The consequences of claiming that the strongest has the right to impose its will

These days I'm reading some comments on social media that fill me with stupor, because of the ideas they convey.

Yesterday ETA, today Putin: the same rubbish to support giving in to criminals
The implications of giving in to a bully and thinking a politician is always right

A type of comment that is becoming very frequent is the one that appeals to "realism" to assume the idea that in the Russian invasion of Ukraine the strongest is the one that has the right to impose its will and that the attacked country should never have opposed the aggression, that is, that it should have simply surrendered and submitted to the whims of Vladimir Putin without offering any kind of resistance. Many also suggest that the rest of us should not interfere and that it is not our business. That is, we should limit ourselves to looking the other way.

I suppose that those who think and say such nonsense do not have children, and if they do, I suppose that they will be advised that if a bully abuses them at school, what they should do is give in to the bully's wishes and not offer any kind of resistance or warn any teacher, or even ask their friends for help. "Realism."

In the same way, I assume that these people will not be outraged when a group of far-left thugs attack people who do not think like them for the mere fact of expressing ideas that they do not like, and that if this happens, they will say that the attacked people were at fault for going to a place where they knew they could be attacked, instead of avoiding that risk. In short: we should all do what the thugs want, to avoid anyone getting hurt or worse. "Realism."

In the same way, if a group of Islamists attacks a woman or a homosexual in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood, where the Islamists are stronger (in some European cities there are areas where the police no longer dare to enter), I suppose that those who ask Ukraine to give in to Putin will also ask to give in to these Islamists, to avoid injuries or deaths, since we know that these fanatics are very violent and can do anything. And if someone asks that the police be sent, they will be criticized by saying "why don't you send your children to be attacked in that neighborhood?" or "why don't you join the police yourself and go put order in that neighborhood?" "Realism."

It seems unbelievable to have to make these arguments, but that's where we've come to. After the horrors that totalitarianisms caused in the last century, there are still people who defend the law of the strongest, who believe that the most violent have the right to impose their will on others and who consider that the "realistic" thing to do is to avoid all confrontation with bullies and bow one's head before them, in case there is a fight and someone gets hurt or killed.

What some people ask of Ukraine, applied to any order of life, is a morality of slaves and cowards, of people incapable of taking any risk to defend freedom against any threat. What they ask for is the opposite of the courage and patriotism that many of these same people have been preaching for years. What they propose, after all, is a society where the rules are imposed with punches or gunshots, and where the finger is pointed not at the aggressor, but at the person who is attacked and who resists. I never thought I would read such a lot of nonsense from people who believe themselves to be the guardians of august values. What a disappointment I am experiencing...

---

Image: Grok.