Your argument is flawed in so many places I don’t even know where to begin. So I’ll start by assuming you are from India. You won your independence from the British due to many reasons, but the big one being that Britain itself lost interest in controlling your country after the Second World War and democratically voted on it in 1947. I don’t see Russia ever losing interest in fully invading Ukraine anytime in the near future (or even entertain the notion to have a democratic vote on the matter), as their stated war goal is full control over Ukraine. Hence a peacful Ukrainian protest against Russian aggression would only result in Russian dominiance over Ukraine. And somehow Ukraine having less weapons in this situation would prompt Russia to scrap their invasion and go home to pre-2014 borders?
Countries do not have, or lose, interest in doing this or that on a whim. The British government agreed to Indian independence because continued large-scale protests were making it difficult to profitably exploit India’s natural resources, and the home economy (and army) were in a state of rebuilding after WW2. Also, there was diplomatic pressure from the two superpowers to end colonialism.
Russia claims to be concerned with (1) Ukraine joining NATO, and (2) the treatment of the Russian minority in Ukraine. (In addition, Putin is probably using this war to rally domestic support, and weaken / arrest the opposition.) Would either of these concerns have been assuaged by a stronger Ukrainian military?
Again, I am not saying that violence should never be used. The Nazis, clearly, had to be defeated militarily. France had to be driven out of Vietnam. But violence should always be the last option. And the buildup of weapons encourages politicians to respond to any problem with force, which just makes things worse for everyone.
Your argument is flawed in so many places I don’t even know where to begin. So I’ll start by assuming you are from India. You won your independence from the British due to many reasons, but the big one being that Britain itself lost interest in controlling your country after the Second World War and democratically voted on it in 1947. I don’t see Russia ever losing interest in fully invading Ukraine anytime in the near future (or even entertain the notion to have a democratic vote on the matter), as their stated war goal is full control over Ukraine. Hence a peacful Ukrainian protest against Russian aggression would only result in Russian dominiance over Ukraine. And somehow Ukraine having less weapons in this situation would prompt Russia to scrap their invasion and go home to pre-2014 borders?
Countries do not have, or lose, interest in doing this or that on a whim. The British government agreed to Indian independence because continued large-scale protests were making it difficult to profitably exploit India’s natural resources, and the home economy (and army) were in a state of rebuilding after WW2. Also, there was diplomatic pressure from the two superpowers to end colonialism.
Russia claims to be concerned with (1) Ukraine joining NATO, and (2) the treatment of the Russian minority in Ukraine. (In addition, Putin is probably using this war to rally domestic support, and weaken / arrest the opposition.) Would either of these concerns have been assuaged by a stronger Ukrainian military?
Again, I am not saying that violence should never be used. The Nazis, clearly, had to be defeated militarily. France had to be driven out of Vietnam. But violence should always be the last option. And the buildup of weapons encourages politicians to respond to any problem with force, which just makes things worse for everyone.