Anti-Putin != pro-war
pro-Ukraine != pro-war
Defending one's sovereign territory is not being pro-war. Only a bully would say that defending oneself from the bully is being aggressive.
pro-Ukraine != pro-war
Defending one's sovereign territory is not being pro-war. Only a bully would say that defending oneself from the bully is being aggressive.
Uh, they can't protect their own territory.
>Only a bully would say that defending oneself from the bully is being aggressive
This is a child-like representation of the conflict. Good and bad, bullies and those standing up to them. This didn't start in 2022, believe it or not.
Russia should not have invaded. But they did, it happened. Unless you or your children are ready to go over there and fight in the conflict, what do you think the outcome here should be? Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing?
I truly don't understand. This idea of "oh my gosh, one country invaded another" as if this hasn't been the entirety of the history of civilization is strange.
Promises were made. Why should they defend themselves on their own?
Given the track record of the US and Russia since getting nuclear weapons, yes?
Nukes might be pretty good at stopping someone invading your country but they're probably not a great help if you're the invader and you want to occupy the place you're invading. Especially if it's right next door
Who even knows if that's still the case though? If India goes after Kashmir so they genuinely think Pakistan would risk annihilation defending it if it was lost?
Russia could easily dispose of NATO as an ongoing problem by losing a war with the Baltics if the US then disregards Article 5 because "well it's just not worth risking nuclear war".
Appeasement doesn't work, but apparently we all forgot even the simplified history of WW2.
If you show the world that having been a good citizen in the rules based order isn't enough to avoid being invaded, but nukes are, the consequences are quite predictable: everyone who can afford to do so will start a nuclear program.
No, it really is that simple. Similar to WWII. There are good and bad guys here.
Judging by the track record so far, we can expect vague comments seething with resentment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...
It’s remarkable that instead of curiosity about your argument or the past history of Russia and Ukraine and NATO, the responses you’re getting immediately jump to “Putin koolaid”. It’s not surprising given that almost no one in America has even basic knowledge on this issue, like being aware of the 2014 coup.
But also if you go against HN political orthodoxy, prepare for downvotes. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter if you’re correct or spend the time to write out a really thoughtful comment. The downvotes and low value responses will still come. It’s probably not the right platform for debate outside its Overton window.
Snap elections might be a novel idea for Americans who are used to presidents always serving the full term, but they are fairly common in rest of the world. Germany held snap elections just last Sunday, after the government lost its majority in parliament.
I guess you could call that a "coup." I guess I could argue that war is peace, too. Both could be called propaganda.