7 ms·

Except it is literally is just rational geopolitics. The story of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not just a single whimsical choice by a mad dictator. There

Except it is literally is just rational geopolitics. The story of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not just a single whimsical choice by a mad dictator. There has been a decades long encirclement campaign by NATO which ultimately pushed too far. That's not to say that states joining NATO did not do so willingly and of their own accord, but that it played into a larger struggle for influence that disadvantaged Russia on the world stage. The moral dimension is also completely illusory. Ukraine is fighting a war of attrition that's funding is due to the same cold-hearted power politics that Russia subscribes to. It greatly benefits the US and EU to keep Russia in an expensive, resource-intensive, prolonged military engagement. Put another way, the US is knowingly sacrificing Ukrainian lives and infrastructure because it gives us more power; however, at the end of the day we get to drape our actions in nice sounding rhetoric about supporting national independence even though that is merely accidental. Not to mention that the Ukrainian government has legitimately persecuted Russian-speaking minority populations in the country. Obviously, this has very little to do Russia's actual motivations for the war, but the point is the Russia's actions also have accidental good effects.

Lord-Jobo 2mo ago
This is so hilariously stupid, the invasion of Ukraine is so completely impossible to defend that all of these talking points smell like a third grader wrote them. In a rush, at the beginning of class. “The moral dimension is illusory“ Yeah maybe if you glue your eyelids shut and pretend millions of dead people are actually totally fine, and definitely WORTH expending for… wait what is it that Russia has gained from this invasion? Disgusting effort, I hope you never have control over a single ounce of power.
- mightyham 2mo ago
  [dead]
mghackerlady 2mo ago
I feel like even this simplifies the issue somewhat. While we can argue for days on whether or not this war is justified in any way, anyone with any glimpse of sanity can see that this is not an appropriate reaction to any such circumstances that may have contributed to the war. That's not to mention the actions of the russian military itself
Eupolemos 2mo ago
No. > The moral dimension is also completely illusory. Ukraine is fighting a war of attrition that's funding is due to the same cold-hearted power politics that Russia subscribes to. Blatant gaslighting. Ukraine is defending against an invasion. Russia has said it wants to go further and take what it can of Europe, states that the Baltics aren't countries and threatens us all with nukes on a daily basis. In Europe we defend ourselves by funding Ukraine. It is super simple; Russia attacks when it is strong enough and takes what it can. We tried living in peace, we believed in it. We basically got rid of our armies in Europe, since everybody knows how to live in peace. Except Russia. We will not make that mistake again.
- mightyham 2mo ago
  > everybody knows how to live in peace. Except Russia. Talk about an extraordinary case of recency bias. Cheap shot, I know, but I had to make it. Europe currently defends itself because that's all it CAN do. They abandoned their armies because the continent outsourced defense spending/industry to the United States and Russia following WWII.
  - Eupolemos 2mo ago
    > They abandoned their armies because the continent outsourced defense spending/industry to the United States and Russia following WWII. We outsourced our defense spending to Russia? Are you incapable of embarrassment over your own level of ignorance?
    - mightyham 2mo ago
      Are you purposely being obtuse? Eastern Europe was a protectorate of the USSR for a large portion of the last century.
- MYEUHD 2mo ago
  > We basically got rid of our armies in Europe, since everybody knows how to live in peace. Wrong. The UK and France have several military bases in the middle east, thousands of kilometers away from home. The NATO invasion of Libya is an example of how Europeans "know how to live in peace"
jasonlotito 2mo ago
No. Russia invaded Ukraine. And while it wasn't a single whimsical choice, blaming NATA wrong. This was the mad dictator, and trying to cast blame on anyone else is the same as accepting the blame yourself.
ninkendo 2mo ago
So let me see if I understand your argument here. Ukraine wanted to join NATO because it sees Russia as a threat (I dunno, maybe because Russia had just invaded Crimea and "annexed" it). Russia's response is to invade Ukraine, slaughtering countless civilians, and has stated that it wants to take more territory around other former-soviet states. And your reaction, to a country exercising its sovereignty, and another country invading it as a result, is "yup, that's just politics for ya"? That countries have the right to invade other countries if they feel disadvantaged by their neighbor's decisions?
- mightyham 2mo ago
  No, you clearly don't understand my argument. Ukraine didn't just disadvantage their neighbor. In international affairs, red lines are a common tool for expressing acceptable bounds of negotiation. Russia made it very explicit that if Ukraine joined NATO there would be conflict. We live in the real world, and "sovereignty" is not real; nations are not unconstrained agents that can do whatever they please. They have to weigh the effects of their actions and be willing and capable of defending the consequences. This has been true for all of human history, has never changed, and likely never will. You simply deluded yourself into thinking otherwise. I will also add that in the modern world, peace has largely been maintained because the value of international commerce is much greater than the value derived from conflict. Economic integration is the best recipe for enduring tranquility. However, the US has pursued broad economic sanctions against Russia since the annexation of Crimea, all but ensuring that an invasion of Ukraine would be a profitable (or at least not harmful). In other words, the United States miscalculated, overplayed it's hand in pursuing a containment strategy against Russia and ultimately invited violence.
  - ninkendo 2mo ago
    Please look up "victim blaming" and understand how it applies in this context. If Islamic terrorists say "if you depict Muhammad, we will attack you", and someone depicts Muhammad and are attacked, we don't say "wow, they really shouldn't have depicted Muhammad, this is their fault". We say "wow, those terrorists are awful." Russia's red lines were never acceptable in the first place, and their existence does not justify war crimes. > However, the US has pursued broad economic sanctions against Russia since the annexation of Crimea Oh those poor Russians, they can't even violently annex neighboring territory without getting sanctioned. I feel so bad for them. We should have just uttered "tsk, tsk" and kicked them out of the olympics. That'll teach 'em! No, the "economic tranquility" was the period after the Soviet Union fell and the entire western world was welcoming Russia in with open arms, and the economic integration was well under way. Until Putin came in and decided "no, I like things the way they were" and has been trying to bring back the USSR ever since. He doesn't want any economy he can't directly control by force. You think Putin wants economic integration? He wants his soviet union back. None of what you're talking about is "politics" unless you think Russia actually has a leg to stand on with any of this. They don't. They never have. They're the aggressor here and none of the "warnings" they gave justify any of this.
falsemyrmidon 2mo ago
This reads like some of that covert Russian election influence they're so fond of.
- mightyham 2mo ago
  Or just an American with an realist perspective on foreign affairs... I loathe the charge that if you have any nuance and think the war is not ENTIERLY Russia's fault, then you must be brainwashed by propaganda.
WarmWash 2mo ago
Bro watched a hot take youtube video and now is a geopolitical genius.
- mightyham 2mo ago
  Unfortunately, being smart is a natural talent ;)
cantalopes 2mo ago
Spoken like a true russian troll

