5 ms·

China presumably really wishes Russia had set a wargoal of annexing Donbas / Crimea / all of Ukraine to be part of Russia. Putin instead recognizing the breaka

by csense 5y ago

China presumably really wishes Russia had set a wargoal of annexing Donbas / Crimea / all of Ukraine to be part of Russia. Putin instead recognizing the breakaway regions as independent sets a bad precedent from China's point of view. They're presumably happy about a member of the dictators' club sticking one in the eye of a free country, a (half-)Asian country sticking one in the eye of US hegemony, and the business opportunity to buy stuff at fire sale prices because it's sanctioned everywhere else. They're probably less happy about how long it's taking -- the Chinese want stability and moneymaking opportunities, war and high oil prices are bad for business. They're probably also been caught flat-footed by how the US / EU seems to be unifying on this issue, they may feel forced to choose sides. China really wants to maintain a balance of power where the US isn't dominant, but they need the US and EU as trading partners more than they need Russia.

chrononaut 5y ago
I think: > Putin instead recognizing the breakaway regions as independent sets a bad precedent from China's point of view. and: > China presumably really wishes Russia had set a wargoal of annexing Donbas / Crimea / all of Ukraine to be part of Russia. are just part of the same process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_the_Republic_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of... > Russia recognised the Republic of Crimea's declaration of independence[8][9] and agreed to incorporate the Republic into the Russian Federation following a referendum. Agnostic to the outcome of the conflict, they were / are probably just planning on the same approach.
ModernMech 5y ago
> China presumably really wishes Russia had set a wargoal of annexing Donbas / Crimea / all of Ukraine to be part of Russia. You can't set that wargoal anymore without proclaiming to the world that you intend to be and are proudly taking the mantle of "warcriminal". The world decided after WWII that a nation doesn't just have the right to do this anymore. Invading a sovereign country to make it your own against its will is a warcrime. Of course just as prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, this idea on the bounds of acceptable national behavior does not dampen imperial tendencies, so if you want to invade another country you need a pretext first. It's like that South Park episode, where Stan's Uncle and Ned go hunting for bears, and scream that it's attacking them before they shoot it, when in fact it was just sitting there peacefully. If Russia is successful in taking Ukraine, what will follow is a propaganda campaign aimed at "proving" everything Putin said about his rationale for the invasion was true. You'll have public executions of Ukrainians "admitting" to all the crimes he says they perpetrated, and he will proclaim loudly to the world that he prevented genocide and everyone should thank him for invading Ukraine. And guess what, his allies will buy it. You and I will all see through it, and they will too but it will help them sleep at night, because not all of them are as psychopathic as Putin. Elites still need to mingle in polite company after all. It will give them something to tell their children and teach them in school. It will be something for the grieving mothers who lost their sons in the war will have a story about how their sons died for a cause, rather than the impulses driven by an insane dictator's ego. Anyway, that story isn't as good if you went in without a pretext. Honestly though Putin got impatient and his pretext was too thin. He didn't have a 9/11 like the US did going into Iraq, so he came up with a story about Zelensky being a Nazi, which is really hard to believe. That's why a lot of people are saying his goose is cooked as a leader, because now the body bags are going back to Russia, and there's no good reason anyone has for it.
- csense 5y ago
  > proclaiming to the world that you intend to be and are proudly taking the mantle of "warcriminal" Well, Russia's been attacking hospitals and having their forces dress in enemy uniforms or peacekeeping symbols. So they don't exactly care about not committing war crimes. I don't really understand very well why countries do so much shady stuff, gaslighting and propaganda. To me, it's a binary choice; either (a) you're not evil, so you don't do evil things, or (b) you are evil, so you do evil things. Whereas for a lot of countries (Russia particularly right now, but also China, and some of the shadier stuff the US has done in the past) there seems to be a lot of instances of (c) you know what's right and wrong, but you do the wrong thing anyway and try to hide it. To me this just seems irrational, a logical fallacy of the form "I simultaneously believe both P and not P" -- You simultaneously recognize that morality is important (because you try to actively cover up or lie about your immoral actions), and you spit on it at the same time (because you do the immoral actions when you have an alternative course of not doing them).
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > You simultaneously recognize that morality is important (because you try to actively cover up or lie about your immoral actions), and you spit on it at the same time (because you do the immoral actions when you have an alternative course of not doing them). I think what you're missing is that Putin does not give a pretext for his actions because he believes they are immoral, he does it because it muddies the discourse. Think of it this way: look at what happened when Putin said he was sending "peacekeepers" into Ukraine in order to stop a "genocide". American politicians called him "shrewd". Praise for him ping ponged around right-wing media, and it was reflected back onto RT to the Russian people, who were treated with looping reels of American media personalities heaping praises onto Putin. If Putin is overt about his goals, he doesn't get the benefit of everyone spreading a message that he's stopping a genocide, or that he's being very clever by fooling everyone with his ruse -- even though he's not and didn't fool anyone who wasn't already fooled by him before. It benefits Putin that the world is calling him clever and shrewd, even though they're simultaneously calling him a murderous tyrant. His hope is that back home, he will repel the tyrant talk as much as possible and allow Russians to only hear that he's a master technician who stopped a genocide.
GoodJokes 5y ago

