Hide table of contents

The best end to the invasion of Ukraine that I could see would be mass-desertion of invading troops.  It involves the fewest casualties and has the least risk of nuclear retaliation.  And there's already hopeful signs -- abandoned equipment, rumors about inadequate preparation...

(And there's precedent.  In fact, last time a Russian army walked away from a battlefield en masse, they toppled the brutal oligarch who sent them there in the process.  Could be a bonus.  Or a risk.)

Are there any organizations one could support that are working to encourage this?  Promising funds to deserters trying to find new homes when this is over?  Making sure everyone in the Russian army knows about ways out?  Lobbying the EU to welcome these people?  Something else?

I don't think I have relevant skills, but I'd like to throw some money and publicity this way.

10

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


1 Answers sorted by

Bryan Caplan had some interesting ideas about this. It seems right that safe passage to the EU would be essential. https://betonit.blog/2022/03/02/make-desertion-fast/

The post you linked is interesting but omits one crucial consideration - most of Russian soldiers probably have their families back in Russia, and it's very likely that deserters' families would be harassed, given that there are already many human rights' violations going on there.

Case in point - https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/world/europe/13hazing.html - one of the Russian soldiers lost his legs in (peacetime) brutal hazing. His family was pressured with bribery to drop the charges against the army (they didn't). It's not hard to imagine similar, albeit brutal pressure put on families of deserters.

Interestingly, a quick calculation suggests that World War 2 had an economic cost per combatant approximately equal to what the Ukrainian government is offering to each Russian deserter ($50k).

My sense is that this approach hasn't been used much in the past, but I'm not sure why.

Comments5
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

If your primary concern was human suffering, and if you think the Russians will likely win the conflict, it seems that interventions that try to enhance resistance or weaken Russian efforts might be bad.

 

It seems good to be correctly informed about events. While I don't really know, here are two mainstream sources (or at least aligned with the American security/policy establishment) that seem to be giving an accurate overview of the military situation.

Immediate human suffering almost certainly gives way to larger geopolitical effects in moral weight. Weakening Russian efforts likely points in the direction of a lower chance of nuclear war, for example.

The increased chance of a nuclear war seems like an important and thoughtful consideration. I didn't see or consider this. Can you explain a bit more of this to me so I can understand?

There's also historical background or subtext that seem relevant for certain interventions and that I think back to, to understand American or European thought.

Another case I think back to is the Spanish civil war. 

One side, the Republications, was incredibly trendy and romanticized in the west, and enjoyed international volunteers and celebrities. A lot of world powers were involved, who provided and tested weapons that would be used later in WW2. 

In the end, the Francoist regime won, and in addition to the extreme violence during the war, for decades afterwards, Republican supporters suffered an incredibly bitter fate of impoverishment and repression.

 

The Ukraine conflict is very different but I think it gives caution to how outside powers, and western interest and facile romanticism can be problematic. 

It's unclear to what degree there was any underlying cause for the extreme prejudice and persecution committed by the Francoist regime. 

It seems possible this was greatly aggravated by the incredible violence of the war, which was a partially a proxy or showcase of outside powers. The suffering was immense and damage existed for decades afterwards.

More from dspeyer
53
dspeyer
· · 1m read
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma