4 ms·

Posted elsewhere, but there seems to be good discussion going on here: I hate to say it, but the US is clearly the provocateur here. There is no real reason th

Posted elsewhere, but there seems to be good discussion going on here: I hate to say it, but the US is clearly the provocateur here. There is no real reason that the US needs Ukraine, a state that has historically been part of Russia, in NATO. Having Ukraine in NATO does approximately jack shit to benefit a person like me, a regular peasant in the US. Imagine if the US lost the cold war and the USSR decided to invite Canada and Mexico into the Warsaw Pact - that's pretty much what is going on here. The propaganda machine is in full swing at this point, I think the rulers of the US are actively hoping for war. Why else would they be so provocative? If someone has an answer to this I'd love to hear it, but it really seems to me like this is just classic US empire building, disguised under a thick coat of media propaganda and misinformation. Would love to hear your thoughts, I'm no foreign policy expert.

alkonaut 5y ago
> the US is clearly the provocateur here In what sense exactly? What is the provocation? Remember - Ukraine isn’t offered a NATO membership. Also remember, in 2014 the same story unfolded but then the boogeyman was the EU.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
reducesuffering 5y ago
Ukraine's defense is about helping people who are being actively invaded by bigger foreign powers. Of course it doesn't directly benefit you. By your logic, donating to charity "does approximately jack shit to benefit a person like me." Also the US has done literally nothing to "provocate" anything. Euromaidan happened in 2014, Crimea was annexed, and Donbass separatists supported by Russia. Status quo is changing in favor of Ukraine being able to secure it's separatist territory again, so now it's time for Russia to further invade.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  See, I think this is just wrong. I think that we specifically shouldn't be getting involved in costly international conflicts to "help people". I think charity is pretty different, as there isn't a risk of a huge pushback when donating to charity. Whereas getting involved with this Ukraine situation could potentially result in a war. I don't think the US should be willing to go to war over this country that has historically been a part of Russia and is so far from our borders that it practically is geopolitically insignificant.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    This is the same isolationist indifference by the US and Chamberlain's UK precipitating WW2. No is better off when the world gives free rein for authoritarians to exploit other peoples. The US and NATO isn't going to war over Ukraine. They will slap Russia with harsher sanctions (still won't cut off gas though!), cut them from SWIFT financial transactions, at which point Russian banks will switch to Russian SPFS which China and Europe, reluctantly, will implement to keep gas flowing. Only thing that changed is the Ukrainian people keep becoming worse off.
    - uejfiweun 5y ago
      OK, that's fair. I am actually curious though about your take on the sanctions. Do you have any resources to recommend for reading up on this SWIFT system and the SPFS alternative? And does this imply that Europe and China will side with Russia against the US?
      - reducesuffering 5y ago
        Here's some good context from Alperovitch, Russian-American founder of CrowdStrike that now does international cybersecurity policy: https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1478353987480997897 https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1478353987480997897 The wiki for SWIFT is a good start, imagine SPFS as SWIFT just under Russian gov. control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecommunication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interban... It's not so much that Europe and China will "side" against the US, as they will not care enough about Russia's actions to deter them from trading with Russia. Europe will obviously care a lot more about Russia's aggression, but they are going through major energy price pains right now and they likely won't stomach further supply decreases by stopping gas trade with Russia.

alkonaut 5y ago

> the US is clearly the provocateur here In what sense exactly? What is the provocation? Remember - Ukraine isn’t offered a NATO membership. Also remember, in 2014 the same story unfolded but then the boogeyman was the EU.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

reducesuffering 5y ago

Ukraine's defense is about helping people who are being actively invaded by bigger foreign powers. Of course it doesn't directly benefit you. By your logic, donating to charity "does approximately jack shit to benefit a person like me." Also the US has done literally nothing to "provocate" anything. Euromaidan happened in 2014, Crimea was annexed, and Donbass separatists supported by Russia. Status quo is changing in favor of Ukraine being able to secure it's separatist territory again, so now it's time for Russia to further invade.

uejfiweun 5y ago
See, I think this is just wrong. I think that we specifically shouldn't be getting involved in costly international conflicts to "help people". I think charity is pretty different, as there isn't a risk of a huge pushback when donating to charity. Whereas getting involved with this Ukraine situation could potentially result in a war. I don't think the US should be willing to go to war over this country that has historically been a part of Russia and is so far from our borders that it practically is geopolitically insignificant.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  This is the same isolationist indifference by the US and Chamberlain's UK precipitating WW2. No is better off when the world gives free rein for authoritarians to exploit other peoples. The US and NATO isn't going to war over Ukraine. They will slap Russia with harsher sanctions (still won't cut off gas though!), cut them from SWIFT financial transactions, at which point Russian banks will switch to Russian SPFS which China and Europe, reluctantly, will implement to keep gas flowing. Only thing that changed is the Ukrainian people keep becoming worse off.
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    OK, that's fair. I am actually curious though about your take on the sanctions. Do you have any resources to recommend for reading up on this SWIFT system and the SPFS alternative? And does this imply that Europe and China will side with Russia against the US?
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      Here's some good context from Alperovitch, Russian-American founder of CrowdStrike that now does international cybersecurity policy: https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1478353987480997897 https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1478353987480997897 The wiki for SWIFT is a good start, imagine SPFS as SWIFT just under Russian gov. control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecommunication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interban... It's not so much that Europe and China will "side" against the US, as they will not care enough about Russia's actions to deter them from trading with Russia. Europe will obviously care a lot more about Russia's aggression, but they are going through major energy price pains right now and they likely won't stomach further supply decreases by stopping gas trade with Russia.