Should Ukraine give up?

[jimbob]

Regarding this issue of Ukraine giving up or not (cf. title of this thread), there is perhaps one possibility which hasn't been talked about enough: Ukraine could perhaps offer only minimum military resistance to save lives and property, and then use various methods to put pressure on the invaders, to make them understand they are not welcome (protests in the street, resistance through limited use of violence..., like when some former colonies wanted to get rid of the colonial power).

How about like the break up of the USSR?

Where this happened. Just as it happened in the Baltic States. And for similar historic reasons.

 

[dudalb]

Michael H is living in another reality.

 

[dudalb]

Which will happen when the Russian economy collapses and it can't afford to pay or feed it's troops.

You can't maintain an army even within your own borders without a functioning economy. Wars are even more expensive.

Actually, a scene in Dr.Zhivago shows that quite clearly....

"And by 1917 the Boots had worn out. And then the Russian soldiers begun to do what all the soldiers dreamed of doing;they begun to go home.And that is when the Russian Revolution Began".

 

[Michel H]

Michael H is living in another reality.

If a foreign army invaded my country and my city without justification, I would probably not use weapons personally.

I would perhaps "collaborate" with the enemy if I am forced to (but not to persecute minorities), while telling them that what they are doing is wrong, that they are not welcome here, and they should go home.

These kinds of "psychological" methods seem effective, when used by people like Marina Ovsyannikova (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60749279). She used no gun, but she is perhaps causing far more trouble to Putin than most Ukrainian soldiers.

Among "soft" methods to protect life, Zelensky could give the Russians officially Crimea and the two republics:

Ukraine: Putin will search for a way to save face
By John Simpson
World Affairs editor

The loss of Crimea in 2014 is something Ukraine may well be forced to give its formal acceptance to, in some way. And Russia clearly intends to hang on to those areas in eastern Ukraine which are pretty much effectively under Russian control already - and perhaps more.

(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60756993)

Donald Trump, in spite of his failings, might be one of the few in the U.S. who has understood this.

Now, the Ukrainians have decided to fight, and I don't blame them because they are not the ones who started this war.

For this fight to be effective, the Ukrainians need good weapons, in my opinion (I mean, beyond the Javelin and Stinger missile launchers), for example S-300 air defense systems (https://www.rt.com/news/551995-us-air-defense-delivery-ukraine/), combat drones, perhaps short-range ballistic missiles (https://english.pravda.ru/news/hotspots/150681-tochka_u_donetsk/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTR-21_Tochka), and, later, warplanes (?). They should perhaps also stop playing the aggressed angels and strike in Russian territory (?) to deter Putin.

 

[Arcade22]

But Belgian Congo achieved independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo#Independence) fairly easily, in comparison.

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Read up on the Congo Crisis^WP before you open your mouth again about it being "easy" for Congo to achieve independence.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Algerian War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War) seems to have been a particularly violent decolonization war.

But Belgian Congo achieved independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo#Independence) fairly easily, in comparison.

just ... wow

 

[llwyd]

Well, it's not looking that bad to Ukraine at the moment - Russian economy is on the verge of collapse and their military has shown shocking deficiencies (largely due to rampant corruption for decades) and very low morale. Now they are busily recruiting Syrians to come to fight in Ukraine, fgs... Maybe Russia should give up?

 

[Michel H]

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Read up on the Congo Crisis^WP before you open your mouth again about it being "easy" for Congo to achieve independence.

The Congo crisis you are referring to happened after Congo's independence, but there was no long and very painful independence war in Congo (in order to achieve independence), like in Algeria. Belgium is a small country, which did not want, and couldn't afford fighting a big war in Africa.

 

[arthwollipot]

Among "soft" methods to protect life, Zelensky could give the Russians officially Crimea and the two republics...

Yes, I'm sure lives could be saved if Zelensky capitulated to all of Putin's demands and gave him exactly what he wants.

 

[jimbob]

The Congo crisis you are referring to happened after Congo's independence, but there was no long and very painful independence war in Congo (in order to achieve independence), like in Algeria. Belgium is a small country, which did not want, and couldn't afford fighting a big war in Africa.

The behaviour of Belgium in the Congo was notorious even at the time.

Yes, *by the standards of 19th Century imperialism*, the Belgian Congo was considered bad.

 

[Michel H]

The behaviour of Belgium in the Congo was notorious even at the time.

Yes, *by the standards of 19th Century imperialism*, the Belgian Congo was considered bad.

You use the word "bad" (I understand was that means), but you don't really explain why.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You use the word "bad" (I understand was that means), but you don't really explain why.

Belgian Atrocities in the Congo Free State.

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

 

[The Don]

Belgian Atrocities in the Congo Free State.

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

Yes, but if only those Congolese had been more cooperative, those poor Belgians wouldn't have been forced to impose forced labour, chop off hands, use famine as a weapon or set up those child colonies.

 

[Michel H]

Belgian Atrocities in the Congo Free State.

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

But these things did not happen after Congo's independence (read thread again).

 

[The Don]

But these things did not happen after Congo's independence (read thread again).

Well it was in response to your question about why the Belgian Congo was notoriously bad even by the standards of the 19th century.

Arcade22 already provided an article about what happened post independence:

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

 

[Michel H]

Well it was in response to your question about why the Belgian Congo was notoriously bad even by the standards of the 19th century.

Arcade22 already provided an article about what happened post independence:

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

I don't think this is a satisfactory answer.

jimbob said:

The behaviour of Belgium in the Congo was notorious even at the time.

Yes, *by the standards of 19th Century imperialism*, the Belgian Congo was considered bad.

In the context of his post, "at the time" meant "after 1960".

Then, he tried to mix up some possible 19th century crimes with the post-1960 period, which really doesn't make any sense.

 

[erwinl]

I don't think this is a satisfactory answer.

jimbob said:

In the context of his post, "at the time" meant "after 1960".

Then, he tried to mix up some possible 19th century crimes with the post-1960 period, which really doesn't make any sense.

If I understand your position correctly, it is that any genocide, chopping of hands and more are of no consequence, just as long as the moment of ‘well. Your independent now! Off you go!’ itself is going smoothly?
I really don’t see how to see your position otherwise.

 

[dudalb]

The behaviour of Belgium in the Congo was notorious even at the time.

Yes, *by the standards of 19th Century imperialism*, the Belgian Congo was considered bad.

Leipold the king of Belgium was nicknamed "Leopold the Damned".

 

[dudalb]

Yes, but if only those Congolese had been more cooperative, those poor Belgians wouldn't have been forced to impose forced labour, chop off hands, use famine as a weapon or set up those child colonies.

Techically, the Congo Free State was not even owned by Belgium, it was the private property of King Leopold. Which is another reason he earned the nickname of Leopold The Damned.
No wonder Joseph Conrad called his classic novel set in West Africa "The Heart Of Darkness".

 

[jimbob]

If I understand your position correctly, it is that any genocide, chopping of hands and more are of no consequence, just as long as the moment of ‘well. Your independent now! Off you go!’ itself is going smoothly?
I really don’t see how to see your position otherwise.

So apart from the period before independence, and the period after independence it was fine?