Other popular arguments these days

11. Juni 2024

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.


Hinterlasse eine Antwort