@AEMarling is an established SLRPNK member, book author, and image artist.

Anti-militarism is not exclusively a Russian statist position. Please give your fellow members the benefit of doubt when it comes to accusations of being a state agent.

By fighting imperialist ideas and people pushing them. By fighting for a rules-based world order. Right now the best defense of the "indutrial-military complex" is that it is necessary, which is sadly true. If you don't like it, remove its reasons to be necessary.

I recommmend analyzing the strategies of the so-called New Left during the 1960s-70s. Their ability to disrupt the status-quo and bring attention to the State's death machine can't be understated. For a starting point - check out the direct action tactics used by the Weather Underground.

What do you think would happen if the US would stop supporting Ukraine? Putin would just peacefully stop trying to conquer Ukraine? Or do you think ukrainians would just give up? They wouldn't. I live in a neighbouring country, i know many of them. They all know 100% that if Ukraine looses the war in any way, then Putin will completely exterminate every last one of them, that he can get his hand on. Just like he's been doing over the last two years.

So by arguing that the US should stop it's support, you're directly and inseparably arguing for Putin to be able to genocide tens of millions of ukrainans, as well as for the complete destruction of Ukraine.

This is why people are calling you a russian agent. Of course, it's unknowable for us, whether you are really are, but you are certainly doing their bidding for them.

It's sad that too many people cannot comprehend that someone might not want to pick a side. At this point in history, several empires fight for power over the planet and seem to be happily headed towards WWIII, and while they do so damage the planet even more. I'd rather have zero empires. And I certainly don't want to fight a war for any abstract concept that just exists to funnel even more money into the pockets of the rich.

On the other hand, just because I was accidentally born in Europe, and as I profit from the system Europe has in place, it's like my side has been picked for me. Which is being some sort of US vassal. And I agree US needs to fix their internal problems not play world police at this point in time. And if the choice is between being a sort of appendix of either fascist US or fascist Russia I frankly don't fucking care anymore, hope they all go under rather sooner than later and let Europe be Europe.

The article is fine, and I second the recommendation to read it, but from the article to the slogan you present, things do not follow a logical path. Yes, war is both an incredibly expensive activity (diverting money that could be used) and a resource-intensive activity (the money goes into actual materials that almost surely destroy something or get destroyed) and an incredibly stupid activity (and it can snowball)...

...but the problem is that successful unilateral disarmament during a war tends to result in a situation called "defeat". If the defeat is not an attack being defeated, but defense being defeated, that is called a "conquest". Now, letting a conquest succeed has a historical tendency of the conqueror having more experience at conquest, and more resources to conquer with... which has, several times in history, lead to another conquest or a whole series of conquests. A regional war in Ukraine resulting in Ukraine being taken over by Russia has a high probability of producing:

1. a bigger regional war later, in which Russia, using its own resources and those of Ukraine, proceeds to another country, gets into a direct conflict with NATO and then indeed there is a risk of a global war

2. an encouraging effect after which China, noting that international cooperation against the agressor was ultimately insufficient, and deeming itself better prepared than Russia, decides that it can take Taiwan with military force

However, a war ending with inability to show victory tends to produce a revolution in the invading country. For example, World War I produced a revolution in Russia and subsequently a revolution in Germany, with several smaller revolutions in between, empires collapsing and a brief bloom of democracy in Europe, before the Great Depression and the rise of fascism ate all the fruits. The Falklands War produced a revolution in Argentina. The Russo-Japanese war produced the 1905 near-revolution in Russia.

It is better for Ukraine to not get conquered. It is better for Russia to be unable to conquer Ukraine. That result is also better for everyone around them. It's even better globally because it sets a precedent of large-scale cooperation defeating an agressive superpower, discouraging agressive superpowers from undertaking similar wars until memory starts fading again.

Unfortunately, until we see indications that Russian society is getting ready to stop the war (this could involve starting negotiations on terms palatable to Ukraine, a change of leadership, a withdrawal, a revolution, etc)... the path to achieving that outcome remains wearing out the agressor: producing enough weapons and delivering them to Ukraine.

Ultimately, both sides in a war wear each other down. The soldiers most eager to fight are killed soonest. The people most unwilling to get mobilized or recruited, and soldiers most unwilling to fight - they remain alive. If they are pressed forever, some day they will make the calculation: there are less troops blocking the way home than in the trenches of the opposing side. After that realization, they eventually tend to mutiny. Invading troops tend to do that a bit easier than defending troops, because they sense less purpose in their activity. In the long run, if nothing else happens, that will happen. There is just (probably, regrettably) no particularly quick shortcut to getting there.