by csense 5y ago

chrononaut 5y ago

I think: > Putin instead recognizing the breakaway regions as independent sets a bad precedent from China's point of view. and: > China presumably really wishes Russia had set a wargoal of annexing Donbas / Crimea / all of Ukraine to be part of Russia. are just part of the same process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_the_Republic_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of... > Russia recognised the Republic of Crimea's declaration of independence[8][9] and agreed to incorporate the Republic into the Russian Federation following a referendum. Agnostic to the outcome of the conflict, they were / are probably just planning on the same approach.

ModernMech 5y ago

> China presumably really wishes Russia had set a wargoal of annexing Donbas / Crimea / all of Ukraine to be part of Russia. You can't set that wargoal anymore without proclaiming to the world that you intend to be and are proudly taking the mantle of "warcriminal". The world decided after WWII that a nation doesn't just have the right to do this anymore. Invading a sovereign country to make it your own against its will is a warcrime. Of course just as prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, this idea on the bounds of acceptable national behavior does not dampen imperial tendencies, so if you want to invade another country you need a pretext first. It's like that South Park episode, where Stan's Uncle and Ned go hunting for bears, and scream that it's attacking them before they shoot it, when in fact it was just sitting there peacefully. If Russia is successful in taking Ukraine, what will follow is a propaganda campaign aimed at "proving" everything Putin said about his rationale for the invasion was true. You'll have public executions of Ukrainians "admitting" to all the crimes he says they perpetrated, and he will proclaim loudly to the world that he prevented genocide and everyone should thank him for invading Ukraine. And guess what, his allies will buy it. You and I will all see through it, and they will too but it will help them sleep at night, because not all of them are as psychopathic as Putin. Elites still need to mingle in polite company after all. It will give them something to tell their children and teach them in school. It will be something for the grieving mothers who lost their sons in the war will have a story about how their sons died for a cause, rather than the impulses driven by an insane dictator's ego. Anyway, that story isn't as good if you went in without a pretext. Honestly though Putin got impatient and his pretext was too thin. He didn't have a 9/11 like the US did going into Iraq, so he came up with a story about Zelensky being a Nazi, which is really hard to believe. That's why a lot of people are saying his goose is cooked as a leader, because now the body bags are going back to Russia, and there's no good reason anyone has for it.

csense 5y ago
> proclaiming to the world that you intend to be and are proudly taking the mantle of "warcriminal" Well, Russia's been attacking hospitals and having their forces dress in enemy uniforms or peacekeeping symbols. So they don't exactly care about not committing war crimes. I don't really understand very well why countries do so much shady stuff, gaslighting and propaganda. To me, it's a binary choice; either (a) you're not evil, so you don't do evil things, or (b) you are evil, so you do evil things. Whereas for a lot of countries (Russia particularly right now, but also China, and some of the shadier stuff the US has done in the past) there seems to be a lot of instances of (c) you know what's right and wrong, but you do the wrong thing anyway and try to hide it. To me this just seems irrational, a logical fallacy of the form "I simultaneously believe both P and not P" -- You simultaneously recognize that morality is important (because you try to actively cover up or lie about your immoral actions), and you spit on it at the same time (because you do the immoral actions when you have an alternative course of not doing them).
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > You simultaneously recognize that morality is important (because you try to actively cover up or lie about your immoral actions), and you spit on it at the same time (because you do the immoral actions when you have an alternative course of not doing them). I think what you're missing is that Putin does not give a pretext for his actions because he believes they are immoral, he does it because it muddies the discourse. Think of it this way: look at what happened when Putin said he was sending "peacekeepers" into Ukraine in order to stop a "genocide". American politicians called him "shrewd". Praise for him ping ponged around right-wing media, and it was reflected back onto RT to the Russian people, who were treated with looping reels of American media personalities heaping praises onto Putin. If Putin is overt about his goals, he doesn't get the benefit of everyone spreading a message that he's stopping a genocide, or that he's being very clever by fooling everyone with his ruse -- even though he's not and didn't fool anyone who wasn't already fooled by him before. It benefits Putin that the world is calling him clever and shrewd, even though they're simultaneously calling him a murderous tyrant. His hope is that back home, he will repel the tyrant talk as much as possible and allow Russians to only hear that he's a master technician who stopped a genocide.

GoodJokes 5y ago