6 ms·

Not a Russian apologist here, but is that the worst outcome? It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? In the s

Not a Russian apologist here, but is that the worst outcome? It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? In the spirit of self-determination, why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? These borders are less than 30 years old, it's not inconceivable that there could be adjustments, right? Just trying to think of a way out of this mess with the fewest casualties.

wolverine876 5y ago
> is that the worst outcome? Yes. History has shown that you need to stop conquerers at the earliest opportunity. Famously, both Western Europe and Russia made deals with Hitler, thinking they had bought peace. > Not a Russian apologist here, but is that the worst outcome? It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? In the spirit of self-determination, why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? These borders are less than 30 years old, it's not inconceivable that there could be adjustments, right? Those are some of the Russian talking points, FWIW. It has nothing to with such movements; Russia just uses them (and creates them to a large extent) as excuses to invade - following the exact tactics of many conquerers throughout history: 'We have people living across the border!' Many Americans live in the north of Mexico, and many Mexicans live in southwestern US. We could do the same with every border in the world, just about. And then there are the Russians living in the rest of Europe, who no doubt need protection. What about Cyprus and London? If they didn't (create and) use those excuses, they'd create and use others. > why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? We have no evidence that it's desired. But most of all, countries aren't smartphone brands - 'I'm tired of Apple, I'm switching to Samsung!' There's a reason that you ever (hardly ever?) hear of such a thing happening. We already have neighboring conquerers using the excuse described above; now we give a big carrot to neighbors fomenting rebellions. And the chaos of international borders changing, with all the geopolitical issues and crises involved. The clearly better solution would be people moving themselves to the other country.
- patentatt 5y ago
  Yep, you're correct on all counts. I rescind my devils-advocate hypothetical. Thanks for laying that out so clearly.
vkou 5y ago
> It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? 'Technically', yes, but that's not the problem at stake here. That's what everyone assumed was the problem at stake before Thursday. If it was about the Donbass provinces, Russia would just be invading them. (It already has, they have been largely 'rebel'-controlled for a very long time - an invasion would have been more of a formality than a practical change in the status quo.) Instead, it's invading them, and the entirety of Ukraine, including all the parts that have very few ethnic Russians. 'Russian national self-determination' is just the excuse for a land grab in the west.
- patentatt 5y ago
  Very good point. I just want there to be a simple answer to stop the bloodshed, but there isn't one. The alternative, the reality, is just so gruesome I wished there was a way out of this for all involved.
  - lazide 5y ago
    The ‘simple’ answer is for Ukrainians to universally take up arms and repel Russia. Russia will either have to capitulate (which will likely result in Putin’s ousting and likely death), or get stuck in a intractable guerilla war that will be quickly impossible to prosecute due to economic issues. It’s very, very unlikely Putin or anyone else could nuke the Ukraine due to both proximity, cultural history, and lack of any conceivable threat from Ukraine that could justify it. Even obliterating Kiev through traditional means would be very, very difficult to do - it has a lot of history for Russia and many Russians have strong emotional ties there. Desertions, defections, and insubordination would be difficult to counter. It will cost lives, but all available options will. That Russia has been pretty blatant here will make it easier than if they’d been subtle.
    - vkou 5y ago
      It's not a simple answer for people who aren't men under the age of 25. It's easy to talk about how other people should resist an invasion to the death, but if I were living in Ukraine right now, I'd either be getting the hell out, or strongly prioritizing survival. For people who have to actually live with it[1], a bad peace is in most cases preferable to a good war. That's why so much political effort goes into avoiding war in the first place. [1] States, unlike people, have a vastly different view on war. A state can often cease to exist because of a war, even if the people it governed don't go anywhere. What is an existential struggle for a state or an ideology is often not one for its subjects... But the subjects are the ones who have to fight for the state.
derbOac 5y ago
The separatists have been heavily subsidized by Russia to the point it's sometimes been difficult to tell who is who. Not meaning to sound hostile, but what you just wrote has been the goal of Putin's strategy with subsidizing the separatists all along. It's to create the appearance of a genuine resistance movement that's really just an arm of the Russian military. It's Putin's MO. Part of the reason for this recent invasion is because the typical espionage and information warfare that has brought Putin success started failing.
- patentatt 5y ago
  That makes sense. It's all just pretext for aggression, and to provide a fig leaf for some idiots (like me) to see if they want to see if that way.

