Alora Fane

Last Thursday, I was too anxious to work because of the threat of the Ukraine situation leading to a nuclear apocalypse. Fear often comes from ignorance, though, and a video about the actual reasons behind the invasion has calmed my nerves a bit. Maybe.

I've not actually been actively concerned about it since Thursday, honestly; when I woke up on Friday and didn't see any posts on Reddit about nukes being fired, I started to relax, and when I started seeing r/all become dominated by vapid distractions again, I mostly just forgot about it and focused on other stuff (like music composition and how lonely I am).

I was alarmed again a couple of hours ago though when I saw a post about how Putin's put his nukes on high alert... or something that I didn't fully understand. Looking fretfully through the comments, I saw a link to this ~30-minute video from the popular (5+ million subscribers) channel RealLifeLore explaining the situation:

In the comments, he says he started working on the video 5 weeks ago (because things take a lot of time to make!), so it wasn't quickly produced in response to recent developments. That in itself is interesting, I think. This (the invasion) wasn't some spur-of-the-moment decision made by a decaying mind.

He mentions the fairly complex reasons for why Russia is after Ukraine: most notably things like resources and geographical defence against an imagined future enemy.

And, importantly, the video mentions that Russia has done this before to Crimea and Georgia (both places I'd vaguely heard of but could have told you nothing about before; the same could be said of Ukraine). The major difference this time isn't that Putin has 'gone mad' (in his old age), as some commenters on Reddit have said, but rather that The West was largely distracted by all the stuff in the Middle East back then.

So it feels like this has blown up as much as it has because it's providing 'entertainment' - in some dark sense - in an otherwise empty broadcast schedule. Or at least that's the way it seems to me in my barely-informed naivete.

I've seen a lot of posts about how BADASS etc the former-comedian Ukrainian president is for sticking around to fight side-by-side with his troops against the big bad bullies who invaded out of the blue for no apparent reason, as if he's the plucky protagonist we're meant to cheer for in the latest action movie. People have found a 'side' to root for, an apparent underdog for whom expressions of open support win virtue points not massively different to those sought from similar proclamations of progressiveness. BLACK LIVES MATTER, you guys, buy my merch!

I'm not saying that it's wrong exactly or that I'm 'siding' with Russia or anything, to be clear! My general opinion is that 'war is bad' and that I don't like that people have to seek and maintain power for the sake of ego when I wish we could all just share and get along. It just seems to be a complex situation that most of us don't understand, brought to wide attention due to circumstance more than because it's unusual. It seems that invasions and military tragedy are happening all the time (which is godawful), just usually off most people's radars.

It'd make no sense for Putin to NUKE THE WORLD!!! in what was seemingly supposed to be an attempt to strengthen his country's resources and defences in the long term.

I've seen likely-20-somethings on Reddit scared he will anyway to 'save face' about 'losing', but they're imagining the situation from the perspective of childish playground squabbles rather than that of a world leader with decades of experience.

But maybe I'm jus telling myself this so then I can sleep tonight and do work tomorrow, and maybe I'm mistaken and there won't be a tomorrow. What do I know?

8 COMMENTS

PerfectVanity27~3Y

As you say, it would make no sense for Putin to deploy nuclear weapons, as there would be no winners in that war. I'm only afraid because I happen to live in a country directly bordering Russia, but if you're outside of that, there's no real reason to worry at this point.

I think the most interesting and horrifying thing to note about this is the amount of people all of a sudden openly glorifying violence and murder when it's done to the side they deem to be in the wrong. Like, there's literally pictures of bloody corpses of Russian soldiers posted on Reddit and people cheering it in the comments. I guess some things about the human nature only reveal themselves when the situation is dire enough.

Tobias 1115~3Y

I've been quite disturbed by the amount of dehumanisation I've seen for 'the enemy/other side'. I mean it's something I understand about human nature in general psychological sense, but actually seeing it play out in such a brutal way is frightening.

