the population? If lots of drafted individuals become casualties then the Ukrainian government risks losing the support of the population and being replaced.
This is less of an issue for authoritarian regimes. That is my point and that is a major reason the Ukrainian government values it's manpower more than the Russian government, there are larger consequences for casualties.
You're asking questions we have answers to and you seem to have totally missed some key facts.
Ukraine is under martial law and has been since the invasion. There are no elections, they've been cancelled due to the needs of the state. There is no concern of the government being replaced.
Ukraine isn't a proper democracy but a "hybrid", e.g an oligarchy anyways. The popularity or unpopularity of policies doesn't translate into political outcomes so easily or transparently.
But your argument about authiritarian regimes is faulty. We just saw the complete opposite of that in Syria. Authoritarian regimes do not necessarily command loyalty and they also live in constant fear of popular unrest or dissatisfaction. In fact, there are many analysts who point to Putin's current domestic policy choices as desparate attempts to placate the Russians that have lost something due to the war.
Again, you're strawmaning. I never argued that Ukraine is a "proper democracy".
My argument is and continues to be that the Ukrainian government is more accountable to it’s population than the Russian government. Therefore the Ukrainian government must value the opinions of the Ukrainian population more than the Russian government values the opinions of the Russian population.
You're argument about Syria is a red herring fallacy. I never argued that authoritarian regimes are immune to their population's opinions. I've been arguing that the more authoritarian a government, the less accountable the government to their population.
At this point, I think you are either incapable of logical reasoning or arguing in bad faith.
And I, once again, have explained why this doesn't matter because the draft has nothing to do with democratic input. You refuse to address this.
Your*
And no it isn't.
Do you know what MARTIAL LAW means? What the hell are you even talking about? Take a step back - you are arguing that Ukrainian draft officers are having to beat and kidnap men to send to the front line because Ukraine is more accountable to its people. I am arguing that it is necause they have a manpower shortage. You are ridiculous.
If I take 13 ducks, 4 chickens, 8 fainting goats and a mongoose, and march them in a phalanx designed for geese you wind up 13 knots shy of where you were headed. The ducks vary in color, I'm not quite sure we even have mallards, 2 of the hens keep laying eggs and trying to roost, and the mongoose keeps setting off the bloody goats so they lay ass to the ground toes to the sky until they look like a botched taxidermy. So end over end we are all quacks laying and lying in the mud with a mongoose. Ain't getting far
These are more strawman tactics.
I'm not arguing this point.
I have never denied that Ukraine has a manpower shortage.
And then you call me ridiculous when I didn't make the first point and don't disagree with the second point. This is textbook strawmanning.
I don't think you're arguing in good faith using these tactics.
That would be a possibility if we didn't know exactly how bad is Ukraine with manpower right now, and that it's so bad in part due to their failed major offensives, done in exactly the Russian way.
They are, right now, pulling "replaceable" personnel from things like AD to infantry.
They are being overwhelmed. In that exact dirty wasteful way Westerners in the Interwebs are laughing about, because they are not going to be drafted to a frontline to show how it's done right.
Ukraine loses the war if no Western country commits its troops directly.
I think everyone is just hoping Russia runs out of money and political willingness to continue the war. Or if Putin dies (he seems fine, but he's no spring chicken), good chance that ends the war.
Ukraine never had a hope of winning the war conventionally. The real question is what will be left when it's over. Being the choke point for Russian military ambition is still a shit fucking deal.
I hope they get just as much help rebuilding after as they have gotten fighting our war. America, naturally, has a mixed record there. When someone is no longer useful to us, we tend to forget.
You can bet western countries already have troops and advisors helping in Ukraine.
I was talking about mass. Cannon fodder. That thing Ukraine is running out of, and that Western countries are not supplying.
Any army that treats their troops as “cannon fodder” deserves not only all the casualties they rack up, but the long term social, political, and economic hardship that is pretty much a guaranteed result of such a policy.
The constant rounding up & minimal training of “cannon fodder” is expensive both in the short and long term. Better to protect well trained resources and have them continue to gain experience by using more advanced weaponry that minimizes risk to them.
Ukraine is supposed to have allies which are capable of, as you said, fighting wars without the concept of cannon fodder.
They should show class then.
However, as you might have noticed, the Russia-Ukraine war started, well, with "elite", better trained troops fighting each other. And later devolved into what there is now.
Not just that, WWII started with "professional", "elite", better trained troops, but you know how it was fought. And before WWII all the sides too were theoretizing about new, swift, well-organized, mobile warfare. Guderian, Liddell Hart, Tukhachevsky and who not. And they were right, but only in adding a less bloody layer, so to say, that gets eroded before things are done the old-fashioned way.
So it could just be that this - it being possible to fight a big war with an equal adversary without eventually devolving into WWII-style warfare, - is another Western myth invented to support some kind of exceptionalism.
Pretty easy to invent various myths about wars between equals when you are not ever going to fight an equal adversary, only a much weaker one.
I hope you don't think wars in Iraq in 1991 or in 2003 or bombings of Yugoslavia are indicative of anything.