9 ms·

I don't think the parent wanted to justify the invasion or blame it completely on the US. I myself despise the invasion, but the responsibility that the US bear

by ailef 5y ago

I don't think the parent wanted to justify the invasion or blame it completely on the US. I myself despise the invasion, but the responsibility that the US bears on this conflict cannot be underestimated, and it is totally absent (or at least severely under-reported) from Western sources.

jolux 5y ago
What responsibility is that? Should the US have vetoed the NATO membership of all the Warsaw Pact countries that wanted to join?
- dirtyid 5y ago
  That was not an unpopular position at the time, with predictable backlash now made manifest. Also on topic US should also not have made NATO an offensive alliance with Kosovo... a "humanitarian" invasion outside UN security council authorization. Or set precedence of unilateral secession to balkanize countries for US interests, which RU rationalized for Abkhazia / South Ossetia in Georgian war. This is exactly the same playbook/justification RU is using to "rescue" Ukraine, for much more valid security considerations. Everything RU is doing has been normalized by previous US interventions, of which there has been too many, with a host of lawyers trying to legitimize them under the liberal international order.
  - throwaway290 5y ago
    > US should also not have made NATO an offensive alliance with Kosovo... a "humanitarian" invasion outside UN security council authorization. UN security council is how things like Srebrenica happen. In my eyes, disregarding it is justifiable if there is a high enough likelihood of something like that repeating.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      It's actually required, under one of the UN treaties.
  - jolux 5y ago
    Yeah except the difference is that loads of innocent people were being raped and murdered and ethnically cleansed in Kosovo whereas Russia made their reasons for this invasion quite clear Monday and it’s a desire to reconstitute the Russian Empire. It’s fine to have a principle of non-intervention but the situations are not really comparable outside of both being interventions. The Iraq War is a better comparison, and the US should have been sanctioned for it.
    - dirtyid 5y ago
      >raped and murdered and ethnically cleansed in Kosovo And that has exactly nothing to do with defensive NATO core mission. Sectarian violence happens all around the world, except NATO chose to invade Kosovo under the pretext of ethnic cleansing / "genocide", again current RU excuse, which later investigation pointed out to be unfounded. The real cynical reason was for NATO to rationalize its existence post USSR collapses by reinventing itself as an offensive alliance for LIO/US geopolitical interests, which is how it has been wielded since causing untold deaths in various interventions. NATO is a hegemonic instrument disguised as a humanitarian one. RU sees through the "defensive" narrative. Ultimately, the point is US opened pandora box of bad norms in terms of prosecuting wars and upsetting balance of power. It won't get sanctioned for it, instead wielding sanctions to deter geopolitical adversaries from pursuing more pertinent self interests. Until the sanctions stop working, and US adversaries use US playbook for their own interventions.
  - syki 5y ago
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/26/china-sees-strategic-advantage-in-russias-ukraine-invasion-00012032 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/26/china-sees-strategi...
    - dirtyid 5y ago
      What is the relevance of this?
vore 5y ago
It's worth mentioning that initial expansion into Warsaw Pact countries was actually frowned upon by NATO: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Future_of_NATO/U0DKEhe7Z6EC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA200&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Future_of_NATO/U0DKEhe7... Mearsheimer points the finger at an enthusiastic expansion of NATO here and draws a line from it to the West being at fault, but I don't think it was really the case.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Not a single one of the Warsaw Pact countries wanted to be in it (except Russia, maybe Cuba - no idea). As soon as Russia’s occupation of half of Europe was over, all these countries couldn’t run away from Russia and WP fast enough, and joined NATO. So it wasn’t independent peoples joining a defensive pact, but Russia dislocating its arms onto stolen territory. Only exceptions are Belarus, which effectively remains under Russian thumb, and Ukraine which didn’t make it (and had, now dead, significant pro Russian sentiment).
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I think Serbia rates a mention, though I don't know in what capacity.
    - oblio 5y ago
      Serbia was part of Yugoslavia, which was non-aligned.
dvt 5y ago
> the responsibility that the US bears on this conflict cannot be underestimated, and it is totally absent (or at least severely under-reported) from Western sources. Either we agree that countries have sovereignty and can enter whatever pacts they so please or we do not. You can't have it both ways. NATO is an alliance that Baltic nations joined of their own accord. The US doesn't even enter the picture here.
- ailef 5y ago
  > Either we agree that countries have sovereignty and can enter whatever pacts they so please or we do not. I completely agree. The problem is that for the past 70 years or more, this has not been like the US has behaved. They set the historical precedent that it's ok to respect other countries sovereignty if and only if said country aligns with your own interests. When that's not the case, it's fine to overthrow the government to make it more "democratic".
- rossmohax 5y ago
  Do countries have sovereignty to develop Nuclear weapon? No, because big boys club sees it as a threat and it is understandable. If some power sees actions of another country as a threat, sovereignty becomes more nuanced.
  - dvt 5y ago
    Nuclear weapons are a special case because they threaten the survival of the human race (you can probably throw certain chemical/biological weapons in here too). Joining NATO--not that the Ukraine was even doing that--does not. There's a material difference here.
    - rossmohax 5y ago
      Smallish country developing nuclear warhead wont threaten survival of the human race. It wont have neither enough warheads nor sufficient delivery capabilities, yet no country is allowed to enter nuclear club, because existing members sees it as threat and have means to enforce their will. Ukraine joining NATO is same in principle: a threat to someone who is willing to act on it. > Joining NATO--not that the Ukraine was even doing that Ukraine was actively seeking NATO membership since 2014, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
watwut 5y ago
> but the responsibility that the US bears on this conflict cannot be underestimated, and it is totally absent (or at least severely under-reported) from Western sources. I find it completely overestimated. The makes it US responsibility to prevent Ukraine from considering to enter defensive act. And when US does not shut it, somehow US is responsible for Russia invading Ukraine. US is not responsible for making sure Russia can take over Ukraine whenever they please. US is not responsible for making Russian emprire to happen.
icedistilled 5y ago
Setting aside the USA for a second, can you acknowledge that Putin spent the last several months building up almost 200k troops on 3 sides of Ukraine and then invaded despite claiming he had no such intentions even days before his invasion. Setting aside other countries for a moment, the actions of a country is ultimately decided by its leader and the leader of Russia went to war. We can debate how other countries influenced the leader, but before that, are you in agreement that Putin premeditated a troop build up around ukraine and then invaded despite no immediate threat to russian soil? Can you please state that ultimately the buck stops with putin russia freely chose to do this war, and then we can get into the debate of how other countries may have pushed him that way only once that clear acknowledgment has been made without any digressions that may come off as unintentional prevarications.