Life1~3Y

I almost fell into the trap of thinking "if Russian troops are indiscriminately bombing civilian targets, does that make them worse people than me?" but then I remembered there are penalties for not following orders. Deserters are likely killed. I try to think of Russian troops as an unwilling force employed by an occupying government, except in this case, that government happens to be their own. I was proven somewhat correct when I saw a lot of letters from Russian soldiers saying they refused to return to battle. As always, the common people, including most of the soldiers on both sides, don't want this war.

kasheeste2133~3Y

I just want to say I have tremendous respect for you realizing you didn't understand the situation and doing further research. (and unlike most people realizing that scrolling through the reddit circlejerk isn't research)

Lordofsea19~3Y

While I understand your pragmatic approach to the situation (we should not take any sides to complex issues such as war), it is not really applicable here. In this case it *does* make you come across as a Russian sympathizer.

These sort of approaches work when we are in peace-times, and we are not directly involved in the conflict. In this case, Russia is clearly the aggressor and are clearly in the wrong. They invaded a democratic country completely unprovoked. They told their soldiers that they would be welcome in Ukraine with open arms. They are actively lying to their population, sending fake "live-footage" of Kiev where people are strolling happily on the streets. They are using thermobaric weapons against Ukraine, effectively breaking the Geneva-convention.

The last point is particularly worrying. The Geneva-convention is not a law - it's a mutual agreement between nations on the do's and don'ts of war. If one country breaks the convention they lose trust from other nations. The mindset becomes: "If you're not gonna play fair, then neither are we".

This may lead to escalation. If Russia decides that using thermobaric weapons is okay (Note: thermobaric explosives will vaporize your body to literal dust), then what is stopping other countries from using similar weapons against Russia if it comes to an escalated war?

If we use clusters, thermobarics and napalm against Russia - who's stopping them from using nuclears? Russia is already suspecting USA of preparing for nuclear conflict. So who should strike first?

You are absolutely right that Putin would never use nuclears to "save face". He would however use nuclears to save his own life and his country. Both sides are scared, and we should be worried about this.

There is war in Europe happening at this very moment. The fighting is limited to Ukraine, but we are sending military equipment and imposing very serious sanctions on Russia. We are involved in this war. If the situation escalates, then we may become targets. I live in a city in Norway that houses an american nuclear submarine. We would literally be the first city to get attacked in such a conflict. Not to mention that we are quite close to the Russian border.

War is bad, and we've been lucky to live in such peaceful times. And while this conflict will probably not go nuclear, there is no real way to be sure. I have not seen a single expert who has confidently denied the possibility outright. It's because we are in a very unpredictable situation.

It's very tragic, but we need to be prepared for the worst. In the meantime, we must stand up for Ukraine.

These sort of approaches work when we are in peace-times, and we are not directly involved in the conflict. In this case, Russia is clearly the aggressor and are clearly in the wrong. They invaded a democratic country completely unprovoked. They told their soldiers that they would be welcome in Ukraine with open arms. They are actively lying to their population, sending fake "live-footage" of Kiev where people are strolling happily on the streets. They are using thermobaric weapons against Ukraine, effectively breaking the Geneva-convention.

The last point is particularly worrying. The Geneva-convention is not a law - it's a mutual agreement between nations on the do's and don'ts of war. If one country breaks the convention they lose trust from other nations. The mindset becomes: "If you're not gonna play fair, then neither are we".

This may lead to escalation. If Russia decides that using thermobaric weapons is okay (Note: thermobaric explosives will vaporize your body to literal dust), then what is stopping other countries from using similar weapons against Russia if it comes to an escalated war?

If we use clusters, thermobarics and napalm against Russia - who's stopping them from using nuclears? Russia is already suspecting USA of preparing for nuclear conflict. So who should strike first?

You are absolutely right that Putin would never use nuclears to "save face". He would however use nuclears to save his own life and his country. Both sides are scared, and we should be worried about this.

