3 ms·

It's the other way around. Russia is agitating because they can't support their regime with oil anymore. The US has no obligations in Ukraine but have working o

by tootie 5y ago

It's the other way around. Russia is agitating because they can't support their regime with oil anymore. The US has no obligations in Ukraine but have working overtime to prevent escalation.

wolverine876 5y ago
> The US has no obligations in Ukraine It depends on defining 'obligation'. The US doesn't have a treaty obligation to defend Ukraine but does have that obligation to NATO members, and a Russian attack on Ukraine threatens NATO members. Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity - all of which are not only essential in themselves, but essential to the peace and prosperity of Americans - and to the rules-based international order that provides those things. We don't want to return to the first half of the 20th century, with two major wars, but now with far more destructive power.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  Negotiations are one thing, but Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. Who gets to be a member of Nato is a delicate balance, and there’s a reason why countries like Finland and Sweden are not. Russia apparently wants a buffer between itself and Nato (there are some exceptions like Norway). Sending a lot of Nato troops to Ukraine would signal that Ukraine is a de facto Nato border. > Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. This raises many issues: 1) Sending military resources isn't the only response. 2) What is the vicinity? NATO territory nearby (which is happening)? Ukraine itself (which isn't happening)? 3) Finland and Sweden are not members because they choose not to be; afaik NATO would accept them. 4) You say NATO 'can't' send military to the vicinity (though they are) because Russia is closer (which is a clear military risk), but you imply that NATO being closer to Russia is a reasonable concern for the latter. There's also a difference between a revanchist, violent power which has already annexed parts of two countries and threatens many more (Russia), and one which hasn't annexed anything (NATO). >> Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity > To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule To find someone who makes replaces evidence and reason with mockery is not, unfortunately, uncommon these days. But regardless, that's all you've provided, which amounts to nothing. Do you have any evidence or reason, or even a clear assertion, or just mockery?

by tootie 5y ago

It's the other way around. Russia is agitating because they can't support their regime with oil anymore. The US has no obligations in Ukraine but have working overtime to prevent escalation.

wolverine876 5y ago

> The US has no obligations in Ukraine It depends on defining 'obligation'. The US doesn't have a treaty obligation to defend Ukraine but does have that obligation to NATO members, and a Russian attack on Ukraine threatens NATO members. Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity - all of which are not only essential in themselves, but essential to the peace and prosperity of Americans - and to the rules-based international order that provides those things. We don't want to return to the first half of the 20th century, with two major wars, but now with far more destructive power.

avgcorrection 5y ago
Negotiations are one thing, but Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. Who gets to be a member of Nato is a delicate balance, and there’s a reason why countries like Finland and Sweden are not. Russia apparently wants a buffer between itself and Nato (there are some exceptions like Norway). Sending a lot of Nato troops to Ukraine would signal that Ukraine is a de facto Nato border. > Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. This raises many issues: 1) Sending military resources isn't the only response. 2) What is the vicinity? NATO territory nearby (which is happening)? Ukraine itself (which isn't happening)? 3) Finland and Sweden are not members because they choose not to be; afaik NATO would accept them. 4) You say NATO 'can't' send military to the vicinity (though they are) because Russia is closer (which is a clear military risk), but you imply that NATO being closer to Russia is a reasonable concern for the latter. There's also a difference between a revanchist, violent power which has already annexed parts of two countries and threatens many more (Russia), and one which hasn't annexed anything (NATO). >> Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity > To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule To find someone who makes replaces evidence and reason with mockery is not, unfortunately, uncommon these days. But regardless, that's all you've provided, which amounts to nothing. Do you have any evidence or reason, or even a clear assertion, or just mockery?