10 ms·

Nope. It's interesting how the west has lost it's mind here, clearly the goal is regime change in Russia. We're using Ukraine to do it; by the time regime chang

Nope. It's interesting how the west has lost it's mind here, clearly the goal is regime change in Russia. We're using Ukraine to do it; by the time regime change is even on the table, Ukraine will be flattened. And we haven't established Putin is even likely to be deposed; it seems incredibly unlikely. This is just a gamble with ukrainian lives dressed up in noble regalia, provided by the west.

mrleinad 5y ago
I'm still trying to historically find one country where regime change was achieved by applying economic sanctions.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Putin sees NATO as an existential threat, vastly more significant than any economic threat. From this premise, he is operating ruthelessly rationally, not "crazy". The western narrative of "crazy putin" is in part just a delusional misunderstanding (Germany), an in part a strategy of getting western domestic buy in for beating up Russia (UK/USA). The West (USA & UK primarily) want russia bogged down in Ukraine as much as possible, and are using this opportunity to goad russia into a regieme-destabalisng move -- i suspect it's hoped that when putin levels Kyiv, they'll be a coup. This delusional domestic propaganda about ukrainian resistance is playing right into the strategic hands of, largely, the UK. It's a dangerous game for Europe to play, and it's a luxury the USA can't afford -- which needs russia to contain china. The UK here is hoping europeans will come to depend on it more explicitly for security, germany arming itself here is an unexpected turn of events. The USA is still not focused on china enough to see what a silly nightmare this is going to be.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    This really is getting old and has been debunked over and over again.
  - smcl 5y ago
    > Putin sees NATO as an existential threat That would make him crazy though, or at least extremely deluded. I don't think any NATO member had (or has!) any intention of entering into conflict with Russia - otherwise we would've seen an escalation back in 2014. I think you are giving him too much credit and are taking his words at face value. I think he probably sees NATO or the EU as contributing to the shrinking Russian of influence. This is definitely true, but it doesn't in any rational world justify military action and certainly isn't an existential threat to either Russia or Putin. Hence the popular "crazy Putin" narrative ... because it really kind of is.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Ukraine isn't in NATO and has no claim to NATO support. And yet, NATO is basically using the country to conduct a proxy war. From the Russian POV, everything here has been confirmed. NATO is an existential threat to russia. Imagine if the USA invaded cuba and russia sent massive arms/etc. to cuba, and destabalized the US economy. What would the USA think about Russia? That, exactly, it is very much the threat "it was always believed to be".
      - fabian2k 5y ago
        That's just plain ridiculous. The economic sanctions are in direct response to the invasion of a sovereign country. You can't use them as justification for this very same invasion. And the arms shipments are not by NATO directly, though of course many countries here are also members of NATO. And those shipment only started when Russia started to threaten Ukraine, invaded the Krim and finally invaded the whole country.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Why did they decide to do all that?
        romwell 5y ago
- smcl 5y ago
  But it's not just economic sanctions out of the blue in and of themselves. It's a sudden and near-total exclusion from the global financial system as a response to a war which is proving to be quite unpopular and tremendously costly ... and it's not exactly going to plan. I'm not making any predictions, it could very well be that Putin hangs onto power no matter what the outcome. But this is not at all like the USA slapping sanctions on Venezuela, DPRK or Cuba.
- romwell 5y ago
  Look at Russia in 1917, and what caused the Tsar to abdicate. Sanctions on Russia can recreate these conditions.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Russia now does not really resemble the monarchy back them. Russia 1917 was Russia after years of internal instability and violence. It had established revolutionary movements. And it ended with civil war that ended up being won by the worst fraction of those available.
    - romwell 5y ago
      I beg to disagree. * An out-of-touch autocrat? Check! * Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! * Instability? Did you miss the protests and martial law starting tomorrow (in spite of no fighting going on on Russian land)? Check! * Global flu pandemic? Check! * Food shortages? Give 'em a week. And the civil war was the outcome of the second "revolution", which was, in reality, a coup. The real revolution started with a Women's March on March 8th (yes, the same thing that's still happening every year), and ended with the establishment of the Provisional Government [1]. Which, admittedly, wasn't the best and fell to the Bolshevik coup. But it did end autocracy in Russia for a while. And USSR, before Stalin took over, introduced: * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women That's not justifying the red terror in any way, just that they were hardly "the worst". And they did pull out of WW1 (unlike the Provisional gov't). Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. Worked twice in Russia: with Tsar Nicholas II, and with Kerensky. Oh, make it thrice: Afghan war + empty shelves in grocery stores gave us Gorbachev's Perestroika. Putin's turn now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
