I read this as why the economist and friends want russia to want war.
but maybe im just cynical and jaded?
but maybe im just cynical and jaded?
And the industrial-military complex will laugh all its way to the bank while stepping on the innocents corpses
Yet, the Russian propaganda machine continues to claim it's the West that wants war.
Can you explain how the West is the aggressor here?
You've still not explained how the West is the aggressor in the face of the continued overt Russian military aggression that we can all see.
Meanwhile, as discussed, Russia, Ukraine and EU have a lot to lose in a devastating and bitter war. At the same time Russia is obliged to keep stability and relative prosperity in the region for its citizens at home and Russian nationals abroad.
The best route for Russia is to defend the status quo as passively as possible while waiting for the Ukrainians to realize that for the "west" Ukraine's destruction is about as good as Russia's. And I think this route is feasible for Putin, so this will happen(not much).
That is obviously quite vague and unrevealing. A very elementary assertion that elides calls for verifiable facts.
Worse, Russia has rolled tanks in the region, annexed territory, and continues to fight a separatist war. The idea that they are somehow not the aggressor completely defies all reason and observable reality.
Likewise, the idea that they are somehow keeping stability and prosperity in the region through their overtly imperialistic military aggression in an otherwise peaceful context is directly contrary to the reality. Ukraine simply wishes to remain a free and sovereign democratic nation. If Russia were not invading and threatening them, there would be no conflict.
Three comments later, and you have still failed to explain how the West is the aggressor.
This is kind of weird given that NATO propaganda right now is justifying the absence of intervention—making the case that despite the illegality of current Russian action and the potential expanded invasion, Ukraine might get aid but essentially must be written off because the alternative is a World War—whereas it is Russian propaganda that is justifying war.
Like, of NATO wanted to send the kids from NATO countries to die to enrich the military-industrial complex, they really ought to get their propagandists to stop working against their own goal.
Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
And let's not forget Malaysia Airlines Flight 17:
Some Islamic terrorists use terror to try to form a Qoqaz caliphate on Russian territory, and Russia fighting this development within their own borders is "being an aggressor". Meanwhile the US flies to to the other side of the world to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which I suppose was a defensive action by its Department of Defense.
NATO is not just a self defence organisation. It's an offensive tool. NATO has gone into more offensive missions (at least 3) than truly defensive missions (literally zero - I don't count the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a defensive act).
For many members of NATO, the only existing military threat is within NATO itself (see: Turkey and some of its neighbors).
The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.
"How Russia Got So Big":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1R_ycU_fS4
My ancestry is Slavic. You're going to go have a hard time convincing me not to worry about Russia.
As a westerner, that does sound pretty great- especially in the face of hostility from a glorified KGB thug like Putin.
If you neighbor wants to invade you and has done that already at least one in the past decade you might want a stronger ally than nobody. That is up to the country to decide. Though the cold war has shown that neither party wins in a climate of fear.
The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.
No, he didn't.
And even if he did promise the USSR that, I don't see a signed international agreement. Any such personal assurance with no formal agreement could not reasonably be viewed by anyone as anything more than a statement of policy of the then-current administration, not an open-ended binding commitment. I do see a signed treaty, signed much later, committing Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, that was in force when it invaded and occupied much of Ukraine.
Russia may not like it (and I'd imagine I wouldn't were I in the same position) but invading countries because of their own sovereign decisions is unlikely to be successful in the long-term.
https://en.topwar.ru/44990-zachem-vms-ssha-sobiralis-remonti...
The link to the official government page is dead now. But I have seen the original with my own eyes back a few years ago. And even saved it as a PDF, but can’t find it now.
By which I mean, historical presence in an area tells us little about the legitimacy of current day activities.
And even then, Crimea was a terrible thing, but it made strategic sense (the russian fleet base is there). I don't see any real strategic benefit for Russia with invading the rest of Ukraine.
The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood.
The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.
Are you from Ireland? Because I am, and this is an absolutely ludicrous reading of the situation.
The British and Irish governments partitioned Ireland, for a bunch of reasons 100 years ago. If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are (which is fine, even if I personally would prefer the island of Ireland to be one nation again).
> The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.
The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998, to ratify the Good Friday agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Northern_Ireland_Good_Fri...
