There is much difference between Ukraine war where one civilian die for 50 soldiers and everything west do when destroying entire countries and doubletapping the rescuers.
Yes that’s right, and I never said anything that goes against that. You’re calling me a natoid for no reason
No humane warfare" is generalisation straight up from “Neither Washington nor Moscow” book.
I see what you mean, but I think you’re mistaking “morally good” for “humane”. I think it’s more pertinent to accept that it is morally good to do inhumane things to nazis than to say that there’s such a thing as humane killing
My intention was to point out that not because Russia isn’t going out of their ways to win without casualties it means they’re not legitimate, because no country can win a war by having the slightest compassion for their enemies
You said that yourself, not me, and the reason is you using the equivalent of “all lives matter” for warfare out of the blue.
but I think you’re mistaking “morally good” for “humane”
Now you kinda lost me, if you don’t tie “humane” to any kind of morality you could as well argue that everything done by humans is by definition humane so that word would lost its meaning. I called killing nazis humane for the similar reason Lyudmila Pavlichenko said why she was killing them.*
because no country can win a war by having the slightest compassion for their enemies
A lot of countries lost the wars despite having very little of it, like the III Reich and Ukraine who by their own admission taken less prisoners per kills in their offensives than even the most cruel fights against veritably suicidal enemies like the harderst fights on Okinawa. On the other side, a lot of countries won the wars despite having a lot of compassion towards its enemies, USSR for Germans is a glaring example considering this discussion. And Russia for Ukraine too, considering how many Azov bastards they exchanged. And that’s even if we look at combatants, not even civillians.
*Ultimately we have the comparison right before our eyes what happens when nazis get free hand and what happens when they don’t. Palestine and Donbas.
you using the equivalent of “all lives matter” for warfare out of the blue
You’re extrapolating, I just said an army and leadership can’t be humane to the enemy when engaged in a military conflict. I’m actually shrugging off arguments against the SMO
if you don’t tie “humane” to any kind of morality you could as well argue that everything done by humans is by definition humane
Most definitions of “humane” refer precisely to compassion and empathy, while morality way larger philosophical matter. I think we ultimately agree that in a war situation you have to surrender a part of your natural compassion by rationalising that the person against you would do more harm if you spare them
A lot of countries lost the wars despite having very little of it
True but it doesn’t mean the USSR and other allies were “humane”. Less sadistic yes but all the heroes who directly killed at least one fascists lost a bit of their humanity for the good cause.
One day some decently qualified lib will bring you a hard to refute proof that some army you support committed some kind of atrocity. I’m just shrugging that off by saying what do you think, it’s war dude, no one is playing clean
Yes that’s right, and I never said anything that goes against that. You’re calling me a natoid for no reason
I see what you mean, but I think you’re mistaking “morally good” for “humane”. I think it’s more pertinent to accept that it is morally good to do inhumane things to nazis than to say that there’s such a thing as humane killing
My intention was to point out that not because Russia isn’t going out of their ways to win without casualties it means they’re not legitimate, because no country can win a war by having the slightest compassion for their enemies
You said that yourself, not me, and the reason is you using the equivalent of “all lives matter” for warfare out of the blue.
Now you kinda lost me, if you don’t tie “humane” to any kind of morality you could as well argue that everything done by humans is by definition humane so that word would lost its meaning. I called killing nazis humane for the similar reason Lyudmila Pavlichenko said why she was killing them.*
A lot of countries lost the wars despite having very little of it, like the III Reich and Ukraine who by their own admission taken less prisoners per kills in their offensives than even the most cruel fights against veritably suicidal enemies like the harderst fights on Okinawa. On the other side, a lot of countries won the wars despite having a lot of compassion towards its enemies, USSR for Germans is a glaring example considering this discussion. And Russia for Ukraine too, considering how many Azov bastards they exchanged. And that’s even if we look at combatants, not even civillians.
*Ultimately we have the comparison right before our eyes what happens when nazis get free hand and what happens when they don’t. Palestine and Donbas.
You’re extrapolating, I just said an army and leadership can’t be humane to the enemy when engaged in a military conflict. I’m actually shrugging off arguments against the SMO
Most definitions of “humane” refer precisely to compassion and empathy, while morality way larger philosophical matter. I think we ultimately agree that in a war situation you have to surrender a part of your natural compassion by rationalising that the person against you would do more harm if you spare them
True but it doesn’t mean the USSR and other allies were “humane”. Less sadistic yes but all the heroes who directly killed at least one fascists lost a bit of their humanity for the good cause.
One day some decently qualified lib will bring you a hard to refute proof that some army you support committed some kind of atrocity. I’m just shrugging that off by saying what do you think, it’s war dude, no one is playing clean