Um.. the comment is ridiculously dismissive. While I do not support Russian invasion, from a purely strategic POV, Ukraine under western control is a national security issue for Russia. I am not sure how that is a controversial statement.
Your comment is ridiculously cynical and dehumanizing. It's disgusting to me how many people act like Ukrainian people have no agency by themselves and act like Russia was forced to do an invasion because they feel threatened by the west.
I disagree on several points. I do not think it is cynical at all. It is factual. It approaches reality for what it is and explains existing circumstances. Frankly, I do not think it is dehumanizing either. For better or worse, war and struggle is an integral part of human condition. If anything, what is happening makes average person realize what is real.
<< If not being able to set a government of a neighboring country and completely controlling it is a security issue for Russia then maybe they should be the ones to rethink their security policy.
Russia's leadership did and decided that since their personal figurehead was deposed in aftermath of Maidan eventually resulting in West-oriented leader, they might as well get directly involved. You may not like their decision, but they did exactly what you suggested.
<< That is a different ballpark than being under the control of west which implies that the west has somehow taken over Ukraine.
You are right. It is. Being under US umbrella ( or sphere of influence ) is, to me at least, better than being under Russia's. Prentending big powers don't 'influence' small players seems naive to me though. It is not being cynical. It is just recognizing pattern in human history of the past few thousand years.
West did not take Ukraine. Yet. In fact, part of the reason of the war is whose sphere of influence Ukraine will belong to.
<< It's disgusting to me how many people act like Ukrainian people have no agency by themselves and act like Russia was forced to do an invasion because they feel threatened by the west.
They absolutely do. However, right now that agency was limited to choosing who to align with. I am not sure what is disgusting about it. Can you elaborate? It is possible I am misunderstanding your argument.
Does the west threaten Russia's security? Do they have plans to invade Russia? Because that would be news to me.
It seems awfully defensive to me, especially coming from a country (Russia) that has been an aggressor for a long time, testing European defenses and readiness for a long time now. How often has the Russian air force intercepted European war planes?
Um.. I will respond in line with HN policy ( assume good faith ), but contingency plans do exist for various scenarios. Countries that do not have those are likely not going to be countries for long.
The west will mostly ally itself (as best it can) with champions of its values, whether they be Ukrainians, Russians, or any other ethnicity. This is the actual threat to the regime in Moscow.
Can you elaborate?
The beginnings of democracy in Ukraine demonstrates a roadmap for a potential Russian future. Democracy is a threat to the current regime in Moscow, but is not a threat to the Russian people.
I guess what I am saying is that you might be missing a forest for the trees. Democracy is a threat to Putin only in a sense that his control over Ukraine weakened with ouster of Yanukovych. He was fine with democracy as long as 'his' candidate won. Now, we can argue over whether Ukraine was a democracy, but I am not sure that is a good or even worthwhile argument to have.
It is. But this is a straw man. It’s always been. Ukraine hasn’t been seriously considered for NATO membership since 2008. Even its path to the EU was muddled at best.
Some effects of the war, e.g. Ukraine being flooded with Western weapons where it wasn’t before or Germany pivoting away from Russia, were unpredictable. But some, like the response in Finland and Sweden, or the Baltics’ remilitarisation, were.
Ukraine was and is falling under the control of the Ukrainians, and that remains the problem for Putin—not Russia.
Is your argument that Putin does not represent Russia? I am genuinely struggling a little with parsing this response. Can you elaborate a little?
Russia has been totally screwed by this invasion. Strategically, economically and geopolitically. Putin, however, has consolidated his personal power. He has also opened up east Ukraine's mineral resources to himself and his cronies.
So far as I can tell, Russia now controls some 40% of the worlds grain production which feeds much of Europe and North Africa, 70+% of neon production needed for semiconductors, the main source of nuclear material for French energy, the main source of fuel for German energy, and a great deal of raw materials and commodities besides, such as timber, palladium, etc.
They now also have avenues to trade in energy in means other than the dollar, something which was not possible before, and have experience against modern NATO weapons. They are, so far as I can tell, far from screwed.
Yes, to an extent. The harm to America was far less than what Russia's facing. And the benefits to Bush et al less than what Putin hopes to reap.
Bush could retire in peace. Putin can't. Risking his country's destruction for a few more years in power wouldn't make sense for an American President; it does for Putin.
As for Bush, Cheney, Obama, Pompeo et al.. I don't know if they can retire in peace exactly. US taxpayers fund their security detail; some more so than others if you read some recent reports, but the point remains.
I am willing to agree with you on that there is a difference of degree, but Iraq war did a lot of damage.. not to just US standing, but to US population's perception of how things are really done. The main difference is that some of that damage is not as... easily translated into viral imagery.
- Ukraine isn't under Western control
- Ukraine wasn't a security concern for Russia (didn't pursue NATO, was shunned by the west regarding military aid)
- Even if a country is a concern to another, it just isn't acceptable to go on a genocidal war and take all civilian casualties as collateral damage.
<< Even if a country is a concern to another, it just isn't acceptable to go on a genocidal war and take all civilian casualties as collateral damage.
Yes? And yet it is seems to be happening all the time. In a very practical sense, it is kinda hard to enforce the kind of protections needed not to offend certain sensibilities. There is a reason war is not something one should haphazardly go into. Don't get me wrong. I don't really want to discourage your moral outrage over how the world should be and how it apparently is.
You are saying it is not acceptable, but the world is on the verge of accepting it. It is only US pressure that might, and I am stressing might, change the outcome here.
Decided to edit after all:
<< Ukraine isn't under Western control
Qualified yes. What do you think this war is about? Freedom? Democracy? It is not a trick question. There are a lot of players, power centers and interested parties and they all have their agendas. For Poland, it is about having a buffer zone. For US, it is about who controls Ukraine. Up until recently it was controlled by Russia. That control slipped with ouster of Yanukovych ( and we can spend some time discussing to what extent western powers influenced that ouster ). I don't want to spend too much time on this though, because I am worried we do not share the same background when it comes to the region.
<< Ukraine wasn't a security concern for Russia (didn't pursue NATO, was shunned by the west regarding military aid)
Um.. citation and some dates may be needed to back up that claim. Still, for the sake of argument let us assume, none of the previous administrations did; not just US, but EU as well. Details are kind of messy.
Still, why would Ukraine be a security concern while their personal puppet was governing Ukraine? I am being serious here. It was the orange revolution and Georgia that changed the calculus. NATO membership became an issue after a west-looking leadership was elected.