wolverine876 5y ago

> is that the worst outcome? Yes. History has shown that you need to stop conquerers at the earliest opportunity. Famously, both Western Europe and Russia made deals with Hitler, thinking they had bought peace. > Not a Russian apologist here, but is that the worst outcome? It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? In the spirit of self-determination, why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? These borders are less than 30 years old, it's not inconceivable that there could be adjustments, right? Those are some of the Russian talking points, FWIW. It has nothing to with such movements; Russia just uses them (and creates them to a large extent) as excuses to invade - following the exact tactics of many conquerers throughout history: 'We have people living across the border!' Many Americans live in the north of Mexico, and many Mexicans live in southwestern US. We could do the same with every border in the world, just about. And then there are the Russians living in the rest of Europe, who no doubt need protection. What about Cyprus and London? If they didn't (create and) use those excuses, they'd create and use others. > why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? We have no evidence that it's desired. But most of all, countries aren't smartphone brands - 'I'm tired of Apple, I'm switching to Samsung!' There's a reason that you ever (hardly ever?) hear of such a thing happening. We already have neighboring conquerers using the excuse described above; now we give a big carrot to neighbors fomenting rebellions. And the chaos of international borders changing, with all the geopolitical issues and crises involved. The clearly better solution would be people moving themselves to the other country.

patentatt 5y ago
Yep, you're correct on all counts. I rescind my devils-advocate hypothetical. Thanks for laying that out so clearly.

vkou 5y ago

> It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? 'Technically', yes, but that's not the problem at stake here. That's what everyone assumed was the problem at stake before Thursday. If it was about the Donbass provinces, Russia would just be invading them. (It already has, they have been largely 'rebel'-controlled for a very long time - an invasion would have been more of a formality than a practical change in the status quo.) Instead, it's invading them, and the entirety of Ukraine, including all the parts that have very few ethnic Russians. 'Russian national self-determination' is just the excuse for a land grab in the west.

patentatt 5y ago
Very good point. I just want there to be a simple answer to stop the bloodshed, but there isn't one. The alternative, the reality, is just so gruesome I wished there was a way out of this for all involved.
- lazide 5y ago
  The ‘simple’ answer is for Ukrainians to universally take up arms and repel Russia. Russia will either have to capitulate (which will likely result in Putin’s ousting and likely death), or get stuck in a intractable guerilla war that will be quickly impossible to prosecute due to economic issues. It’s very, very unlikely Putin or anyone else could nuke the Ukraine due to both proximity, cultural history, and lack of any conceivable threat from Ukraine that could justify it. Even obliterating Kiev through traditional means would be very, very difficult to do - it has a lot of history for Russia and many Russians have strong emotional ties there. Desertions, defections, and insubordination would be difficult to counter. It will cost lives, but all available options will. That Russia has been pretty blatant here will make it easier than if they’d been subtle.
  - vkou 5y ago
    It's not a simple answer for people who aren't men under the age of 25. It's easy to talk about how other people should resist an invasion to the death, but if I were living in Ukraine right now, I'd either be getting the hell out, or strongly prioritizing survival. For people who have to actually live with it[1], a bad peace is in most cases preferable to a good war. That's why so much political effort goes into avoiding war in the first place. [1] States, unlike people, have a vastly different view on war. A state can often cease to exist because of a war, even if the people it governed don't go anywhere. What is an existential struggle for a state or an ideology is often not one for its subjects... But the subjects are the ones who have to fight for the state.

derbOac 5y ago

The separatists have been heavily subsidized by Russia to the point it's sometimes been difficult to tell who is who. Not meaning to sound hostile, but what you just wrote has been the goal of Putin's strategy with subsidizing the separatists all along. It's to create the appearance of a genuine resistance movement that's really just an arm of the Russian military. It's Putin's MO. Part of the reason for this recent invasion is because the typical espionage and information warfare that has brought Putin success started failing.

patentatt 5y ago
That makes sense. It's all just pretext for aggression, and to provide a fig leaf for some idiots (like me) to see if they want to see if that way.