      - watwut 5y ago
        > Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! No it does not. Russia back then had multiple active revolutionary groups. Some of them active and violent too - effectively terrorist groups. The serious attempts to reform Russia were going on for years at that point too. > Food shortages? Give 'em a week. Russia back then had food shortages for years. Not for, like a week or so. > Global flu pandemic? Check! I dont think that was much factor back then, but would not be now either? > * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women Yeah, women movement in Russia had advantage of pushing for women voting rights around the time when male voting rights were question too. But, that has zero to do with uprising. > Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. It primary takes weak regime. Otherwise no, as pretty much any dictator hanging on power in war torn country shows. Plus, this war is nowhere near the destruction WWI caused - unless you live in Ukraine.
- tpush 5y ago
  The immediate goal of the sanctions right now is to make Putin stop the invasion, nothing more. We don't know if that will work, but we are obligated to try.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Not by sanctions, but the USSR famously drained its finances in the arms- and space- races with the West, and that is considered a significant factor in its demise. It has often been said that the Buran program specifically was the last straw.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  South Africa, arguably.
2Gkashmiri 5y ago
why? how is this different from cuban missile crisis that was averted but this was not because ukraine was told to not back out. why do you want "regime change" in russia? what if russians say they want the same for biden or trump or whatever they have there? i am neither american, nor russian/chinese so i am looking at this objectively from a distance. why does americans "want" everyone to toe their line and push their narratives only?
- himinlomax 5y ago
  Because in 1945, the world agreed on the UN charter and it precisely prohibits what Russia is currently doing.
  - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
    so bush can continue to falsely accuse iraq of WMDs, flatten that country down, murder gaddafi and put his country into a civil war because he refused to accept american hegemony of american dollars and wanted gold for his oil. my point is, what russia is doing is simply to counter american advances against itself. why does american "need" to bring ukraine or other russian neighbours into nato? why does america have military bases across the world? why does america have to be the world police?
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      > so bush can continue to falsely accuse iraq of WMDs, flatten that country down, murder gaddafi and put his country into a civil war because he refused to accept american hegemony of american dollars and wanted gold for his oil. And many other countries opposed it. Including many in Nato. Note how no one is supporting Russia in this affair, except North Korea and the likes. Even China is abstaining. > why does american "need" to bring ukraine or other russian neighbours into nato? why does america have military bases across the world? That's the question countries like Finland were asking before this crisis, and polls were at 16% in favor of joining Nato there just a month ago. Now it's 80%.
- SkeuomorphicBee 5y ago
jusssi 5y ago
> It's interesting how the west has lost it's mind here Do you honestly think Putin will stop his conquest if he gets easy success in Ukraine?
- konart 5y ago
  As a Russian: yes. What people seem to not understand is that Putin does not really a key figure here. Not the only key figure. The only reason he started the war is because he was assured by his generals that they can do the whole thing rather quickly. Putin does not do any information analysis, he does not use internet at all (his words, not mine). He only read repots presented to him in paper. So when he was giving the order he was sure that he's into an easy game. Gerasimov^1 on the other hand most likely knew what he was doing. At the same time Putin does likely realise that russian army is not capable agains NATO, not in an offensive scenario at least. He does not view at as a conquest for sure (at least as long as we are talking about the Russia vs West+Baltics. Can't say same thing about other former USSR republics) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Gerasimov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Gerasimov
  - jusssi 5y ago
    So when the generals say, hey there's Finland, sitting there all by itself, right next to us. It'll take us two weeks, nice and clean. And Sweden's up next, we can get Ikea and Abba too. But we must hurry, in another month or two they might join Nato. Just sign here, mr president. Btw if what you're saying is true, then that's all the more reason to replace Putin with someone who's capable of keeping the military in check. They're never good masters.
    - konart 5y ago
      >So when the generals say, hey there's Finland, sitting there all by itself, right next to us. It'll take us two weeks, nice and clean. And Sweden's up next, we can get Ikea and Abba too. But we must hurry, in another month or two they might join Nato. Just sign here, mr president. Well, yes. This is simplification of course, but generally - yes. Obviously you have to keep cultural aspects in mind. Sweden going into NATO is bad but not as bad as Ukraine because Ukraine is basically part of Russia from Putins point of view. Them joining NATO or EU is like Chechnya going for independence (again) from Putin's\military point of view. They (someone) just decided to be proactive here.