While I'm sure that tensions run high in the Russian/Central/Eastern Europe part of the world with respect to Ukraine, dragging in inflammatory propaganda from other parts of the world (that you clearly know very little about) is incredibly unhelpful, and quite frankly rather offensive to people who have to live with it.
But, I also mentioned India in my comment. By your OP, it appears legitimate for the British to invade India right now. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why or why not?
If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia. Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.
> The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998
The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.
> I also mentioned India
Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military, which is not the case.
So, I presume you're talking about this referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
In general, I tend not to respect referendums that are preceded by invasion of military forces (who I believe were not Russian, according to the Russian government of the time?). But yes, you are correct, the people of Crimea did vote for this.
However, this is massively, massively different from both the original Treaty between the UK and Ireland in 1920, as all UK troops had withdrawn before this occurred. Additionally, the 1998 referendums took place in an environment where most of the violence had stopped for a number of years, which is definitely not the case in Ukraine.
> Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.
So, you'd be fine if the Russians wiped out the native language of the Ukrainian people, cut down their forests and watched as multiple millions of them died? Clearly you wouldn't be (I hope) and only someone with absolutely no context on Irish/UK history would make such a ludicrous claim. Additionally, it was the United Kingdom that this did, not England (which only exists as a nation in sports).
> The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.
I feel like you may have mistaken the 1916 proclamation of independence with the 1998 referendum, which I think speaks to your lack of understanding of the issues (and I cheerfully admit that I know very little about the history of Russia/Crimea/Ukraine). From a Republic of Ireland point of view, the 1998 referendum was actually about giving up a territorial claim on the six counties of Northern ireland, which is very different from what happened in Crimea.
> Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military,
I just cant even, with this statement. Like, every weekend when I was growing up, there were violent deaths in the North of ireland (and Britain) on behalf of terrorists/freedom fighters (delete as appropriate). There was definitely a bunch of terrible things done during this period, but the vast majority was driven by people living on the island of Ireland, not the British government. The British government didn't make it any better, but they didn't mass 130k troops around the North at any point.
> I also mentioned India
I'm going to assume that you have no answer to my question then.
On that note, I'll bow out of this conversation as I'm not sure it's productive for either of us. Hope you have a great morning/afternoon/evening.
Mongolia would like to have a word.
No, it hasn't.
From the creation of Soviet Ukraine in 1919 through 2014, Russia neither controlled nor pretended to control Crimea (except for a 9 year period from 1945-1954), which it acknowledged was its own entity (prior to 1945) or part of Ukraine (after 1954).
(People sometimes equate the USSR, which essentially replaced the Russian Empire with “Russia”, but the modern Russian Federation is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR, just as Ukraine is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.)
The 9 year period it was part of the Russian Federation ended closer to 70 years ago, but I’ve updated the GP to reflect it.
Still, nested within the Russian Federation as an administrative entity. (Also, autonomy throughout the USSR was more or less a formality anyway.)
> The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic[a] was an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic *of the Russian SFSR* (1921–45) and the Ukrainian SSR (1991–92) located on the Crimean Peninsula. The political unit was succeeded by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
[0]
> On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.
> Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:
> To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.
Regarding "...is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR":
> The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, as successor states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the Treaty, shall assume the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty
[1]
Does USA position on this matters?
Especially considering Russia is still repaying USSR's foreign debt.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Decree
[1] https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf
Ok, I have no "pro-Russia" bent at all, I think they are to blame in this whole story as their concerns could've been addressed by diplomacy like most European leaders have been trying to say... but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine and how it might think war is a justifiable way to stop that from happening? And if that's the case, how it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been (with Krimea and Eastern Ukraine in a war situation for several years)?
It's hard to do so, but try to imagine yourself being a decision maker on the Russian side. Seeing an extremely important, historically aligned neighbour that has a very large, geographically un-obstructed border with you, and who can block your access to extremely important maritime routes, trying to join a military alliance who sees you as one of their main enemies.
While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable and I can totally see how NATO nations should do everything it can to avoid this war, they have nothing to lose, while Russia has a lot at stake... sometimes, it's a wise move to back off your expansion to avoid loss of life and making the situation much, much worse (imagine a world with Russian-occupied Ukraine for years to come)... when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge).