There is war in Europe happening at this very moment. The fighting is limited to Ukraine, but we are sending military equipment and imposing very serious sanctions on Russia. We are involved in this war. If the situation escalates, then we may become targets. I live in a city in Norway that houses an american nuclear submarine. We would literally be the first city to get attacked in such a conflict. Not to mention that we are quite close to the Russian border.

War is bad, and we've been lucky to live in such peaceful times. And while this conflict will probably not go nuclear, there is no real way to be sure. I have not seen a single expert who has confidently denied the possibility outright. It's because we are in a very unpredictable situation.

It's very tragic, but we need to be prepared for the worst. In the meantime, we must stand up for Ukraine.

Slothboy2531~3Y

My personal view: as a child one is offered the appearance of novelty as an escape from boredom, but quite quickly one discovers it is an excellent defense against dependency, against change. “I’m kind of a news junkie, there’s so much happening right now it’s hard to keep up with it.” Yet no one depends on keeping up with it, they’d benefit much more if they didn’t. It's devotion to something with the appearance of importance, of velocity, of kinetic energy; that you don't really need, that you can always claim in an emergency doesn't “actually” define you. “This stuff doesn't really matter,” one may say, as they watch the xth hour or push the nth button, “but right now, I'm satisfied.”

Tama_Yoshi82~3Y

Looking at the news from a distance. Not very personally concerned with it, and the complexities and intrinsic obfuscation of propaganda makes it difficult to have a clear mind on the issue, especially when it comes to actionable solutions (we can call a side "bad" but that's not a solution in itself).

This Philosophy teacher is a person I quite like, they released this video on the Ukrainian conflict today. I like his take on it. He has this over-arching philosophy of "demoralizing" ethical questions. That is, remove the inflammatory moral language that gets people riled up, but preserve the accurate descriptive language that allows to construct a comprehensive picture of the situation.

[LINK]

I like it. I think what's difficult when making assertions about contentious matters is that the moral language gets "in the way" of accurately portraying the situation, which in turns leads to even more contentious conversations where we accuse each other of misrepesenting the other's positions. In the worst cases, we get "tied up" by these confusions, which materialize as real unbridgeable tensions.

But eh. It's a tough call. I wouldn't hold everyone to that standard, I think it requires a dispassionate mind to do that effectively. Sometimes, people need narratives to feel happy, and a dry academic description isn't that (or at least, it's less *easily* that).

It's maybe more distressing to hold that people don't merely "pick a side" out of a desire to win virtue points, but because they actually believe in it. More distressing, but less contentious. Less satirical, more descriptive. (Although to be fair, there will always be those who do it only to sell merch)
Incidentally, I can't tell how much of what you said was satire or not. People who I've heard say those things have not been saying them satirically and did mean them. Poe's law, I suppose!

This Philosophy teacher is a person I quite like, they released this video on the Ukrainian conflict today. I like his take on it. He has this over-arching philosophy of "demoralizing" ethical questions. That is, remove the inflammatory moral language that gets people riled up, but preserve the accurate descriptive language that allows to construct a comprehensive picture of the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onXqRstZJX8

I like it. I think what's difficult when making assertions about contentious matters is that the moral language gets "in the way" of accurately portraying the situation, which in turns leads to even more contentious conversations where we accuse each other of misrepesenting the other's positions. In the worst cases, we get "tied up" by these confusions, which materialize as real unbridgeable tensions.

But eh. It's a tough call. I wouldn't hold everyone to that standard, I think it requires a dispassionate mind to do that effectively. Sometimes, people need narratives to feel happy, and a dry academic description isn't that (or at least, it's less *easily* that).

It's maybe more distressing to hold that people don't merely "pick a side" out of a desire to win virtue points, but because they actually believe in it. More distressing, but less contentious. Less satirical, more descriptive. (Although to be fair, there will always be those who do it only to sell merch)
Incidentally, I can't tell how much of what you said was satire or not. People who I've heard say those things have not been saying them satirically and did mean them. Poe's law, I suppose!

Comment awaiting approval