romwell 5y ago
As a Ukrainian: kindly, reconsider. Russian invasion wasn't started by the West. It's not a game. Supplying weapons and enforcing the strictest economic sanctions is the least the West can do to ensure Ukraine's — and its own — survival. Nobody is "using" Ukraine. The invasion was in the works for a decade; the country has been at war since 2014. And if Putin's kleptocracy figures pulling back forces, returning captured land, and paying for the damages caused is the best way to go, Ukraine would take it. Conversely, if Ukraine falls, they have no reason to stop at Ukraine. I hope anyone with a sense of self-preservation understands that empowering Putin's regime in Russia by inaction is suicidal. So I stand with Ukraine, and I hope you will, too.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The USA used Ukraine (and Georgia) in 2008 when it told NATO that it must tell putin that Ukraine was joining, despite no one else wanting it to. That's why all this is happening. Putin himself c. 2000 wanted russia to join NATO/EU -- and has found the USA's rejection and containment of russia post-USSR incomprehensible. When the USA insisted on neighboring states joining NATO, that's when Russia took this stance of NATO=Threat -- because, frankly, that was the USA basically said. Ukraine is being used again now. If the west wanted your people to survive, they would not have just proven to putin what a threat NATO really is -- by arming you, and by attacking the russian economy. The UK/USA has basically just confirmed the need for russia to conduct this war, and has given him every reason just to level your country. That is what's about to happen.
  - asimpletune 5y ago
    Dude, your comment is absolutely bizarre, and that’s the most charitable way to interpret it. NATO is a defensive alliance, and isn’t a threat to anyone, unless you consider being able to deter nuclear warheads as a threat then sure, go ahead. So, yeah, if you have a bunch of nukes, which you plan to use/threaten their use, then I guess your neighbors joining a defensive alliance would be perceived as a threat. I think more or less the world is trying to move to a post-violence order, and I think it’s been made clear by their actions that Russia is threatened by that, for some reason. I can’t imagine why they don’t have more allies…
watwut 5y ago
Ukraine could have surrender, had they wanted to. It was not west that forced them into fight. It was Putin.
jacquesm 5y ago
The goal is regime change but I think you had the wrong country there: the country where Russia wants regime change is Ukraine. The West was happy to let Putin live out his natural lifespan so far, I'm sure that barring this war they'd have been happy to let him continue.
another_story 5y ago
If the West doesn't support Ukraine people would be calling the West hypocrites for not defending a democratically elected government asking for help. A country they said they'd help. If they do support them it's for their own gain and they're using them. There is no pleasing people.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  I would say everything but arming Ukraine was the right move. I'dve kept sanctioning the central bank till later, if they started with bombardment as they're doing now. People down-voting me right now may not want to hear this, but in a year's time they'll see the results. Several major ukrainian cities won't exist any more. There is no Ukrainian victory here; Russia can level the country whenever it wants. The logistics of an invasion force are hard, but they will be solved. All that's being preserved now is pride and nationalism -- people and their lives are being destroyed. Putin won, militarily, this war when he decided to invade, the only question for the west is what price we want him to pay. Right now, ukraine is being used as a stick to beat putin with -- we're going to make him pay strategically, but the actual cost will be born by ukraine.
shrikant 5y ago
Being Indian, I'm part of quite a few circles where I've seen exactly this sentiment: helping Ukraine fight Russia is just prolonging Ukrainian misery because Russia is just going to go full scorched-earth if a quick annexation doesn't work out. But what's the alternative? Just allow any large nation annex sovereign territory because the target is too weak to resist on its own? So is the suggestion that Ukraine should have just quickly analysed the relative strengths, and surrendered immediately? This will only embolden Russia (and China, eventually) to go for land grabs all over the place without any fear of retaliation.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  China going on land grabs is in the near future, it's a structural necessity. At best, this delays it only a few years. There is no good outcome here, there are only terrible and bad. The largest threat in the world today is China -- it's rise to superpower is going to be a larger catastrophe than this one. Russia just wants NATO out of its backyard, that's a cheap price for Russian allegiance on China. It would've been in the wests interests to give them it; letting Ukrainians live. Russia will take it anyway, and now, the price will be much higher for everyone. China will exploit this to the full, and the west has only won here a minor strategic battle.
  - shrikant 5y ago
    I agree with everything you've said in this reply, and yet it feels a bitter pill to swallow that the target of an invasion should just shut up and put up.

