←back to thread

116 points wslh | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.505s | source
Show context
Simon_ORourke ◴[] No.42162689[source]
Not putting too fine a point on it, but Gandhi's non-violent resistance worked in the India of his time, because the British wanted both the labor and the natural resources, and killing all the former would simply have cost them.

In Gaza and Ukraine right now, the colonial powers simply want the territory, and are largely indifferent or are openly hostile to the continued physical existence of the people who live there.

replies(6): >>42162919 #>>42164064 #>>42165833 #>>42165946 #>>42166882 #>>42168613 #
throw310822 ◴[] No.42162919[source]
In Gaza and Palestine any peaceful resistance is surely useless, as there is a complete ethnic divide between the colonizers and the colonized and there is no place for the colonized in the future plans for the land. Any non-violent resistance will be met with enough violence to drive the people away (and to create a justification for driving the people away).

In Ukraine, since the point is controlling the land and not replacing the original population, non-violent resistance would not have stopped Russia but would have saved the Ukrainians most if not all the suffering and bloodshed.

replies(4): >>42163044 #>>42163109 #>>42163156 #>>42163199 #
1. dog436zkj3p7 ◴[] No.42163199[source]
I completely disagree. Ukrainian war effort is primarily driven by the desire of majority of Ukrainian population to keep their independence and align with the western democratic sphere. It is, effectively, a drawn out war for independence dragging out for over 2 decades, which only became "hot" with the Russian invasions 10 and 3 years ago, the latter of which was aimed at outright annexation of the entire Ukrainian state. Majority of European countries in existence today are nation states, many not even of a few decades old, created through the will of their populations to shed blood for their independence. One would have to be shockingly ignorant to conclude that people wouldn't fight for for their state since they would "keep living largely the same lives as before", when recent wars in the Balkans closely mirror the Ukrainian conflict and yet resulted in 7 independent states, many of which received paltry, or no foreign support during their struggle for independence. Such mentality might've been prevalent in the middle ages, but has certainly been erased by 1848.

Remember that the Russian aggression effectively started a decade ago after several successive country-wide popular uprisings in Ukraine which, despite violent crackdowns, strived for and put the country on the path towards democracy, westernization and reduction of oligarchic and Russian influence. Without wide popular support, the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and a large proportion of the population involved in the war effort would be just as, if not more, likely to turn on their own government. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what the Russians expected on the eve of their invasion, when the Ukrainian state was supposed to fold as a stack of cards and the Ukrainian people were supposed to accept their "liberators" without a hitch. Instead, Russia was instantly bogged down and pushed back by a determined popular resistance and a massive popular mobilization and the Ukrainian people are determined to keep fighting even after massive destruction of their infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Of course, the reasons for the foreign involvement in the war have much more ominous undertones and, especially in the case of the US, geopolitics are a major factor. However, one would have to be extremely misguided to pretend that motivations of the amorphous US political apparatus reflect the motivations of the Ukrainian (or even American) people in any way.