Thats like having your house on fire and saying "this is fine" meme. Do you think that war is never an option? That giving up and letting invaders take what they want is preferable because it "reduces" human suffering?

Would you advocate the same during WW2 and Germany/Italy's invasions? Should the countries that got invaded not resist and should the UK/US not help those countries? Imagine if you were an american in WW2 and your government was giving hundreds of billions worth of equipment to the russians, in order for Russia to fight the nazis. Would you still say "why are we sending hundreds of billions to the corrupt nation of Russia, when that money could have been used in America instead"?

The isolationist rhetoric benefits the invaders, who can easily take out individual countries(or regions of countries), one piece at a time, while placating the rest.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-preparedness-the-road-to-universal-slaughter

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Militarism is bad, thats why Europe had a shitty military ever since the end of the Cold War. Because every euro spent on tanks and planes, is a euro that isnt spent on healthcare and education. Europe could finally benefit from the peace dividend.

And then Russia decided one day to walk in and grab parts of Ukraine(Crimea and parts of Donbas). That started some alarms but Europe kept sleepwalking. Surely Putin wont go any further. But just like Hitler who conquered Czechoslovakia(and didnt stop there), Putin decided "why the hell dont i take the entirety of Ukraine, it isnt as if anyone will stop me, those european soycucks dont have the balls to do anything but write stern letters".

And he almost succeeded. So after 3 decades of having basically 0 investment in military, Europe is now rushing to catch up. Because it doesnt matter how peaceful you are, it is basic game theory. If you are military weakened enough, at some point, someone, somewhere will come to power who will want to take advantage of that "weakness".

Class warfare is irrelevant if people are not class conscious enough to stop war from both sides. Ok, i will use my magic wand and make everyone in Europe class conscious. But if russians arent class conscious enough to refuse the orders to invade a country, someone will need to stop them.

Again, imagine using the same arguments against nazi Germany. Imagine pleading german soldiers to not invade you and that class warfare is the real war. Do you think that would work?

Some people only respect power and think words are a sign of weakness.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You must be really young, in the past 3 decades there have been hundreds of wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_2003%E2%80%93present

Europe spends billions on war already, even more money than russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures

Don't feed up on propaganda, government and rulers seek war

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There havent been wars in Europe, unlike literally any other period in history, for almost 80 years. Dont you think that is an impressive achievement? An achievement that the invasion of Ukraine has endangered? How would you feel if you were a baltic state like Latvia? A country that has been very prosperous since the end of the Cold War?

What does your rhetoric offer to a latvian? What tangible measures should someone in Latvia take, in order to protect their way of living from someone like Russia? Should they just ignore it and focus on class warfare? What class warfare currently exists within Russia? Or can exist within an authoritarian state like Russia? Do you think Russia is communist? Or wants to become communist?

I am trying to understand, what is your argument. What do you suggest the people of a country do when some other country invades them. Even if you think that countries are obsolete artificial constructs that need to be demolished, you surely understand there is a difference when a leader from another country takes over your country. Do you think Putin is a communist?

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There havent been wars in Europe, unlike literally any other period in history, for almost 80 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars

I think you should read an history book of the past 50 years, many things happened

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I mentioned the yugoslav wars in the post before that. The argument still stands, Europe has been mostly peaceful for the first time ever. Do you intend to actually answer any of the points of my post?

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Europe has been mostly peaceful

Europe has been involved in hundreds of wars in the past decades and they have spend billions on wars. That many of these wars are being fought somewhere else and not within europe borders should make you think what these wars are actually about and how war billions are being spent.

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

One is not relevant to the other. The billions that Europe is spending is orders of magnitude less than they did for most of european history.

Do you think that Europe should not fight against ISIS? Are you referring to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions? French interventions in Africa? Not all wars are the same. Take a stance instead of using vague expressions.

The fact that wars have mostly stopped in Europe is something worth celebrating and maintaining. And Russia is threatening the status quo in the european continent.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ever wonder why isis exist in the first place and why they are at war with the west?

You don't do peace by arming up and waging war against others. None of EU governments want peace anyway, war is a business and a tool for rulers to get more power and wealth.

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

ISIS exists because Saddam was toppled, replaced by, a mostly shia government and the old iraqi military was disbanded. That created a power vacuum and left a lot of military trained guys unemployed, who felt betrayed. They basically said "fuck this world order, we will make our own, with ~~blackjack~~ jihad and ~~hookers~~ sharia law".

Over time, they became more and more religious radicals, split off Al Qaeda and now they are fighting everyone everywhere. ISIS-K(the one in Afghanistan) seems to be the main one organizing terrorist attacks now. They are fighting the Taliban, Iran and Pakistan too. Most of ISIS' victims are muslims, sometimes shia but often sunni(but not the right sunni).

They are a very attractive proposition for poor and desperate people around the world, who feel they got screwed. They are basically resentment manifest.

Now you might say "thats because of western imperialism" and you wouldnt be wrong. But do you know what was the most common ethnicity for foreign ISIS fighters? Russian. And no, it wasnt random russians fighting against american imperialism, it was muslim russians who simply could not fight in Russia's Dagestan and Chechnya. Russia bombed the shit out of ISIS too, partially because of this reason.

While understanding what lead us to our current situation is important, ultimately we must face the present. Whether a military solution is the best way, is debatable. But it is easier to convince your parliament to spend x amounts of money on your own military, rather than use that funds on developing other countries.