Lord-Jobo 2mo ago

This is so hilariously stupid, the invasion of Ukraine is so completely impossible to defend that all of these talking points smell like a third grader wrote them. In a rush, at the beginning of class. “The moral dimension is illusory“ Yeah maybe if you glue your eyelids shut and pretend millions of dead people are actually totally fine, and definitely WORTH expending for… wait what is it that Russia has gained from this invasion? Disgusting effort, I hope you never have control over a single ounce of power.

mightyham 2mo ago
[dead]

mghackerlady 2mo ago

I feel like even this simplifies the issue somewhat. While we can argue for days on whether or not this war is justified in any way, anyone with any glimpse of sanity can see that this is not an appropriate reaction to any such circumstances that may have contributed to the war. That's not to mention the actions of the russian military itself

Eupolemos 2mo ago

No. > The moral dimension is also completely illusory. Ukraine is fighting a war of attrition that's funding is due to the same cold-hearted power politics that Russia subscribes to. Blatant gaslighting. Ukraine is defending against an invasion. Russia has said it wants to go further and take what it can of Europe, states that the Baltics aren't countries and threatens us all with nukes on a daily basis. In Europe we defend ourselves by funding Ukraine. It is super simple; Russia attacks when it is strong enough and takes what it can. We tried living in peace, we believed in it. We basically got rid of our armies in Europe, since everybody knows how to live in peace. Except Russia. We will not make that mistake again.

