4 ms·

Well, from their point of view, a military pact with the explicit goal of keeping them under control has first taken their land and is now threatening to get ev

Well, from their point of view, a military pact with the explicit goal of keeping them under control has first taken their land and is now threatening to get even closer to their border and encircle them. Just take a look at the Cuban missile crisis to see how the US reacted in a comparable situation and in that case, the distance from the missiles to the capital was a lot longer. For Russia, this is more like the missiles are already in Cuba and now Mexico is considering to join the Warsaw pact. Everyone thinks they're on the right side. Now, obviously I think we (as in EU+US) are the good guys here, but it's quite clear that a lot of people were both very convinced and very wrong about this and I don't consider us unfailable.

jacquesm 5y ago
> Everyone thinks they're on the right side. In this case that has been made pretty easy to see. Even large numbers of Russians agree with that. > Now, obviously I think we (as in EU+US) are the good guys here, but it's quite clear that a lot of people were both very convinced and very wrong about this and I don't consider us unfailable. Indeed. But this isn't the Cuban missile crisis (which was provoked by the USSR to begin with) and the Ukraine isn't anything like Cuba. Note that Cuba was - in spite of everything - never actually invaded with the intent to occupy, and it's not as if the US couldn't have done that if they had wanted to do so.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  > In this case that has been made pretty easy to see. Even large numbers of Russians agree with that. Just as large numbers of US citizens disagreed with the wars of the last decades. > Indeed. But this isn't the Cuban missile crisis (which was provoked by the USSR to begin with) and the Ukraine isn't anything like Cuba. Well, you could argue that the EU/NATO expansion did provoke this, too. But I'm getting distracted here; I really don't want to defend Russia and especially not their recent actions. I also don't think that helping the Ukraine is a bad thing, quite the opposite actually. My point is that you don't get to both condone violence and keep your status as "peaceful" because it's against the right people. If German history has taught me anything, it's that accepting violence as right leads down a very bad path quickly. It might sometimes be necessary, but it's never "not bad".
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > Well, you could argue that the EU/NATO expansion did provoke this, too. You could, but it would be bullshit. > But I'm getting distracted here; I really don't want to defend Russia and especially not their recent actions. I also don't think that helping the Ukraine is a bad thing, quite the opposite actually. My point is that you don't get to both condone violence and keep your status as "peaceful" because it's against the right people. If German history has taught me anything, it's that accepting violence as right leads down a very bad path quickly. It might sometimes be necessary, but it's never "not bad". If you really had paid attention to German history you would have realized that sometimes violence is the only way to deal with an emerging threat. It is precisely the lack of decisive action that allowed Hitler the space to do what he did.
    - Sebb767 5y ago
      > You could, but it would be bullshit. In your (our) opinion. But that does not make it an absolute truth. > If you really had paid attention to German history you would have realized that sometimes violence is the only way to deal with an emerging threat. It is precisely the lack of decisive action that allowed Hitler the space to do what he did. And that's why I ended my post with: >> It might sometimes be necessary, but it's never "not bad". I don't think that turning the other cheek is the right move here. My point is that we don't get to feel good about violence because it's against the right guys.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        > But that does not make it an absolute truth. There we have that false balance thing again. It's documented bullshit, so you can choose to just see it as my opinion, but NATO has a couple of articles formulated especially to deal with aggression like this. To posit that joining an alliance - which didn't happen, another simple fact - because you are afraid of your aggressive neighbor is the cause of the aggression is a pretty extreme form of victim blaming. > My point is that we don't get to feel good about violence because it's against the right guys. Believe me, I'm a pacifist at heart. And what's happening now in Ukraine (and prior to that in Chechnya) makes my blood boil. I've seen first hand what life under Russia looks like, there is no way this is going to be whitewashed.
mopsi 5y ago
What missiles? There are no missiles in Eastern Europe, only a symbolic number of foreign soldiers, and even that only after the first war in Ukraine.
- glogla 5y ago
  "Mexico joining Warsaw Pact / China" and "NATO Missiles" are common Russian propaganda talking points. When someone says those words, you know they are compromised - either willingly working for the enemy of free world, or manipulated into doing it. ("Russian sphere of influence" is another sign of Soviet-thinking, as is talking about "Ukrainian Nazis".)
  - trasz 5y ago
    “Compromised”, as in, they don’t blindly follow your propaganda?

