“More people have to die, so less people have to die, because we still can have our values/strength.”
Which is an argument fit for every traveling priest, making a living blessing warriors venturing to the holy land on a crusade, or any Inka death cult.
Also very popular:
“The loose, loose scenario is the price for winning.”
“Win, win is not much better than loosing, and we can still win.”
“Winning takes place when the other side is defeated.”
“Our way towards winning is - winning on the battlefield, or winning through sanctions, or winning the moral argument, so the battlefield strenght can be prolonged for longer, or winning more weapons through “cruising arround and asking for them”, or winning the peacetime economy during a war - with “Wiederaufbauhilfe” that already has to flow, or… -- winning is this complex puzzle, where we - more, of something than the opponent. Thats war in the 21st century.”
“We already have won.”
“As long as we stick to our plan, we already have won.”
“As long as we stick to our unified common promises, we have a much better chance of winning.”
“Look, at us - we are so strong economically, we also will win a war.”
“Loosing is straying from the path of unity.”
“America will always be with us.”
“America will not always be with us, so we have to buy more from America.” (Using America instead of the US for that good “old timey” feel to that argument. 😉 )
“America will always be on the side of Ukraine, because America is on the side of values.”
“America might not always be on the side of Ukraine, if the other devil wins, but maybe it still will help us, if we pay more…”
“Paying more is the only just thing from a values perspective.”
“Our common values are, what keeps us on top, when running the world.”
“Disunity is a sin”.
“Disunity is not a sin, when America practices it - because they give most. So we have to pray more for them to come back.”
“Our values, dont lead to double standards.”
“Talking is easy, so you go and raise more funds instead.”
“My children, our children, your children, our nation in Freedom - for democracy, for our children.”
“We need to give more!”
“We need to give more, faster!”
“We should not argue around giving more faster anymore, because leaders now should have to be able to have more strategic ambiguity.”
“Giving all would be a game changer!”
(Thats actually argued, btw - see:
)
“Making more weapons and funneling them into warzones, is making peace.”
“We need to accelerate the rate of weapon production, because the enemy does so too. He is forcing us!”
“We didnt succeed so far, because of all that damn disloyalty, and not sticking to the plan fast enough.”
“We stuck to the plan, but we didnt escalate what we were delivering fast enough.”
“We dont need those debates about what “escalating deliveries of weapons, slice by slice means” in our public - let experts decide, whats needed”.
(Then you end up with Gressel, whos arguing on the verge of mandness and depression…
Or with Kofman who argues, you need to win in this war, or war will be much more likely for us, and we dont want war. Because it would be bigger than your war.)
“We have more male heroes than female heroes.” (Again literally - Standard, yesterday -
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000223423/in-der-ukraine-gibt-es-mehr-helden-als-heldinnen )
“The opponent is much worse off than we are.”
“The opponent doesnt look like he can do this for much longer - maybe only 3-4 years - which means, we are winning.”
“The Ukraine is the best country in the world at paying wages to government workers -- again, literally -
06.10 Uhr: Weltbank lobt vor Aufbaukonferenz Widerstandsfähigkeit der Ukraine
Die Weltbank hat vor der Ukraine-Wiederaufbaukonferenz in Berlin die Widerstandsfähigkeit des von Russland angegriffenen Landes gepriesen und Kiew dazu aufgefordert, weiter an seinem Reformkurs festzuhalten. “Der Ukraine ist es gelungen, mit viel Unterstützung der internationalen Gemeinschaft ihre Kerndienstleistungen aufrechtzuerhalten”, sagte Anna Bjerde, Spitzenmanagerin bei der Weltbank, in Washington. Die Ukraine habe eine “unglaubliche Erfolgsbilanz” bei der pünktlichen Auszahlung von Renten und Sozialtransfers. Beamte könnten jeden Tag zur Arbeit kommen und würden auch bezahlt.
src: click
“Winning is resilience.” (“Unglaubliche Erfolgsbilanz” bei der pünktlichen Auszahlung von Renten und Sozialtransfers.)
“Winning is suffering.”
“The one who can suffer more will win in the end.”
“We cant talk to the enemy, they dont want to talk, thats why we dont invite them to talks.” (again - literally.)
“All the enemy ever does is lie.”
“All the enemy ever understood was being broken through a continuation of violence. (Abyss ich hör dir trapsen).”
“We can win this war.”
“They can still win this war.”
“We’ve already won this war.”
“Talking about all of THIS is aiding the enemy.”
“Talking about any of this is UNDERSTANDING the enemy.”
“Understanding the enemy is a sin.”
“The enemy are orks or nazis.” (Again, literally --
Those are the people we give our “high literature prices” to:
https://harlekin.me/allgemein/wie-kann-man-die-gesellschaft-noch-verarschen/ )
“Deplattforming works. Shit - look at the election results!”
“The center still holds!”