mrleinad 5y ago

I'm still trying to historically find one country where regime change was achieved by applying economic sanctions.

mjburgess 5y ago
Putin sees NATO as an existential threat, vastly more significant than any economic threat. From this premise, he is operating ruthelessly rationally, not "crazy". The western narrative of "crazy putin" is in part just a delusional misunderstanding (Germany), an in part a strategy of getting western domestic buy in for beating up Russia (UK/USA). The West (USA & UK primarily) want russia bogged down in Ukraine as much as possible, and are using this opportunity to goad russia into a regieme-destabalisng move -- i suspect it's hoped that when putin levels Kyiv, they'll be a coup. This delusional domestic propaganda about ukrainian resistance is playing right into the strategic hands of, largely, the UK. It's a dangerous game for Europe to play, and it's a luxury the USA can't afford -- which needs russia to contain china. The UK here is hoping europeans will come to depend on it more explicitly for security, germany arming itself here is an unexpected turn of events. The USA is still not focused on china enough to see what a silly nightmare this is going to be.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  This really is getting old and has been debunked over and over again.
- smcl 5y ago
  > Putin sees NATO as an existential threat That would make him crazy though, or at least extremely deluded. I don't think any NATO member had (or has!) any intention of entering into conflict with Russia - otherwise we would've seen an escalation back in 2014. I think you are giving him too much credit and are taking his words at face value. I think he probably sees NATO or the EU as contributing to the shrinking Russian of influence. This is definitely true, but it doesn't in any rational world justify military action and certainly isn't an existential threat to either Russia or Putin. Hence the popular "crazy Putin" narrative ... because it really kind of is.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Ukraine isn't in NATO and has no claim to NATO support. And yet, NATO is basically using the country to conduct a proxy war. From the Russian POV, everything here has been confirmed. NATO is an existential threat to russia. Imagine if the USA invaded cuba and russia sent massive arms/etc. to cuba, and destabalized the US economy. What would the USA think about Russia? That, exactly, it is very much the threat "it was always believed to be".
    - fabian2k 5y ago
      That's just plain ridiculous. The economic sanctions are in direct response to the invasion of a sovereign country. You can't use them as justification for this very same invasion. And the arms shipments are not by NATO directly, though of course many countries here are also members of NATO. And those shipment only started when Russia started to threaten Ukraine, invaded the Krim and finally invaded the whole country.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Why did they decide to do all that?
      - romwell 5y ago
smcl 5y ago
But it's not just economic sanctions out of the blue in and of themselves. It's a sudden and near-total exclusion from the global financial system as a response to a war which is proving to be quite unpopular and tremendously costly ... and it's not exactly going to plan. I'm not making any predictions, it could very well be that Putin hangs onto power no matter what the outcome. But this is not at all like the USA slapping sanctions on Venezuela, DPRK or Cuba.
romwell 5y ago
Look at Russia in 1917, and what caused the Tsar to abdicate. Sanctions on Russia can recreate these conditions.
- watwut 5y ago
  Russia now does not really resemble the monarchy back them. Russia 1917 was Russia after years of internal instability and violence. It had established revolutionary movements. And it ended with civil war that ended up being won by the worst fraction of those available.
  - romwell 5y ago
    I beg to disagree. * An out-of-touch autocrat? Check! * Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! * Instability? Did you miss the protests and martial law starting tomorrow (in spite of no fighting going on on Russian land)? Check! * Global flu pandemic? Check! * Food shortages? Give 'em a week. And the civil war was the outcome of the second "revolution", which was, in reality, a coup. The real revolution started with a Women's March on March 8th (yes, the same thing that's still happening every year), and ended with the establishment of the Provisional Government [1]. Which, admittedly, wasn't the best and fell to the Bolshevik coup. But it did end autocracy in Russia for a while. And USSR, before Stalin took over, introduced: * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women That's not justifying the red terror in any way, just that they were hardly "the worst". And they did pull out of WW1 (unlike the Provisional gov't). Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. Worked twice in Russia: with Tsar Nicholas II, and with Kerensky. Oh, make it thrice: Afghan war + empty shelves in grocery stores gave us Gorbachev's Perestroika. Putin's turn now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
    - watwut 5y ago
      > Established revolutionary movement? Navalny. Check! No it does not. Russia back then had multiple active revolutionary groups. Some of them active and violent too - effectively terrorist groups. The serious attempts to reform Russia were going on for years at that point too. > Food shortages? Give 'em a week. Russia back then had food shortages for years. Not for, like a week or so. > Global flu pandemic? Check! I dont think that was much factor back then, but would not be now either? > * universal suffrage * no-fault divorces * ban on ethnic discrimination * all higher education available to women * all jobs open to women Yeah, women movement in Russia had advantage of pushing for women voting rights around the time when male voting rights were question too. But, that has zero to do with uprising. > Which brings me back to the original point: ongoing unpopular war + hunger = end of regime. It primary takes weak regime. Otherwise no, as pretty much any dictator hanging on power in war torn country shows. Plus, this war is nowhere near the destruction WWI caused - unless you live in Ukraine.
tpush 5y ago
The immediate goal of the sanctions right now is to make Putin stop the invasion, nothing more. We don't know if that will work, but we are obligated to try.
dotancohen 5y ago
Not by sanctions, but the USSR famously drained its finances in the arms- and space- races with the West, and that is considered a significant factor in its demise. It has often been said that the Buran program specifically was the last straw.
rsynnott 5y ago
South Africa, arguably.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago

why? how is this different from cuban missile crisis that was averted but this was not because ukraine was told to not back out. why do you want "regime change" in russia? what if russians say they want the same for biden or trump or whatever they have there? i am neither american, nor russian/chinese so i am looking at this objectively from a distance. why does americans "want" everyone to toe their line and push their narratives only?

himinlomax 5y ago
Because in 1945, the world agreed on the UN charter and it precisely prohibits what Russia is currently doing.
- 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  so bush can continue to falsely accuse iraq of WMDs, flatten that country down, murder gaddafi and put his country into a civil war because he refused to accept american hegemony of american dollars and wanted gold for his oil. my point is, what russia is doing is simply to counter american advances against itself. why does american "need" to bring ukraine or other russian neighbours into nato? why does america have military bases across the world? why does america have to be the world police?
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    > so bush can continue to falsely accuse iraq of WMDs, flatten that country down, murder gaddafi and put his country into a civil war because he refused to accept american hegemony of american dollars and wanted gold for his oil. And many other countries opposed it. Including many in Nato. Note how no one is supporting Russia in this affair, except North Korea and the likes. Even China is abstaining. > why does american "need" to bring ukraine or other russian neighbours into nato? why does america have military bases across the world? That's the question countries like Finland were asking before this crisis, and polls were at 16% in favor of joining Nato there just a month ago. Now it's 80%.
SkeuomorphicBee 5y ago

jusssi 5y ago

> It's interesting how the west has lost it's mind here Do you honestly think Putin will stop his conquest if he gets easy success in Ukraine?

konart 5y ago
As a Russian: yes. What people seem to not understand is that Putin does not really a key figure here. Not the only key figure. The only reason he started the war is because he was assured by his generals that they can do the whole thing rather quickly. Putin does not do any information analysis, he does not use internet at all (his words, not mine). He only read repots presented to him in paper. So when he was giving the order he was sure that he's into an easy game. Gerasimov^1 on the other hand most likely knew what he was doing. At the same time Putin does likely realise that russian army is not capable agains NATO, not in an offensive scenario at least. He does not view at as a conquest for sure (at least as long as we are talking about the Russia vs West+Baltics. Can't say same thing about other former USSR republics) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Gerasimov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Gerasimov
- jusssi 5y ago
  So when the generals say, hey there's Finland, sitting there all by itself, right next to us. It'll take us two weeks, nice and clean. And Sweden's up next, we can get Ikea and Abba too. But we must hurry, in another month or two they might join Nato. Just sign here, mr president. Btw if what you're saying is true, then that's all the more reason to replace Putin with someone who's capable of keeping the military in check. They're never good masters.
  - konart 5y ago
    >So when the generals say, hey there's Finland, sitting there all by itself, right next to us. It'll take us two weeks, nice and clean. And Sweden's up next, we can get Ikea and Abba too. But we must hurry, in another month or two they might join Nato. Just sign here, mr president. Well, yes. This is simplification of course, but generally - yes. Obviously you have to keep cultural aspects in mind. Sweden going into NATO is bad but not as bad as Ukraine because Ukraine is basically part of Russia from Putins point of view. Them joining NATO or EU is like Chechnya going for independence (again) from Putin's\military point of view. They (someone) just decided to be proactive here.