by ailef 5y ago

jolux 5y ago

What responsibility is that? Should the US have vetoed the NATO membership of all the Warsaw Pact countries that wanted to join?

dirtyid 5y ago
That was not an unpopular position at the time, with predictable backlash now made manifest. Also on topic US should also not have made NATO an offensive alliance with Kosovo... a "humanitarian" invasion outside UN security council authorization. Or set precedence of unilateral secession to balkanize countries for US interests, which RU rationalized for Abkhazia / South Ossetia in Georgian war. This is exactly the same playbook/justification RU is using to "rescue" Ukraine, for much more valid security considerations. Everything RU is doing has been normalized by previous US interventions, of which there has been too many, with a host of lawyers trying to legitimize them under the liberal international order.
- throwaway290 5y ago
  > US should also not have made NATO an offensive alliance with Kosovo... a "humanitarian" invasion outside UN security council authorization. UN security council is how things like Srebrenica happen. In my eyes, disregarding it is justifiable if there is a high enough likelihood of something like that repeating.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    It's actually required, under one of the UN treaties.
- jolux 5y ago
  Yeah except the difference is that loads of innocent people were being raped and murdered and ethnically cleansed in Kosovo whereas Russia made their reasons for this invasion quite clear Monday and it’s a desire to reconstitute the Russian Empire. It’s fine to have a principle of non-intervention but the situations are not really comparable outside of both being interventions. The Iraq War is a better comparison, and the US should have been sanctioned for it.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    >raped and murdered and ethnically cleansed in Kosovo And that has exactly nothing to do with defensive NATO core mission. Sectarian violence happens all around the world, except NATO chose to invade Kosovo under the pretext of ethnic cleansing / "genocide", again current RU excuse, which later investigation pointed out to be unfounded. The real cynical reason was for NATO to rationalize its existence post USSR collapses by reinventing itself as an offensive alliance for LIO/US geopolitical interests, which is how it has been wielded since causing untold deaths in various interventions. NATO is a hegemonic instrument disguised as a humanitarian one. RU sees through the "defensive" narrative. Ultimately, the point is US opened pandora box of bad norms in terms of prosecuting wars and upsetting balance of power. It won't get sanctioned for it, instead wielding sanctions to deter geopolitical adversaries from pursuing more pertinent self interests. Until the sanctions stop working, and US adversaries use US playbook for their own interventions.
- syki 5y ago
  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/26/china-sees-strategic-advantage-in-russias-ukraine-invasion-00012032 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/26/china-sees-strategi...
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    What is the relevance of this?