jacquesm 5y ago

> Everyone thinks they're on the right side. In this case that has been made pretty easy to see. Even large numbers of Russians agree with that. > Now, obviously I think we (as in EU+US) are the good guys here, but it's quite clear that a lot of people were both very convinced and very wrong about this and I don't consider us unfailable. Indeed. But this isn't the Cuban missile crisis (which was provoked by the USSR to begin with) and the Ukraine isn't anything like Cuba. Note that Cuba was - in spite of everything - never actually invaded with the intent to occupy, and it's not as if the US couldn't have done that if they had wanted to do so.

Sebb767 5y ago
> In this case that has been made pretty easy to see. Even large numbers of Russians agree with that. Just as large numbers of US citizens disagreed with the wars of the last decades. > Indeed. But this isn't the Cuban missile crisis (which was provoked by the USSR to begin with) and the Ukraine isn't anything like Cuba. Well, you could argue that the EU/NATO expansion did provoke this, too. But I'm getting distracted here; I really don't want to defend Russia and especially not their recent actions. I also don't think that helping the Ukraine is a bad thing, quite the opposite actually. My point is that you don't get to both condone violence and keep your status as "peaceful" because it's against the right people. If German history has taught me anything, it's that accepting violence as right leads down a very bad path quickly. It might sometimes be necessary, but it's never "not bad".
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Well, you could argue that the EU/NATO expansion did provoke this, too. You could, but it would be bullshit. > But I'm getting distracted here; I really don't want to defend Russia and especially not their recent actions. I also don't think that helping the Ukraine is a bad thing, quite the opposite actually. My point is that you don't get to both condone violence and keep your status as "peaceful" because it's against the right people. If German history has taught me anything, it's that accepting violence as right leads down a very bad path quickly. It might sometimes be necessary, but it's never "not bad". If you really had paid attention to German history you would have realized that sometimes violence is the only way to deal with an emerging threat. It is precisely the lack of decisive action that allowed Hitler the space to do what he did.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    > You could, but it would be bullshit. In your (our) opinion. But that does not make it an absolute truth. > If you really had paid attention to German history you would have realized that sometimes violence is the only way to deal with an emerging threat. It is precisely the lack of decisive action that allowed Hitler the space to do what he did. And that's why I ended my post with: >> It might sometimes be necessary, but it's never "not bad". I don't think that turning the other cheek is the right move here. My point is that we don't get to feel good about violence because it's against the right guys.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > But that does not make it an absolute truth. There we have that false balance thing again. It's documented bullshit, so you can choose to just see it as my opinion, but NATO has a couple of articles formulated especially to deal with aggression like this. To posit that joining an alliance - which didn't happen, another simple fact - because you are afraid of your aggressive neighbor is the cause of the aggression is a pretty extreme form of victim blaming. > My point is that we don't get to feel good about violence because it's against the right guys. Believe me, I'm a pacifist at heart. And what's happening now in Ukraine (and prior to that in Chechnya) makes my blood boil. I've seen first hand what life under Russia looks like, there is no way this is going to be whitewashed.

mopsi 5y ago

What missiles? There are no missiles in Eastern Europe, only a symbolic number of foreign soldiers, and even that only after the first war in Ukraine.

glogla 5y ago
"Mexico joining Warsaw Pact / China" and "NATO Missiles" are common Russian propaganda talking points. When someone says those words, you know they are compromised - either willingly working for the enemy of free world, or manipulated into doing it. ("Russian sphere of influence" is another sign of Soviet-thinking, as is talking about "Ukrainian Nazis".)
- trasz 5y ago
  “Compromised”, as in, they don’t blindly follow your propaganda?