4 ms·

So killing a fuck ton of people is okay as long as you not going to grab some land (but take some oil or any other resource), right?

by konart 6y ago

ashtonkem 6y ago
Ethically, no. But at the nation state level, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that countries care much more about protecting territory than people, especially people in far away places. That’s both the story of colonialism, and the story of countries standing by and doing nothing during various genocides in the 19th and 20th century. So yes, I would absolutely expect countries to respond differently to the invasion of Ukraine than Iraq. Same as how countries have reacted quite differently to Russia’s behavior in Ukraine than in Syria.
- konart 6y ago
  >invasion of Ukraine than Iraq. >behavior in Ukraine than in Syria. See, the thing is - Iraq and Ukraine were `invaded`. So you can actually compare the response from the other countries. Syria is a very different story as Russia was invited there. So it is obvious why the reaction to Russian presence there is different. Yet when the US 'enters' the scene - everything is different. In both cases. And this is something people over here in Russia can't really understand. Why the hell bombing the hell out of Iraq was okay, but cutting off a small region in a relatively calm manner in Ukraine is not.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Because Russia took a part of Ukraine, or at least is trying to. It freaks out Europeans to see another country in the region invading neighbors and claiming territory. It’s the same basic reason why the Brits responded very poorly when the Germans invaded Belgium; everyone in the region starts worrying if they’re next. For all the flaws of the US invasion of Iraq, the US didn’t claim Iraq as US territory. Yes, we’ve maintained a military presence there, but that isn’t the same as putting up a US flag over the country and saying “this is ours now”.
    - konart 6y ago
      Okay, so let's be clear. It's okay to invade a country as long as: 1. You do not claim its territory or its part as your own (but you can maintain a military presence there if you feel so) 2. You do claim its territory or its part as your own but only if kind people of the first world are bit too close to the territory in question This begs for a simple question: will the US and EU lift their sanctions if Russia gives Crimea (and to Donbas regions) back while 'maintaining a military presence' there?
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        You keep saying “it’s okay if” as if you’re trying to catch me in a moral trap. This is annoying; I’ve made it very clear that the invasions discussed here are ethically wrong. The equivalent of what Russia is doing in Ukraine would be if America annexed part of Mexico (again). It’s hard to imagine anything short of “we are giving the land back and pulling out” would calm nerves over a suddenly expansionist US. I imagine Canada in such a situation would be extremely jumpy for a long time, given their relative proximity, and “we gave it back but it’s still garrisoned by us” probably wouldn’t be good enough for them. For actual equivalence, I think it would be much more fair to say that Russia can maintain a military presence in Syria, as that seems much more morally and geopolitically equivalent to what the US is doing in Saudi Arabia, and that denouncing Russian bases in Syria would be pretty hypocritical given what the US is also doing in the region. Although both countries should probably just stop what they’re doing in the region all together.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Well, officially they didn't just take it, they "guaranteed the local population's freedom", who then "chose" to "join the Russian federation". It's a joke, of course, but I don't think it's really that different from what e.g. Turkey (with the US' blessing) does in Syria, Israel does in Palestine etc. I don't think either of them are really about territorial expansion as much as they are about security concerns. Russia is -quite understandable- not too trusting with regards to promises of peace, so they won't let a very high-value strategic location like Crimea (which hosts their black sea fleet) fall under NATO control, and they want a buffer in a kind of DMZ between themselves and NATO, which they had in Ukraine before Ukraine's strong man fell out of favor and the pro-Western movement gained power. If they were after territorial expansion at any prices, they'd probably just pocket the Asian Ex-Soviet republics. Much larger gains including resources, not in Europe, ergo NATO does care much less. Similarly, China's posture in the South China Sea can be explained in the same way. Building artificial fortified islands isn't an aggressive stance, it's defensive. They remember very well that the British did to them and they understand that the US isn't a friendly power and has every reason to want to limit China's power, as they massively profit from being the world's only global super power.