vore 5y ago

It's worth mentioning that initial expansion into Warsaw Pact countries was actually frowned upon by NATO: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Future_of_NATO/U0DKEhe7Z6EC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA200&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Future_of_NATO/U0DKEhe7... Mearsheimer points the finger at an enthusiastic expansion of NATO here and draws a line from it to the West being at fault, but I don't think it was really the case.

rich_sasha 5y ago
Not a single one of the Warsaw Pact countries wanted to be in it (except Russia, maybe Cuba - no idea). As soon as Russia’s occupation of half of Europe was over, all these countries couldn’t run away from Russia and WP fast enough, and joined NATO. So it wasn’t independent peoples joining a defensive pact, but Russia dislocating its arms onto stolen territory. Only exceptions are Belarus, which effectively remains under Russian thumb, and Ukraine which didn’t make it (and had, now dead, significant pro Russian sentiment).
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I think Serbia rates a mention, though I don't know in what capacity.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Serbia was part of Yugoslavia, which was non-aligned.

dvt 5y ago

> the responsibility that the US bears on this conflict cannot be underestimated, and it is totally absent (or at least severely under-reported) from Western sources. Either we agree that countries have sovereignty and can enter whatever pacts they so please or we do not. You can't have it both ways. NATO is an alliance that Baltic nations joined of their own accord. The US doesn't even enter the picture here.

ailef 5y ago
> Either we agree that countries have sovereignty and can enter whatever pacts they so please or we do not. I completely agree. The problem is that for the past 70 years or more, this has not been like the US has behaved. They set the historical precedent that it's ok to respect other countries sovereignty if and only if said country aligns with your own interests. When that's not the case, it's fine to overthrow the government to make it more "democratic".
rossmohax 5y ago
Do countries have sovereignty to develop Nuclear weapon? No, because big boys club sees it as a threat and it is understandable. If some power sees actions of another country as a threat, sovereignty becomes more nuanced.
- dvt 5y ago
  Nuclear weapons are a special case because they threaten the survival of the human race (you can probably throw certain chemical/biological weapons in here too). Joining NATO--not that the Ukraine was even doing that--does not. There's a material difference here.
  - rossmohax 5y ago
    Smallish country developing nuclear warhead wont threaten survival of the human race. It wont have neither enough warheads nor sufficient delivery capabilities, yet no country is allowed to enter nuclear club, because existing members sees it as threat and have means to enforce their will. Ukraine joining NATO is same in principle: a threat to someone who is willing to act on it. > Joining NATO--not that the Ukraine was even doing that Ukraine was actively seeking NATO membership since 2014, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations

watwut 5y ago

> but the responsibility that the US bears on this conflict cannot be underestimated, and it is totally absent (or at least severely under-reported) from Western sources. I find it completely overestimated. The makes it US responsibility to prevent Ukraine from considering to enter defensive act. And when US does not shut it, somehow US is responsible for Russia invading Ukraine. US is not responsible for making sure Russia can take over Ukraine whenever they please. US is not responsible for making Russian emprire to happen.

icedistilled 5y ago

Setting aside the USA for a second, can you acknowledge that Putin spent the last several months building up almost 200k troops on 3 sides of Ukraine and then invaded despite claiming he had no such intentions even days before his invasion. Setting aside other countries for a moment, the actions of a country is ultimately decided by its leader and the leader of Russia went to war. We can debate how other countries influenced the leader, but before that, are you in agreement that Putin premeditated a troop build up around ukraine and then invaded despite no immediate threat to russian soil? Can you please state that ultimately the buck stops with putin russia freely chose to do this war, and then we can get into the debate of how other countries may have pushed him that way only once that clear acknowledgment has been made without any digressions that may come off as unintentional prevarications.