This is about the factor of agency. And what role to give it in armed conflicts. (All you need is the will to fightTM.)
Essentially the argument, should one let people prolong a war, for a position of “winning” that isnt well defined, and usually just out of the range of your sphere of influence (“only the russian people can end this war now”), that seems to be correlated and even connected, in the public opinion, to a vague general statement of “winning is having the last russian leave territorial Ukraine (incl. crimea)”.
Then a believe is stated. Chomsky thinks that the Ukrainians want peace more than to postpone this war.
Enter a philosopher, that looks at a fake dichotomy (“But they are saying on TV, that what they want now is “weapons, weapons, weapons”” - make a silly face, disregards the argument.). Because its always about public perception first.
First aspect, the Ukrainian leaderships position is not the position of normal people on the ground and in the fight. It is detached to the point, where they need to be to make strategic decisions on how many people they will put up for a certain cause, when and were. The same thing is mirrored in the US strategic outlook on the situation, where some analysts see this as a model, of the US engaging in future wars by arming a “willing population”, and then giving them the best strategic model and real time analysis on top. Which by extension means, that all wars like this are “defensive” in nature, and “just”, by virtue of “the leadership of a country has expressed the desire to use their own populations, but other nations strategic support and military aid to get to a desired state”.
Next thing I’d look at here is the role of the media in that scenario, which is basically drive around the country, interview people who are deeply enthralled by a heroicism, neccessary nationalism, and the bright future is the guiding star of EU membership down the road sentiment, driven by, lets openly say it, propaganda and certain emotions that get pulled onto the centerstage, when engaging in a display of armed conflict condoned by any large group. Where all the losses you experience are reframed to be suffering you endure for a better future, just suffering, necessary suffering, not senseless suffering, or even wrong suffering, if you take into account the impact on world economics, no its the just, good suffering, and guilt of the suffering we have inflicted on others that binds us together in the aim to achieve a very, very badly defined goal.
You know, heroicism. Where the goal is always to tell stories about a personal development arc first, and then look at what the hero actually inflicted (on to society) later. But all is well, because evil got banished. You know - narratives…
From Selenskyjs point of view, anything thats less than “decisively winning” would be losing face and their most important military, financial and political allies, leaving the country war torn, economically destroyed, with no chance of a built up following, because the aggressors gamble payed off, and they are now in a more dominating position.
Selenskyj was voted in to solve the conflict in Donbas. Then he and Russia torpedoed Minsk 2. Then he tried to win the Donbas conflict militarily (gaining the approval to use imported weapon systems in the region that the russian occupation wasnt capable to deal with) -- so when the somewhat tragic figure started to solve the conflict by adding more force the situation escalated (140.000 armed forces at the border), at which point russia made a decision that no one understands, and Selenskyj became a hero, five times over, over night - for suppling people “willing to fight”.
For democracy, for western values, for the western rules based system and for Böhmermann, who is so thankful for that sacrifice.
That logic - the “better keep winning” aspect of it, so we can tell a narritive to people that depends on this being progress in a sense, and reducing the length of the war - while at the same time, less openly delegating all responsibility for decision making to the government of Ukraine and priming our own public for a prolonged war of good vs. evil -- is decidedly not representing “the will of the Ukrainians on the ground”.
It is a meta logic, on a structural level, that tries to rectify, why prolonging a conflict, or extending it, or adding fuel to it, is the necessary thing to do. The moral arguments used to sustain it, are deeply amoral. From an individual and collective point of view. They are literally what you’d describe as a necessary evil in any other case, where the emotional charging of arguments wasnt so front and center for public opinion.
Now lets let Chomsky use a minor rhetoric device in public.
“The ukrainian president is with the people - he wants to minimize harm to every individual on the ground. At which point strategic interests play into it - and the US and GB deny him the chance to do so.”
This proclamation alone does more to point at the issues at he intersection of individual but also collective interests and public proclamations that are in play here - than FUCKING three months of journalism on the matter.
If thats all that you’ve got to discredit someone (“but ukrainians want more weapons!” - After they’ve been told by the atlantic council that they should engage in asking for more weapons again, but in a specific way, that wouldnt make it too transparent what they are actually asking for…) that brings you popular recognition on youtube I guess.