I highly recommend the Caspian Report channel on YT and its series on this conflict to understand the motivations on each side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNIU6TRsRzk
You: > but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine
Why would Ukraine want to align with NATO instead of the country that just invaded it?
> While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable
Why?
> it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been
Sounds like appeasement to me
> when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge).
The why go to war over something symbolic?
Your quotes of me are disingenuous.
OP asked why NATO shouldn't expand. I answered that doing so will surely trigger a war, as Russia made clear already.
> Why would Ukraine want to align with NATO instead of the country that just invaded it?
I suppose you mean "wouldn't", and I would agree that they want to align with NATO as the current government is very anti-Russia (notice that Ukraine goes back and forth on this, it's not always the way it is now). But what a country wants is not always what they can do. I am sure Georgia would love to join NATO too and make sure Russia never invades it again... but is NATO willing to go to war with Russia over Georgia? Or over Ukraine? The answer is no. NATO already said so: they will not support Ukraine militarily if Russia invades.
So the real question is whether it's worth letting Russia invade Ukraine simply because NATO cannot meet the Russian demands to say Ukraine will not join NATO.
> The why go to war over something symbolic?
You must've misread something... NATO meeting the Russian demands would be symbolic in my understanding (again, because NATO didn't have concrete plans to let Ukraine join it... Russia just wants NATO to make that official - a mostly symbolic act). But NATO not meeting this demand will cause a war for sure, which has nothing symbolic about it. Children will die (have you seen the faces of the soldiers on the front line, FFS they are children, 18 yos).
They are not going to war. They just expand their presence on the borders to make a point. If NATO feels menace with those deployments, they are expected to understand that Russia feels the same. If NATO is not making commitment on paper not to expand and to scale down their current presence, Russia will not make commitments to stop those annual military exercises they have been doing for years.
Best of luck. We'll probably all need it.
Maybe US corporate media, owned and controlled by 1% heirs, has a particularly imperial bent, wanting to expand the American empire even farther, in this case US tanks and missiles alongside Ukraine's long border with Russia (which incidentally is filled with Russian speaking ethnic Russians who do not want this). US media is also filled with beneficiaries and think-tankers from the military industrial complex president Eisenhower talked about. The interferers in European affairs George Washington warned about. Anne Applebaum, quoted in this thread, is an un-American, anti-American who wants confrontation with Russia for whatever psychological or political reasons. With the average inflation-adjusted US hourly wage below what it was a half century ago (even before Covid), with a country racked with Covid, the US should not get dragged into a military adventure on Russia's border. Let the Europeans deal with the diplomatic niceties, the US should stay out.
Doesn’t seem odd to me at all. The media has lost credibility and our government is morally bankrupt.
Many Americans on HN who have never visited either country have a weirdly pro-Russian bend.
Any amount of reckoning (fact checks?) for these past incidents (dangerous misinformation?) would go a long way.
So who's still agitating for war?
The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.
That blockade of course was an agressive act against Cuba, and it was the correct course of action IMO because a rule that says that no country will be agressive towards any other country is unworkable because there is no power above the countries that could enforce the rule. (The UN is toothless.) If a country's leaders adhere to an unenforceable rule and insist on other countries doing the same, that will on average lead to more death and less prosperity for the world than if each country's leaders rationally pursues their country's interests IMO.
Some courses of action at the country level are more ethical than others, but it is more complicated than you imply it is and any ethical framework has to take into account certain realities.
We did try to assassinate Castro several times, so not exactly.
> That blockade of course was an aggressive act against Cuba, and it was the correct course of action IMO because a rule that says that no country will be aggressive towards any other country is unworkable because there is no power above the countries that could enforce the rule.
Practically speaking yes, but there are enough treaties in place at this point that if someone invades someone else they are at least breaking some of their own rules. Think of it like a credit system for countries, the more you break rules you laid down for yourself, the less credibility you have going forward. Decentralized global governance of sorts.
> Some courses of action at the country level are more ethical than others, but it is more complicated than you imply it is and any ethical framework has to take into account certain realities.
I didn't intend to imply it wasn't complicated when you zoom out, but it is very un-complicated when you zoom in. The guy who throws the first punch is the aggressor. Sling words, make agreements, talk a big game, but the first one to violate the sovereignty of another government is indeed the aggressor.
