A procrastination in of itself
They might well think so, it sounds like they’re proposing Ukraine do what Denmark did in WW 2.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
And to be blunt, blaming Ukrainians fighting back for Russian brutality uses the same logic as blaming an abuse victim for their abuser's actions.
But are they doing this?
"Continued resistance will only lead to more pointless suffering" is questionable for a lot of reasons but it doesn't necessarily need to be a moral judgement on those doing the resisting. It's strictly about the effect of continued resistance, not about whether or not Ukraine has the right to do so or is ultimately responsible.
Personally I think letting Russia get its away is an awful idea that will just enable their brutality but I don't think that quite qualifies as victim-blaming. It's more just bog-standard appeasement.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 23rd 2022 at 4:47:30 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
A procrastination in of itself
It’s victim blaming to say that Russian soldiers dying so that Ukrainian civilians can flee to safety is pointless. They view the cause of protecting Ukrainians lives and sovereignty as pointless, which is a pretty deep insult to the people of Ukraine. Saying that their lives are pointless is casting a moral judgment on them for fighting for their lives.
There’s is very much a point to the suffering being inflicted upon Russian soldiers, it may be a tragic necessity but it’s got a point to it.
Each Ukrainian able to make it across the border to the EU is a victory, each inch of Ukrainian land kept under Ukrainian control is a victory, each day or minute of freedom that Ukrainian people have from Putin is a victory. The conflict isn’t being prolonged pointlessly, even if one does view Russian victory as inevitable.
Which is itself a view I could have kinda understood at the start of the conflict when we all thought a total Russian victory was inevitable, but that idea has been clearly disproven.
Edited by Silasw on Apr 23rd 2022 at 12:56:44 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
It is victim blaming because it asure the only and safe way is to give to Russian demands, it is asuming the invasor is a rational agent that can be talked about even when they deny your independence, is pretty much "Anything you do will harm you better submit" which is...shitty.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Thankfully, as Septimus pointed out in the War in Ukraine thread, the signatories of the open letter 
are nowhere near as politically relevant, as some outside observers might believe:
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Apr 23rd 2022 at 4:15:21 PM
Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.
At least it should see a oportunity to german to see how close some of them are to the Kremlin.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
@Silasw They are also saying that germany made herself part of armed conflict by said exports somethig they dont like. They seem to belief that fighting is always bad which is extreme pacifism. Victimblaming is just a justification for that.
Edited by Risa123 on Apr 24th 2022 at 1:11:11 AM
It’s victim blaming to say that Russian soldiers dying so that Ukrainian civilians can flee to safety is pointless. They view the cause of protecting Ukrainians lives and sovereignty as pointless, which is a pretty deep insult to the people of Ukraine. Saying that their lives are pointless is casting a moral judgment on them for fighting for their lives.
No, that's not how the word works.
Victim blaming is holding the victim responsible for what's befalling them.
If they said that Ukraine provoked Russia that would be blaming the victim because it puts the moral responsibility on them. Saying that resistance is pointless and just causes more suffering says nothing about who is responsible for the conflict.
Nor does it say that Ukrainian lives are pointless, the point of that position is that further resistance would serve no purpose and just cause more suffering. The argument isn't that Ukrainian lives have no value, it's that they're being wasted by waging a futile war.
I don't agree with it for a number of reasons but there's no point to improperly describing their argument. It's bad enough even when properly described.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 24th 2022 at 5:01:44 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Figure of Hourai
Alarmingly defeatist and disconnected from reality.
Avatar Source
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yep, this a good description of what's motivating their appeasement.
German Russia Policy in Light of the Ukraine Conflict: Interdependence Theory and Ostpolitik, a paper arguing that the inauguration of Nord Stream 1, by allowing Russia to bypass Ukraine, allowed them to begin confrontational policies with Ukraine that weren't possible before.
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Apr 29th 2022 at 10:18:09 AM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Scholz hits out at critics who oppose sending arms to Ukraine
At a May Day rally in Düsseldorf organized by Germany’s labor union federation, the Social Democratic chancellor faced chants of “warmonger” and “liar” from protesters.
Also, in recent days, German intellectuals urged Scholz in an open letter not to send heavy weapons to Ukraine and to instead seek a compromise that both sides in the war could accept.
Such attitudes stand in marked contrast to the views of other critics of the chancellor, both at home and abroad, who have accused him of being too timid in his support for Ukraine.
At the rally, Scholz mounted a staunch defense of weapons deliveries, declaring: “I respect all pacifism and every position. But it must seem cynical to the citizens of Ukraine when they are told to defend themselves against Putin’s aggression without weapons. This is out of time.”
The intellectuals’ letter — signed by more than 20 prominent figures from academia, culture and journalism — urged Scholz not to send heavy weaponry to Ukraine, citing fears it could lead to a third world war and “make Germany itself a party to the war.”
The signatories included author Martin Walser, journalist and feminist activist Alice Schwarzer and Green politician Antje Vollmer. The letter has gathered about 120,000 supporters online since it was published on Friday.
In the wake of Russia’s invasion, Scholz’s government overturned a longstanding German policy of not sending arms to war zones in order to supply defensive weapons to Ukraine.
