"Special operation" is worse than "war"

Post Reply New Topic

While I agree with some of Putin's ideas (particularly a desire to undo the lost cold war) there were other things he done I disagree with (such as killing people that aren't even soldiers, as well as making nuclear threats).

Well, here is one more thing he did that I disagree with. His express purpose is to "demilitarize" Ukraine. I disagree with that purpose for the same exact reason as i disagree with US wanting to demilitarize Russia. I want everyone to be strong. So yes, I want to undo Russian defeat in cold war. But I want to do it in a way that would avoid weakening anyone else.

Now, did I just say I am against the war? Nope. I said I am against "special operation". War is fine. War doesn't make anyone weak. If anything it only trains all parties involved to be stronger (just like sports do). But apparently "special operation" does result in Ukraine being weak. At least Putin said so. Thats why I think special operation is actually worse than a war.

Think of it this way. A war is analogous to a fight. An attempt to demilitarize is analogous to purposely making someone unhealthy. Well, purposely making someone unhealthy is worse for that person, long term, than simply beating them in a fight. A fight isn't unhealthy. In fact it might actually train them to be better fighters, regardless of whether they win or lose. But doing "special procedures" to make them unhealthy IS in fact unhealthy: after all, its their very purpose.

Now, if one were to perform a "special operation" on a person to try to make them unhealthy, what would they do? Would they start a normal fight? No. As I mentioned, normal fight will train their muscles and make them stronger. But they want to make their muscles weakers. Now, I am not a phisiologist, so I can't tell how to make someone's muscles weaker. But what if a phisiologist were to come over and point out that a certain really obscure moves have an effect of weakening the muscles. Then you would try to have a quazi-fight where you would attempt to force your opponent to make those moves. From the point of view of an outsider looking in, you will do a really bad job fighting: after all the normal fight won't result in them making those moves. In order to do so, you have to act pretty awkward yourself. Yet the fact that you are doing such a bad job won't be because you are a bad fighter. Rather its because your goal has nothing to do with beating your opponent; your goal is to worsen their health.

So could this also be why Putin's army seems to be doing such a bad job? Because they aren't trying to actually win but they are trying to weaken. Thus, it is not about the war strategy, it is about phisiology. What moves would weaken phisiology of Ukraine? I personally don't know since exercize tends to make people stronger. But I guess Putin figured it out, and thats what he does.

But like I said I strongly disagree with that *specific* goal. Thats why I think "special operation" is worse than a fight. The goal of a fight is to win, but your opponent can still be strong. The goal of "special operation" is to make your opponent weak. And that is far worse of a goal.

How long does a "special" operation last? I heard now they're flatly denying that anything at all is going on.

Either way, Ukraine is f*cked.

You can talk to anyone who lived through the 1950's and 1960's in a soviet satellite state and they will mostly say it was really bad, and that they were happy when the berlin wall fell. Why would you want Russia to win the cold war?

Nah, war is war, and it's all bad (with the exception of Star Wars).

Dear OP, your view of war appears to resemble a British upper class 19th century view on war. An experience to strengthen and invigorate a young man, a way to earn some honour and pride in the battlefield

Rest assured, war has never been that for the colonized peoples of the world, and war has changed a lot since the advent of the tank and the machine gun, chlorine gas, the bomber jet, hydrogen bombs and drone strikes.
War is not "a fight", it's a battle for annihilation. Attacking civilians, perpetrating war crimes, raping, and pillaging have been substantial part of every war. The four horsemen of the apocalypse certainly aren't pestilence, famine, death, and "special operations".

Putin's "special operation" is a bog standard war. He's just using the phrase to echo western warfare on other nations, which are rarely called "war" either. Because war is about total annihilation, sowing death, destruction and intergenerational trauma and resentment, it's a hard sell for one's own population.
So they call it something else. Want to protest against the war?- sorry, there is no war, just a little special operation, nothing to worry about, and if you call it war one more time, you'll go to the gulag.

Putin is out to grab as much territory as he can, and to fo that he needs to wipe out any resistance - and since the Ukranians have decided to defend their territory with all the power they can muster, it means for Putin to wipe out Ukraine, whatever you want to call it doesn't matter.

Well, if their goal is to ruin opponent’s health as opposed to actually beat the opponent, this explains it too. Maybe Putin decided that engaging in a real war will only strengthen Ukrain through training, while engaging in half-assed war would somehow weaken it. So he is getting what he wants in a sense that Ukraine gets weaker (according to him, that is), while actually beating Ukraine is less important (after all, he didn’t say he wanted to beat it, he said he wanted to demilitarize it).