So killing a fuck ton of people is okay as long as you not going to grab some land (but take some oil or any other resource), right?

by konart 6y ago

So killing a fuck ton of people is okay as long as you not going to grab some land (but take some oil or any other resource), right?

ashtonkem 6y ago

Ethically, no. But at the nation state level, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that countries care much more about protecting territory than people, especially people in far away places. That’s both the story of colonialism, and the story of countries standing by and doing nothing during various genocides in the 19th and 20th century. So yes, I would absolutely expect countries to respond differently to the invasion of Ukraine than Iraq. Same as how countries have reacted quite differently to Russia’s behavior in Ukraine than in Syria.

konart 6y ago
>invasion of Ukraine than Iraq. >behavior in Ukraine than in Syria. See, the thing is - Iraq and Ukraine were `invaded`. So you can actually compare the response from the other countries. Syria is a very different story as Russia was invited there. So it is obvious why the reaction to Russian presence there is different. Yet when the US 'enters' the scene - everything is different. In both cases. And this is something people over here in Russia can't really understand. Why the hell bombing the hell out of Iraq was okay, but cutting off a small region in a relatively calm manner in Ukraine is not.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Because Russia took a part of Ukraine, or at least is trying to. It freaks out Europeans to see another country in the region invading neighbors and claiming territory. It’s the same basic reason why the Brits responded very poorly when the Germans invaded Belgium; everyone in the region starts worrying if they’re next. For all the flaws of the US invasion of Iraq, the US didn’t claim Iraq as US territory. Yes, we’ve maintained a military presence there, but that isn’t the same as putting up a US flag over the country and saying “this is ours now”.
  - konart 6y ago
    Okay, so let's be clear. It's okay to invade a country as long as: 1. You do not claim its territory or its part as your own (but you can maintain a military presence there if you feel so) 2. You do claim its territory or its part as your own but only if kind people of the first world are bit too close to the territory in question This begs for a simple question: will the US and EU lift their sanctions if Russia gives Crimea (and to Donbas regions) back while 'maintaining a military presence' there?
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      You keep saying “it’s okay if” as if you’re trying to catch me in a moral trap. This is annoying; I’ve made it very clear that the invasions discussed here are ethically wrong. The equivalent of what Russia is doing in Ukraine would be if America annexed part of Mexico (again). It’s hard to imagine anything short of “we are giving the land back and pulling out” would calm nerves over a suddenly expansionist US. I imagine Canada in such a situation would be extremely jumpy for a long time, given their relative proximity, and “we gave it back but it’s still garrisoned by us” probably wouldn’t be good enough for them. For actual equivalence, I think it would be much more fair to say that Russia can maintain a military presence in Syria, as that seems much more morally and geopolitically equivalent to what the US is doing in Saudi Arabia, and that denouncing Russian bases in Syria would be pretty hypocritical given what the US is also doing in the region. Although both countries should probably just stop what they’re doing in the region all together.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Well, officially they didn't just take it, they "guaranteed the local population's freedom", who then "chose" to "join the Russian federation". It's a joke, of course, but I don't think it's really that different from what e.g. Turkey (with the US' blessing) does in Syria, Israel does in Palestine etc. I don't think either of them are really about territorial expansion as much as they are about security concerns. Russia is -quite understandable- not too trusting with regards to promises of peace, so they won't let a very high-value strategic location like Crimea (which hosts their black sea fleet) fall under NATO control, and they want a buffer in a kind of DMZ between themselves and NATO, which they had in Ukraine before Ukraine's strong man fell out of favor and the pro-Western movement gained power. If they were after territorial expansion at any prices, they'd probably just pocket the Asian Ex-Soviet republics. Much larger gains including resources, not in Europe, ergo NATO does care much less. Similarly, China's posture in the South China Sea can be explained in the same way. Building artificial fortified islands isn't an aggressive stance, it's defensive. They remember very well that the British did to them and they understand that the US isn't a friendly power and has every reason to want to limit China's power, as they massively profit from being the world's only global super power.