Historically, this has never been true. Countless wars were started when the balance of power was threatened, even by such a small thing as marriage (can’t they marry “who they wish”?)
There's some set of [reason] the 'west' wants Ukraine to join NATO, and in theory, there's no issue with that right?.... but in reality, the consequences could be severe. It's silly to ignore the consequences when you've been informed upfront.
Most people wouldn't have any idea that it has anything to do with NATO, since the media is doing a wonderful job of misinforming. It's being pitched as 100% unprovoked aggression.
Oh wow, that's what I call thinking about the world as you wish the world were, rather than as the world actually is.
At the height of Soviet power, the USA were willing to fight enormous wars on the other side of the planet to stop a country voluntarily aligning with the USSR (dropping more bombs on it than all of WWII countries did combined, killing millions). They helped coups in countless countries and helped even genocidal regimes with the sole purpose of stopping USSR expansion, even when doing so was actually economically detrimental to themselves.
And the USA is far from alone in meddling with other countries' affairs. China, Russia, obviously, even not-so-big powers like Australia (ask New Guinea) and the UK (who loved doing that all over the world when it had the power to do so) will absolutely engage in whatever they can to make sure their interests are not compromised or even threatened.
The current actions are great marketing for NATO and for increased defense spending in Europe. For some time there was hope that Europe would be heading towards a peaceful time and it was harder to justify increases military expenses. This will change all that for a long time.
Russia is going to go to war with Ukraine if Ukraine does things Russia doesn't want them to do. And they told everyone they would ...
How is that not agitating for war?
>Russia made it very clear, that ain't happening and they'll go to war over it.
Which one is it?
>The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.
The massive troop build up along Ukraine's border and in Belarus?
You're spreading Russian propaganda.
You: I want do to X.
B: If you do X, I will do Y.
You can try to convince B not to do Y if you do X...
but if B is prepared to do Y, and is showing you he's prepared to do Y...
and you can't convince him not to...
then you have to consider, that if you continue trying to do X, that You are the one agitating.
"Keep me from taking your purse" and "shoot you" we condemn B as a mugger.
"Leave me and meet someone new" and "shoot both of you" and we condemn B as a domestic abuser and potential murderer.
"Return a library book late" and "charge you $0.10 a day as a fine" and we condemn A lightly.
I would contend Russia's current actions fall squarely in the first two examples.
A: I want to take your purse.
B: If you take my purse, I will kill you.
If A continues to try and take the purse, A is obviously the agitator.
A: I want to leave you.
B: If you leave, I will kill you.
We agree B is a monster here, and this is a police matter, not global politics.
Maybe we can create a better example...
A: Hey B I want to nail your cousin.
B: I will not allow that to happen. Bro I will ruin your world. Literally, armageddon. Don't do it.
If A continues trying to nail the cousin, clearly the agitator.. no?
And I like how the only example you can think of where the word "agitator" flows well is when someone is trying to stop two consenting adults from having sex. Because clearly the person B on your last example is an asshole who is wrong, and you're using "agitator" to just mean "willing to ignore overt threats"
I think your own weak example highlights how you know you're wrong on this issue.
B isn't trying to take something from A. A is trying to woo (something near B) and B is promising consequences.
It no longer has anything to do about who is right, or what is right... that black and white right and wrong are no longer relevant.
If B is willing to back up the claims, A has to seriously consider their choices.
It's pretty close to the same in my example with the cousin... It doesn't matter if B is an asshole or is wrong, what does that have to do with anything?
The funny thing is, I don't think I'm even taking a position on the actual argument... I just think there's so much narrative control that many aren't even capable of considering alternative explanations.
Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum where they committed to respect Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal.
While it seems to be fashionable to make excuses for a murderous dictator like Putin, Putin’s intentions are clear and include at the very least regime change in Ukraine to install a puppet regime.
If you call massing hundreds of thousands of troops at two borders, invading two parts of a country and staging massive war games at another puppet state nearby ‘zero evidence’, your denial of reality is chamberlainesque. I hope you accept you were deeply wrong about this if Russia does invade again.
The insane media drum beats are exactly like before Afghanistan and Iraq. It is so depressing how absolutely nothing has changed.
Do you still feel this way?
Putin. Putin is agitating for war.