8 ms·

[Before downvoting, please consider whether you prefer debate or an echo chamber] Let us please not be so passive aggressive and dismissive. Serious diplomats

• the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
  The situation is not that complicated. Ukraine is an independent country and can decide what alliances to join or not. It’s not Russia’s business and it surely does not give it the permission to invade it. Anything else is highly irrelevant. Russia is a repressive dictatorship and has a combination of a brainwashed and scared population. We don’t need unnecessary nuance there.
  • propagandist 5y ago
    Great to know. Thank you for sanitizing this discussion and shutting out trolls and apologists (like myself). I'm sure that if Cuba or Venezuela entered a pact with Moscow that placed ICBMs on their territory, we would respect their sovereignty the same way. There are a few things I'd like to respond to below but the rate-limit hammer has dropped. What I will ask is that we refrain from calling the brave people who stood against the grain apologists or naive. They warned of the dangers decades ago. We owe them better than that; they were prescient.
    • torstenvl 5y ago
      I have been following this closely and I have not seen anything in news reports or other OSINT that show U.S. ICBMs in Ukraine. Can you provide a source to support your comparison?
      • propagandist 5y ago
        I did not claim that was the case. It was a hypothetical to point out that sovereignty is wielded in an argument when it's convenient. We don't care about sovereignty when we're violating it.
        • lalaland1125 5y ago
          I don't know about you, but I think most Americans are opposed to invading Cuba or Venezuela (especially without any immediate ICBM threat). You are trying to imply a hypocrisy that simply isn't there.
        • torstenvl 5y ago
          So are you now saying "a pact with Moscow that placed ICBMs" on the U.S. border is an inapt comparison? The distinction isn't meaningless. You can't reach the conclusion that "we don't care about sovereignty" if we only violate it in the face of perceived imminent threats.
    • the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
      You do realize that the issue in both cases is Russia right? Russia is not a democracy. If an insane dictator puts up nukes near you it’s a very different situation. Not at all the same thing.
      • pySSK 5y ago
        Hate Putin and what he's doing in Ukraine right now, but, - How is Ukraine joining NATO different from Cuba or Mexico joining a military alliance with Russia? - Dictatorship argument is moot since US actively supports many evil dictator and provides them with financial and military support. - Any country is right to be scared of the US as it has invaded/destabilized many countries in the last two decades including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya.
        • dragonwriter 5y ago
          > How is Ukraine joining NATO different from Cuba or Mexico joining a military alliance with Russia? Well, it's different than Cuba doing that in that it never actually happened.
        • jacquesm 5y ago
          Cuba has had a military alliance with Russia / USSR for decades. Mexico has entirely different problems. Neither of these countries got invaded or had their regime changed by the USA. But I fail to see what this has to do with the Ukraine and the Russian invasion there, which is not theoretical.
          • dragonwriter 5y ago
            > Neither of these countries got invaded or had their regime changed by the USA. Cuba did, in fact, get invaded by the US. But not like Russia is doing to Ukraine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
            • jacquesm 5y ago
    • emptyfile 5y ago
    • nebukhadnezar 5y ago
      It baffles me how some people can completely disregard the Russian aggressive foreign policy. Like in their argument they completely ignore it. But then when push comes to shove and we are shown clear evidence, the only arguments they can find to justify real aggression against a sovereign state is whataboutism.
  • tut-urut-utut 5y ago
    > The situation is not that complicated. Ukraine is an independent country and can decide what alliances to join or not. It’s not Russia’s business and it surely does not give it the permission to invade it. It's funny how many people here constantly repeat that it's a crime to attach and split an independent country, but I could not hear such voices anywhere in any western country when NATO bombed civilian targets in Serbia for months to support Kosovo independence. As a remainder, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Mali, Yemen ... all independent countries attacked by NATO and its allies. Sorry if I added a few extra or missed a few, the number is just too big to remember correctly, since the number of independent countries worldwide attacked by NATO and its allies is bigger than list of countries attacked by Nazi Germany in WW2.
    • bluGill 5y ago
      The sins of NATO (some might debate them, but for discussion inline accept all you raised) do not excuse anyone else's sins.
      • tut-urut-utut 5y ago
        That's true. Behaviour of one side doesn't excuse anyone else's sins, but it also doesn't give a moral right to criticize the others for the same thing they did and are still doing themselves. It's a hypocrisy all the way down, on both sides.
        • moate 5y ago
          I have never once voted on a NATO action, despite living in a NATO country. I have never once fought a NATO war, despite living in a NATO country. There is no NATO blood on my hands, can I condemn Russian action without you scolding me with "whataboutism"?
          • aszen 5y ago
            You may not have voted but did u condemn those actions just like as you are doing now or were u silent because the people killed were not White European people
  • env123 5y ago
    This is ignorance at it's best. There were antiprotesters in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The nuance here is if the US could invade other faraway sovereign countries, why Russia couldn't against a neighbour, over what it sees as security concern? US is a misinformed bipartisan country and has a combination of brainwashed and scared population
    • drran 5y ago
      This is ignorance at it's best. The nuance here is if the US could nuke other faraway sovereign countries, why Ukraine couldn't against a neighbour, over what it sees as security concern?