Let’s take more extreme example. In punitive medicine they were trying to weaken dissidents through psychiatric drugs. They weren’t even trying to engage in a fight. They just gave them drugs. Maybe Putin sees this “special operation” as playing similar role as those drugs. That’s why he isn’t calling it a war and that’s also why he claims success despite lack of any success in terms of a war. I mean doctors engaging in punitive medicine won’t call it a war either, and they will also claim success despite failing to physically beat up their patients.

Well, I think psychiatric drugs do a lot more long term damage than a physical fight. That’s why special operation is worse than a war.

I agree that *internal* politics of Soviet Union was bad. But they didn’t ha e to fix it *externally* (via losing the war). They should have remained the superpower (externally) while changing their internal politics. Yet they decided to give up their external role as a superpower. And that is what I feel was a mistake that I wish they could undo.

I mean, remember Gorbachev and Yeltsin that were changing both internal situation and external one. Now, why couldn’t those very same Gorbachev and Yeltsin KEEP external superpower status and ONLY change the internal??? That’s what I don’t get.

I am strong believer in undoing the mistakes. Since Gorbachev and Yeltsin made a mistake, I am glad Putin tries to undo it. Although I also thinks he goes about it in the wrong ways (making “weakening” Ukraine an explicit goal; killing innocent people; making nuclear threats). That doesn’t change the fact that I think Putin should undo what Gorbachev and Yeltsin done, and in particular try to win the Cold War. I just wish he could go about it differently.

I'm sure there isn't a sane person alive who doesn't wish Hitler had have gone in a different direction "making Germany great again." But Hitler did because of who and what he was, which was a narcissistic psychopath, and the same applies to Putin.

The thing is, for the people who suffered under Soviet Union, getting away from it is what they consider "undoing the mistakes." To them, the very existence of the Soviet Union and being forced to join it was the mistake that needed to be undone, and it was.

So they are assuming that under Soviet Union they couldn’t possibly be happy. But what if Gorbachev were to stay in charge. He was all for freedom, so under his rule they could have been happy.

Of course I am upset with Gorbachev that he let Soviet Union collapse. That’s why I wish to undo the collapse while keep perestroika and then it is win/win.

I know it’s not realistic, but picture the following. Let’s say Putin, using his dictator skills, brings back Soviet Union. Then Putin dies from his health issues. Then Gorbachev, who is still alive, gets back to power. So he does perestroika again to undo Putin dictatorship, and brings back democracy. But this time he doesn’t let it collapse, and also he doesn’t lose Cold War either, since he learned his lesson. So then all the republics would be happy living under his democracy AND Russia would be happy too as it is no longer a losing side of Cold War.

I know this specific scenario probably won’t happen, but something in this direction (perhaps with different names) would be nice.

P.S. They weren’t forced to join Soviet Union because they used to be part of czarist Russia prior to that. I guess they were forced to join czarist Russia at some point, but then we are talking about much earlier history. Also, by the very same argument, all the rest of Russia, except for vicinity of Moscow, was forced to join Moscovite Estate. So if you have no objection against Russia keeping Vladivostok, you shouldn’t object against Russia keeping Kiev either.

Look at the scar that cuts across the Asian continent.
Yes, many mistakes need to be undoing.

That "assumption" comes from experience. Why should a country that did so much damage and caused so much misery be given a second chance by the same people and their offspring who they hurt? If the people who wish for the glory of the old days want Soviet Union back, they should first do all they can to prove that people can be happy under Soviet Union's rule. If it actually managed to become a good country, lots of people would certainly move in willingly, and it might even be able able to negotiate some of its old territory back peacefully. Second chances come to those who can prove that they can do better.

Most countries that were once part of the Soviet Union or part of the Eastern Bloc are quite happy governing themselves. They don't want to go back to the way it was and they will fight to make sure they don't.

I know. Same with places that got away from Russia before it became SU. But I was thinking of a scenario far in the future, like a hundred to few hundred years. If Russia really managed to become a great place to live by then, individual people would surely move, and if it's great enough, the masses could put pressure on their governments, wanting to get their share of that greatness.

Of course, I don't see this happening to be likely, but if Russia wanted back it's old territories, this would be the most realistic way of doing so that doesn't involve murder and other brutalities.

I mean, I'm from Finland, and while I definitely wouldn't want our country to be given to Russia to suffer under it's rule as things are, if, for some reason or other, Finland somehow became a very uncivilized place where women, sexual minorities, disabled etc. didn't have human rights, and at the same time, Russia became a place where they did have rights, then I wouldn't mind Finland getting taken over. Extremely unlikely for this kind of situation to ever actually become reality, but this is a what if -scenario anyway.