4 ms·

I think this is naive and ignores the long-term big picture [1]. Russia is being surrounded by NATO weaponry and having their former sphere of influence slowly

I think this is naive and ignores the long-term big picture [1]. Russia is being surrounded by NATO weaponry and having their former sphere of influence slowly peeled away from them and it also disregards the general geographic problem that I mentioned before. Until the interests are aligned, all of this will continue. The geopolitical is the core of what's going on here and unification is the only way to stop it [1]. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

PakG1 5y ago
The US tried aligning with China with opening up trade and economic integration to the point where entire supply chains were linked up, WTO membership was granted, etc. It turned out that none of that mattered for aligning non-economic interests.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought those situations were the same and had the same solution.
enkid 5y ago
This treats the countries around Russia as lesser and pawns for the great powers to use instead of independent entities with their own interests and rights. No one invaded these countries and forced them to be part of NATO, but Russia certainly is invading them to force them not to be part of NATO. The idea that Russia, or any country, has a right to have a "sphere of influence" is completely immoral. Countries should have the right to determine their own path and the individuals inside those countries should have a right to determine their own government. Russia has actively prevented this with it's neighbors.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  No state has no power, so there are no "pawns" but it's very clear which states have significantly more power such that the less powerful states moves become virtually irrelevant to predicting outcomes based on the state of things. It's like big O notation when you zero out the constant factors. I'm only commenting on why what's happening is happening, not whether it "should" be happening or not. Why states act the way they do is something you can study independent of what you want them to be doing. I explained in my previous comments why Russia is behaving the way they are and if you want to start to get an actual handle on that, check out what Mearsheimer and Caspian Report are saying. I won't be typing out the entire history and argument here. > No one invaded these countries and forced them to be part of NATO However, this part isn't true in anything but a pedantic sense. The US spends billions on propaganda, intelligence operations, NGOs, sanctions, capital financing and many other means to sway opinion and eliminate opposition to force themselves on other states as the preferable options. Violence is not the only mode of coercion. Again, this isn't some kind of moral judgement: they all do it, but some are more successful than others. To ignore this is just as naive as the comment I was responding to.

PakG1 5y ago

The US tried aligning with China with opening up trade and economic integration to the point where entire supply chains were linked up, WTO membership was granted, etc. It turned out that none of that mattered for aligning non-economic interests.

guerrilla 5y ago
I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought those situations were the same and had the same solution.

enkid 5y ago

This treats the countries around Russia as lesser and pawns for the great powers to use instead of independent entities with their own interests and rights. No one invaded these countries and forced them to be part of NATO, but Russia certainly is invading them to force them not to be part of NATO. The idea that Russia, or any country, has a right to have a "sphere of influence" is completely immoral. Countries should have the right to determine their own path and the individuals inside those countries should have a right to determine their own government. Russia has actively prevented this with it's neighbors.

guerrilla 5y ago
No state has no power, so there are no "pawns" but it's very clear which states have significantly more power such that the less powerful states moves become virtually irrelevant to predicting outcomes based on the state of things. It's like big O notation when you zero out the constant factors. I'm only commenting on why what's happening is happening, not whether it "should" be happening or not. Why states act the way they do is something you can study independent of what you want them to be doing. I explained in my previous comments why Russia is behaving the way they are and if you want to start to get an actual handle on that, check out what Mearsheimer and Caspian Report are saying. I won't be typing out the entire history and argument here. > No one invaded these countries and forced them to be part of NATO However, this part isn't true in anything but a pedantic sense. The US spends billions on propaganda, intelligence operations, NGOs, sanctions, capital financing and many other means to sway opinion and eliminate opposition to force themselves on other states as the preferable options. Violence is not the only mode of coercion. Again, this isn't some kind of moral judgement: they all do it, but some are more successful than others. To ignore this is just as naive as the comment I was responding to.