  • danielrpa 5y ago
    You have your heart in the right place regarding Ukraine's "rights", however it's a shallow analysis of the historical complexities of this situation. In a free country (pick your favorite), there is a system in place, hopefully mutually agreed by its citizens, and its rules are enforced by a government. In the world sphere, there is no de facto government. The UN is an attempt to create some sort of world governance, but as we know it's quite imperfect and it doesn't have the stick (i.e., the equivalent of a police force) to enforce its resolutions. Thus, the world works in a fragile equilibrium of military and economic power, with multiple countries forging alliances and pacts to try to put in place some form of civility. So, while Ukraine "can decide" what alliances to join, there is nobody to ensure that it "can decide". Ukraine was relying on the West/US/Nato to get some say in its future, but we are seeing how that's unfolding. Ukraine unfortunately has to "earn" this right by forging alliances or building a stick big enough to ensure that others respect it. Ukraine doesn't have a stick (it gave it up after the fall of the Soviet Union) but Russia does. Thus, Russia gets away with enforcing its own view of the world. Unless other countries use their own sticks to enforce their point of view about what should happen with Ukraine, Russia will simply get away with it. "Rights" have very little to do with will happen. I cannot think of a time in human history when things didn't work like this.
    • the_mitsuhiko 5y ago
      You don't need to analyzer a situation to see that Russia is just wrong about this. More importantly Russia is a dysfunctional country where you cannot even make the point that anything is remotely "mutually agreed by its citizens". Historic context is not relevant to the discussion about an invasion. Quite frankly your comment adds nothing of value.
      • danielrpa 5y ago
        I'm sorry it didn't add anything to you, and your statement "Historic context is not relevant to the discussion about an invasion" suggests that we might not have much to gain from each other as our points of view are too far apart. Nonetheless, I'll try again to not leave you empty handed... What I'm saying is that "right" and "wrong" have little to do with the situation. I suggest you read Wikipedia on Realpolitik: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
• EGreg 5y ago
  It reaches far beyond that. Whether we have a dictatorship or a democracy, there is an apparatus that IGNORES the legitimate concerns of others, and for whom it is a net positive for their country to impose its will on others through violence. Eisenhower gave it a name in the US: the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex. And we can add the mainstream Media to that as well. To put it in perspective, what Russia was doing supporting the Donbass separatists against the Ukrainian government is what the US has been doing in Syria… What is currently being done by Russia is analogous to the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO forces despite UN opposition, combined with a recognition of Kosovo’s independence, something that shocked Russians at the time… If Russia continues with a full scale invasion, occupation and regime change in Ukraine, that would be analogous to what USA did in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last few years. So the US has done it all, and other things too: propped up friendly rulers against rebels in Yemen, leading huge humanitarian crises trained guerillas against the government in Nicaragua and elsewhere trained dictators like Manuel Norriega in the School of the Americas installing friendly regimes around the world carved off and annexed large parts of Mexico in the Spanish American war Russia at least does it in its own back yard and to protect its interests. USA goes all around the world and for some reason sees fit to be a “world police”. But both are incredibly imperialistic. And of course, Russia’s freedom of speech internally is far worse than in USA. But when USA does it, it never gets any sanctions. So there is no threat of escalation to nuclear mutually assured destruction. When Russia does it, the same actions are criticized badly by the world, but everyone is afraid to escalate further because of the nuclear consequences.
  • propagandist 5y ago
    And the same frequencies that were dominant in 2003 are now shutting out the other voices. The Bill Kristols and David Frums are going to awaken from their hibernation. It's pointless to argue really--there's 0 hope that we'll do anything differently. To be clear, there are limited options now wrt to Ukraine. Nobody wants to go to war with Russia. But being hardline and not pragmatic means we'll set ourselves up for similar issues in the next few years and decades. We strung Ukraine along knowing we wouldn't come to their six when it counted. Honesty has to be the preferable approach.
• hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  Of course. First, we should not underestimate a terrible financial situation, and a feeling of injustice after losing the war and being forced to pay enormous retributions that were draining the economy. So it was natural than a new strong leader was needed that would unite the nation against a common enemy and finally launch a military operation.
• DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  not gonna downvote but ... the moment somebody attacks Europe with missiles diplomacy is over. I think we should call out all the Putin apologists in our own ranks and make sure they recuse themselves. Next we need to hit them where it hurts. Not with "a strongly worded letter" or "a frown" as we usually do in the EU but right in their money. Let's make it impossible for Russians to visit their money in Cyprus, Malta or London. Make it impossible for Russian oligarchs to strut around European capitals flashing their dirty money, anchor their yachts in the Mediterranean, or spend winters in the Swiss Alps. Also anyone calling for diplomacy, while Russia is bombing civilian infrastructure in Europe, should have their ass handed to them and be called out for what they are: at best useful idiots, at worst propagandists. This includes whataboutist statements like: > a la the 2003 WMD hysteria What we see right now is exactly the opposite. It's the effect of that fallout when we listened to the IC too much and realized the damage it caused to our credibility & foreign affairs. What we _actually_ have now is the effect of what happens when we ignore the warnings of the IC for a whole year, a bit like the late 98/99 when we should have known that 9/11 was coming. None of this is a surprise for anyone who has half-assedly been following Russian politics in the past 2 years, the murdering of journalists, the disappearance of an opposition media, the attempted murder and imprisonment of Navalny, the assassination attempts on people in UK and Europe. In fact if you're Russian and not waiving an UA flag and a sign opposing these actions outside a RU embassy right now you should also be considered sus.