3 ms·

Calling them “neutral” is a mistake. At least from Putin’s perspective.

jacquesm 5y ago
Yes, clear, they were occupied already, just not officially.
phs318u 5y ago
Clearly they are more "neutral", than say Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - all former Soviet client states that are now NATO members. I do honestly suspect this is about delusions of historical grandeur. Ukraine is after all the historical home of Kievan' Rus (with whom most peoples in the region claim historical antecedence). In its "golden age" Vladimir the Great (Volodymir I, Prince of Novgorod) united the Rus peoples under his reign.
- ncann 5y ago
  When thinking about neutrality, it's worth comparing the Ukraine-Russia relationship to that of Vietnam-China, another case of dealing with an aggressive big neighbor. Despite having many disputes with China on the sea, as well as the shadow of the 1979 invasion still looming, Vietnam has a clear "four-nos" policy, which means no military alliance, no affiliation with one country to counteract the other, no foreign military base in the Vietnamese territory to act against other countries, and no force or threatening to use force in international relations.
dragontamer 5y ago
And that perspective is clearly insane. Not "medically insane", I'm talking like "Hitler insane" (who IIRC, was never actually proven to be crazy or with an actual medical disability). Attacking peaceful nations for no reason is warmongering and clearly evil... but doubly so when they're effectively brother countries.
- mise_en_place 5y ago
  It’s not insane, it’s completely rational. That’s why the US invaded Cuba during the Spanish American War. They felt that Spain had lost control on the ground entirely and that was the reason McKinley authorized invasion.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    The weapons invented in WW1 proved to the world that wars like this weren't worth it anymore for anyone. Weapons were too good in the early 1900s, and the wear-and-tear on soldiers would scar them for the rest of their lives. The Axis powers didn't get the message in the 1930s/1940s, so one more ass-kicking was needed, but its overall not a good idea to initiate wars of conquest in today's society.
    - mise_en_place 5y ago
      It is worth it to invade a country that has no nuclear deterrent. The reason Russia will not invade a NATO country is that it would cause mutually assured destruction, or more specifically the Nash equilibrium in the case where both countries are nuclear powers. It’s why China doesn’t invade Pakistan or India, aside from small skirmishes that are in borderlands that are effectively proxy wars.

Yes, clear, they were occupied already, just not officially.

Clearly they are more "neutral", than say Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - all former Soviet client states that are now NATO members. I do honestly suspect this is about delusions of historical grandeur. Ukraine is after all the historical home of Kievan' Rus (with whom most peoples in the region claim historical antecedence). In its "golden age" Vladimir the Great (Volodymir I, Prince of Novgorod) united the Rus peoples under his reign.

ncann 5y ago
When thinking about neutrality, it's worth comparing the Ukraine-Russia relationship to that of Vietnam-China, another case of dealing with an aggressive big neighbor. Despite having many disputes with China on the sea, as well as the shadow of the 1979 invasion still looming, Vietnam has a clear "four-nos" policy, which means no military alliance, no affiliation with one country to counteract the other, no foreign military base in the Vietnamese territory to act against other countries, and no force or threatening to use force in international relations.

dragontamer 5y ago

And that perspective is clearly insane. Not "medically insane", I'm talking like "Hitler insane" (who IIRC, was never actually proven to be crazy or with an actual medical disability). Attacking peaceful nations for no reason is warmongering and clearly evil... but doubly so when they're effectively brother countries.

mise_en_place 5y ago
It’s not insane, it’s completely rational. That’s why the US invaded Cuba during the Spanish American War. They felt that Spain had lost control on the ground entirely and that was the reason McKinley authorized invasion.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  The weapons invented in WW1 proved to the world that wars like this weren't worth it anymore for anyone. Weapons were too good in the early 1900s, and the wear-and-tear on soldiers would scar them for the rest of their lives. The Axis powers didn't get the message in the 1930s/1940s, so one more ass-kicking was needed, but its overall not a good idea to initiate wars of conquest in today's society.
  - mise_en_place 5y ago
    It is worth it to invade a country that has no nuclear deterrent. The reason Russia will not invade a NATO country is that it would cause mutually assured destruction, or more specifically the Nash equilibrium in the case where both countries are nuclear powers. It’s why China doesn’t invade Pakistan or India, aside from small skirmishes that are in borderlands that are effectively proxy wars.