Strangely, you arent allowed to say “But the Ukrainian president doesnt at all have the short- and likely mid-term wellbeing of his people in mind, enacts a somewhat new military strategy the US is trying out at the moment (decapitation of the command and control structure, while now pivoting into more of an offensive phase to not have their troops encycled, or in retreat, after Mariupol now doesnt saveguard against russian troop movements in the east anymore -- to prolong the conflict, to maximize damage dealt to the aggressor), while giving full real time tactical analysis feedback to the Ukraine), with a certain chance of success attached (“Just keep winning, though…”), whose primary outcome, most likely will be to prolong a war of attrition, and for that also needs the carrot, of a EU membership in the future (after winning), or his people will not know what they are fighting for. Probably, not having Russia perform atrocities in newly captured regions is something not quite enough to keep a war going after three months, you need a purely motivational aspect here - something you are actively fighting for, that will benefit all of your citizens, and will having made fighting the war a positive thing, the right decision.
That something cant be values.
So you employ a rhetoric device. The unfailing hero president, has indeed the wellbeing of his people in mind, and therefore would like to minimize casualties, which is why he mentioned the possibility of an independent Ukraine for about a week, and then was reeled back by a public outcry of US and GB based interest. The “we dont know what the Ukraine leadership stands for anymore” articles, only crept up in US media though.
So now what?
Oh yeah, slay Chomsky in the court of public opinion for stating the obvious. Engaging in, making possible, or prolonging a war of attrition is not in the interest of the people of Ukraine.
They dont think in principles of a responsibility for western law based systems (“it sometimes feels, like people want to drive us into something like Afghanistan”),they dont think in moral principles of, if we dont prolong it, the pre-selection camps russia built in occupied territories will disappear a certain percentage of people being funneled through them, they en large dont think in principles of “the common goal is a grand thing thats worth dying for”, when they are in the process of dying for it -- and I’m absolutely certain, that the Ukrainian leadership doesnt either.
There is this aspect of - if we dont win, our future prospects to reach the economic level we’ve had before the russian invasion within the next five generations are slim to non existent. That makes it a necessity to win. And thats seldomly a good thing for the individual on the ground.
And we are not talking about capitulation here, we are talking about keeping communication channels open, or at least insisting, that they are reopened, before “Putin is made to ask for a seize fire close before he is being defeated”. Because, thats neither a very likely outcome (from what all their military experts tell the german government), and also a very dangerous outcome to aim for, while having no diplomatic channels open, because a shock and awe strategy of broader destruction, without any economic, or military logic in place, looking for gains, then would solely depend on the right people being in place in russian leadership cycles, preventing that outcome.
Holy shit. Diese Gesellschaft ist das Letzte.
Jedes Arschloch optimiert nur noch darauf was gut klingt, und wählt den Weg emotional aufgeladener Argumente, die ihm oder ihr Likes einbringen.
Ich verachte diese Gesellschaft und alles wofür sie steht.
Jetzt sind diese Ukrainer also dieses magische Heldenvolk, das für seine Freiheit kämpfen will (und für Demokratie, und für unsere Werteordnung) und das so lange wie nötig. Während es immer in ihrem Interesse bleibt, weil sie ja gewinnen werden, weil sie gewinnen können. Mit dem aktuell wahrscheinlichsten Outcome eines prolongierten Zermürbungskriegs, der wiederum über Sanktionen Russland am meisten schadet, während es jedoch militärisch Vorteile hat, je länger sich der Krieg hinzieht. Die wollen Waffen, Waffen, Waffen! Es ist unglaublich - wie kann Chomsky nur das Gegenteil behaupten - sie haben diese magische Eigenschaft, wo sie mitten in der Eskalationslogik eines Kriegs, einfach weitermachen wollen. Was für Helden! Dass wir das bisher noch nicht in anderen Konfliktgebieten gefördert haben…
So keep winning, and everything jells, as Böhmermann would want to remind the ukrainian public of.
Final argument in the youtube mounted position? Chomsky reads too much, and doesnt visit countries to absorb what people feel, thats a limitation of Chomskys method. You know, he doesnt get moved by the feels enough. The right feels, of those well traveled folks, of course only in the right circles, that know, that the Ukrainian now wants to fight.