But until a few days ago, Scholz had held back on approving the transfer of heavy weapons and had cited some of the same arguments used by the intellectuals to justify his position.
However, on Tuesday, his government announced it would deliver anti-aircraft tanks to Ukraine, bowing to strong pressure from Kyiv, international allies and domestic politicians, both inside and outside the ruling coalition.
Since the war began, Scholz has been trying to fend off accusations that Berlin has shown too much caution in confronting Russia’s aggression, manifested in its reluctance to send heavy weapons and to back a swift ban on Russian energy imports.
In an interview with the newspaper Bild am Sonntag, Scholz rejected such criticism and defended Berlin’s cautious position on sending heavy weapons. “I make my decisions quickly — and coordinate them with our allies. I am suspicious of hasty action and maverick German efforts,” he said.
Good on Scholz, pacifism in the face of expansionism is lunacy and weakness.
Nuclear war is not going to occur just because Germany sent over some weapons, if we want to talk about the cost of war then the first voice we listen to is its victims and they are very clearly asking for aid.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Anka Aquila
I still can't understand what is the reasoning behind these people. If their concern is about a potential Third World War, shouldn't they point fingers instead to the blatant aggressor that is causing all this tension AKA Russia instead of telling Scholz to not send weapons?
Unless of course they consider that Ukraine being brutalized and culturally genocided by Russia is a fine price to pay to not risk escalation, which honestly makes them look even worse in my eyes and incredibly privileged and out of touch with the world.
At least Chamberlain had some valid reasons for not wanting to fight Germany at the moment.
Edited by raziel365 on May 1st 2022 at 4:11:07 AM
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.
It's pretty much ivory tower pacifism.
"War bad" regardless of context.
Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.
Foreign Troper
Which is one of the main reasons I won't vote for the Left Party.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
A procrastination in of itself
X3 I suspect that some of them also don’t believe that Ukraine is entitled to choose its own foreign or economic policy path. They see supporting Ukraine as meddling in internal Russian affairs and thus an act of aggressions.
Yeah, I'm not into war (unless it's fictional ones), so I'm a bit of a pacifist and even then I think those guys are just stupid and naive at best or cowardly and selfish if I feel less charitable. They are giving all pacifists a bad rep, making them all look like a caricature or even quisling candidate. Seriously, they just seem to come out straight from a story that is made by some militant right-winger.
Edited by SteamKnight on May 2nd 2022 at 3:42:27 PM
I'm not as witty as I think I am. It's a scientifically-proven fact.
I still can't understand what is the reasoning behind these people. If their concern is about a potential Third World War, shouldn't they point fingers instead to the blatant aggressor that is causing all this tension AKA Russia instead of telling Scholz to not send weapons?
I have to disagree with this logic, if Germany getting involved would meaningfully contribute to WW3 occurring then it should stay out. Russian moral culpability doesn't justify increasing the risk of Armageddon. There's nothing worse then a nuclear exchange, and that includes a Russian victory in Ukraine.
The issue with their logic is that Germany sending weapons will not result in any actual greater chance of nuclear war, Russia isn't going to use its nukes just because Germany is supporting its enemy. But if they were correct then it would be a legitimate reason to oppose sending weapons.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Anka Aquila
I'm sorry, but given how much Russia has been sable-rattling about using strategic weapons if the West keeps helping out Ukraine, I'm afraid this is a risk that must be taken instead of just letting Ukraine be disappeared and allowing every other aggressive nuclear power to do the same thing with its non-nuclear neighbours, and yes I'll bring this possibility up because what's happening there is the end result of Russia getting away with a lot of stuff in the past decade.
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.
Yeaaah, that's overstating it. Dictators are temporary, but nuclear war would reverse 5,000 years of civilization even if it doesn't quite wipe out the human species. None of that means that we should fold in the face of bluffs (Putin obviously loses too if that happens, after all), and Fourthspartan 56 clearly isn't saying that, but let's not oppose the suicidal pacifism strain of German politics by going to the other extreme.
Edited by nrjxll on May 2nd 2022 at 9:36:42 AM
I simply do not understand the position where it's a good idea to capitulate to pacifists' misinformed idea of nuclear risk.
Sending weapons doesn't risk anything, agreeing with them and then saying that we should do it anyway is not just factually incorrect it shows a terrible set of priorities.
Well said ![[awesome]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/minis/award_star_gold_3.png "[awesome]"){kind=small}
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 2nd 2022 at 8:34:35 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Considering Putin's goals for Ukraine are genocidal, I'd rather not entertain this kinda argument, to be quite blunt.
Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.
Then one shouldn't act as if nuclear war is worth the risk when there is no risk.
It's an easy argument to avoid if we all agree that 1) this will not meaningfully contribute to risks of nuclear war and 2) if it did nuclear war would be worse.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on May 2nd 2022 at 9:28:22 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Somebody should ask those people if Poland should have not fought back in World War 2 then.
And to be blunt, blaming Ukrainians fighting back for Russian brutality uses the same logic as blaming an abuse victim for their abuser's actions.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Apr 23rd 2022 at 1:10:15 PM
Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.