mightyham 2mo ago
> everybody knows how to live in peace. Except Russia. Talk about an extraordinary case of recency bias. Cheap shot, I know, but I had to make it. Europe currently defends itself because that's all it CAN do. They abandoned their armies because the continent outsourced defense spending/industry to the United States and Russia following WWII.
- Eupolemos 2mo ago
  > They abandoned their armies because the continent outsourced defense spending/industry to the United States and Russia following WWII. We outsourced our defense spending to Russia? Are you incapable of embarrassment over your own level of ignorance?
  - mightyham 2mo ago
    Are you purposely being obtuse? Eastern Europe was a protectorate of the USSR for a large portion of the last century.
MYEUHD 2mo ago
> We basically got rid of our armies in Europe, since everybody knows how to live in peace. Wrong. The UK and France have several military bases in the middle east, thousands of kilometers away from home. The NATO invasion of Libya is an example of how Europeans "know how to live in peace"

jasonlotito 2mo ago

No. Russia invaded Ukraine. And while it wasn't a single whimsical choice, blaming NATA wrong. This was the mad dictator, and trying to cast blame on anyone else is the same as accepting the blame yourself.

ninkendo 2mo ago

So let me see if I understand your argument here. Ukraine wanted to join NATO because it sees Russia as a threat (I dunno, maybe because Russia had just invaded Crimea and "annexed" it). Russia's response is to invade Ukraine, slaughtering countless civilians, and has stated that it wants to take more territory around other former-soviet states. And your reaction, to a country exercising its sovereignty, and another country invading it as a result, is "yup, that's just politics for ya"? That countries have the right to invade other countries if they feel disadvantaged by their neighbor's decisions?

mightyham 2mo ago
No, you clearly don't understand my argument. Ukraine didn't just disadvantage their neighbor. In international affairs, red lines are a common tool for expressing acceptable bounds of negotiation. Russia made it very explicit that if Ukraine joined NATO there would be conflict. We live in the real world, and "sovereignty" is not real; nations are not unconstrained agents that can do whatever they please. They have to weigh the effects of their actions and be willing and capable of defending the consequences. This has been true for all of human history, has never changed, and likely never will. You simply deluded yourself into thinking otherwise. I will also add that in the modern world, peace has largely been maintained because the value of international commerce is much greater than the value derived from conflict. Economic integration is the best recipe for enduring tranquility. However, the US has pursued broad economic sanctions against Russia since the annexation of Crimea, all but ensuring that an invasion of Ukraine would be a profitable (or at least not harmful). In other words, the United States miscalculated, overplayed it's hand in pursuing a containment strategy against Russia and ultimately invited violence.
- ninkendo 2mo ago
  Please look up "victim blaming" and understand how it applies in this context. If Islamic terrorists say "if you depict Muhammad, we will attack you", and someone depicts Muhammad and are attacked, we don't say "wow, they really shouldn't have depicted Muhammad, this is their fault". We say "wow, those terrorists are awful." Russia's red lines were never acceptable in the first place, and their existence does not justify war crimes. > However, the US has pursued broad economic sanctions against Russia since the annexation of Crimea Oh those poor Russians, they can't even violently annex neighboring territory without getting sanctioned. I feel so bad for them. We should have just uttered "tsk, tsk" and kicked them out of the olympics. That'll teach 'em! No, the "economic tranquility" was the period after the Soviet Union fell and the entire western world was welcoming Russia in with open arms, and the economic integration was well under way. Until Putin came in and decided "no, I like things the way they were" and has been trying to bring back the USSR ever since. He doesn't want any economy he can't directly control by force. You think Putin wants economic integration? He wants his soviet union back. None of what you're talking about is "politics" unless you think Russia actually has a leg to stand on with any of this. They don't. They never have. They're the aggressor here and none of the "warnings" they gave justify any of this.

falsemyrmidon 2mo ago

This reads like some of that covert Russian election influence they're so fond of.

mightyham 2mo ago
Or just an American with an realist perspective on foreign affairs... I loathe the charge that if you have any nuance and think the war is not ENTIERLY Russia's fault, then you must be brainwashed by propaganda.

WarmWash 2mo ago

Bro watched a hot take youtube video and now is a geopolitical genius.

mightyham 2mo ago
Unfortunately, being smart is a natural talent ;)

cantalopes 2mo ago

Spoken like a true russian troll