“Weapon production in Ukraine is key to victory.”
“Weapon production in europe needs to be stepped up, there is no way around that.”
“The Ukrainian is the best soldier on the planet.”
“Ukrainians who have fled, need to be made to return to Ukraine to fight (despite this violating a human right, again literally…).”
“Don’t concern yourself with those matters.”
“Don’t concern yourself with applied propaganda.”
“You need a holiday -”
“The enemy cant escalate anymore.”
“We are now winning, because now we are the ones that are escalating.”
“The enemy has escalation dominance. Which means they are the ones also being able to end this at any point”.
“The enemy can stop this at all times, by just giving up and going home. - Again, literally - thats a debaters favourite in political debates these days:
)
“The enemy wont use nuclear weapons, because the world police would retaliate.”
“The enemy wont use nuclear weapons, because china doesnt want them to.” (Because then Japan and South Korea would want nuclear weapons as well.)
“If we dont win, South Korea would want nuclear weapons as well, because it understands, that nuclear weapons are the only defense against an enemy with nuclear weapons.”
“I we dont win, other countries will use nuclear weapons as a shield to perform conventional wars for land grabs.”
“China is an enemy - because its not part of our sanctions union.”
“Delivering dual use goods is enabling the enemy.”
“Dont buy from your enemy.”
“Dont trade with the enemy.”
(The US just needs to buy a little more uranium, hold on!)
“Dont trade with the ones aiding the enemy.”
“We need more trade with India. (So it trades less with our enemies, but also look how many they are! And young folks even!)”
“This is a fight between democracies and autocracies.”
“You cant talk to autocrats.”
“There are talks with the enemy - look at all those prisoner exchanges.”
“The peace conference is not a peace conference, but might lead to a peace conference.”
“Switzerland wants to hand over the peace conference, but doesnt get any reply from Saudi Arabia in that regard.” (Again - literally - yesterday”:
“Switzerland is not neutral anymore, because it is part of the EU sanctions regime.” (Wait, a minute - that one is actually not a logical fallacy…)
“We need to win, so the right of the strongest doesnt get established against our societies.”
“This is the task of the peace union, that the European Union has always been.” (The EU up to this war was literally not allowed to pay for or distribute weaponry in any way. The peace facility was a fund that was largely “undefined” in terms of purpose, so it was the easiest vehicle to use to get around that.)
“This is the worst stretch of time for Ukraine - it only will get better from now on.”
“Before it gets better it will get worse though.”
“This is the time, where the Ukraine needs to fight to be able to set up a new structured army, to fight better in the future.”
“This is the time, where we evaluate, if the Ukraine is capable of doing this.”
“The Ukraine has to decide what it does on its own.”
“The Ukraine can only use HIMARs in Russia when defending border regions, targeting advancing forces. The Urkaine can not use US ATACAMs for targets in Russia. The Ukraine can use French and British Scalp to attack targets in russia.”
“This is not a proxy war.”
“What do you do for the war effort.”
“If you dont like it, go back to russia.”
“The Ukraine is fighting for our democracy and freedom.”
“The Ukraine is the last backstop of democracy and freedom in the world.”
“Loosing would mean loosing democracy and freedom, and our rule of law.”
“Loosing would mean, no one would respect us anymore (thats the trade union that is the EU, that this is said about, btw).”
“Just a little bit longer.”
And now the good news:
Propaganda hat im deutschsprachigen Medienraum immer noch niemand entdeckt.
edit: And of course the main logical fallacy these days --
“Russia will be able to rearm itself faster than the west, in a period that might lead into another war.”
which seems to be a stand in for “not many more Ukrainians left in “interwar” Ukraine then (migration)”, because private investors need 10 years for their ROI, and might see the risk predominantly, and not build Ukraine back up again - if the next war already looms on the horizon.
Because - how on earth does this hold true otherwise? Ukraine will always need less manpower for the same capability than russia - so if russia produces three times the amount of weaponry we are still at parity - wasnt that the western logic all along?
So in a war where defense has proven so much more viable than offense, why are we worried about a scenario, where russia might produce more to pivot into war again, thats maybe on the horizon.
Its not because we need more time to get our defense production going, it seems. (No one is struggling to build that up currently.)
So the main reason to worry about that is that russia might become better at warfare against the west over time?
No… This is opportunity driven. “We could still get a victory out of this!” Not “victory is the only way to survive (and prosper, …)”.
But giving russia more breathing room, might reset their position, which is a relative loss in our eyes to the “keep them under attrition” scenario. But that derives from still looking at a possible victory perspective.
If we dont do that, all thats raised from our perspective is “risk of losing the next time around”, but not because of structural developments that would follow and be inevitable, but because we dont know if we can drum up the Ukrainians into a “defense force of the west” position anymore - and if that fails, costs (stemming from risk) increase manyfold.
Right?