romwell 5y ago

As a Ukrainian: kindly, reconsider. Russian invasion wasn't started by the West. It's not a game. Supplying weapons and enforcing the strictest economic sanctions is the least the West can do to ensure Ukraine's — and its own — survival. Nobody is "using" Ukraine. The invasion was in the works for a decade; the country has been at war since 2014. And if Putin's kleptocracy figures pulling back forces, returning captured land, and paying for the damages caused is the best way to go, Ukraine would take it. Conversely, if Ukraine falls, they have no reason to stop at Ukraine. I hope anyone with a sense of self-preservation understands that empowering Putin's regime in Russia by inaction is suicidal. So I stand with Ukraine, and I hope you will, too.

mjburgess 5y ago
The USA used Ukraine (and Georgia) in 2008 when it told NATO that it must tell putin that Ukraine was joining, despite no one else wanting it to. That's why all this is happening. Putin himself c. 2000 wanted russia to join NATO/EU -- and has found the USA's rejection and containment of russia post-USSR incomprehensible. When the USA insisted on neighboring states joining NATO, that's when Russia took this stance of NATO=Threat -- because, frankly, that was the USA basically said. Ukraine is being used again now. If the west wanted your people to survive, they would not have just proven to putin what a threat NATO really is -- by arming you, and by attacking the russian economy. The UK/USA has basically just confirmed the need for russia to conduct this war, and has given him every reason just to level your country. That is what's about to happen.
- asimpletune 5y ago
  Dude, your comment is absolutely bizarre, and that’s the most charitable way to interpret it. NATO is a defensive alliance, and isn’t a threat to anyone, unless you consider being able to deter nuclear warheads as a threat then sure, go ahead. So, yeah, if you have a bunch of nukes, which you plan to use/threaten their use, then I guess your neighbors joining a defensive alliance would be perceived as a threat. I think more or less the world is trying to move to a post-violence order, and I think it’s been made clear by their actions that Russia is threatened by that, for some reason. I can’t imagine why they don’t have more allies…

watwut 5y ago

Ukraine could have surrender, had they wanted to. It was not west that forced them into fight. It was Putin.

jacquesm 5y ago

The goal is regime change but I think you had the wrong country there: the country where Russia wants regime change is Ukraine. The West was happy to let Putin live out his natural lifespan so far, I'm sure that barring this war they'd have been happy to let him continue.

another_story 5y ago

If the West doesn't support Ukraine people would be calling the West hypocrites for not defending a democratically elected government asking for help. A country they said they'd help. If they do support them it's for their own gain and they're using them. There is no pleasing people.

mjburgess 5y ago
I would say everything but arming Ukraine was the right move. I'dve kept sanctioning the central bank till later, if they started with bombardment as they're doing now. People down-voting me right now may not want to hear this, but in a year's time they'll see the results. Several major ukrainian cities won't exist any more. There is no Ukrainian victory here; Russia can level the country whenever it wants. The logistics of an invasion force are hard, but they will be solved. All that's being preserved now is pride and nationalism -- people and their lives are being destroyed. Putin won, militarily, this war when he decided to invade, the only question for the west is what price we want him to pay. Right now, ukraine is being used as a stick to beat putin with -- we're going to make him pay strategically, but the actual cost will be born by ukraine.

shrikant 5y ago

Being Indian, I'm part of quite a few circles where I've seen exactly this sentiment: helping Ukraine fight Russia is just prolonging Ukrainian misery because Russia is just going to go full scorched-earth if a quick annexation doesn't work out. But what's the alternative? Just allow any large nation annex sovereign territory because the target is too weak to resist on its own? So is the suggestion that Ukraine should have just quickly analysed the relative strengths, and surrendered immediately? This will only embolden Russia (and China, eventually) to go for land grabs all over the place without any fear of retaliation.

mjburgess 5y ago
China going on land grabs is in the near future, it's a structural necessity. At best, this delays it only a few years. There is no good outcome here, there are only terrible and bad. The largest threat in the world today is China -- it's rise to superpower is going to be a larger catastrophe than this one. Russia just wants NATO out of its backyard, that's a cheap price for Russian allegiance on China. It would've been in the wests interests to give them it; letting Ukrainians live. Russia will take it anyway, and now, the price will be much higher for everyone. China will exploit this to the full, and the west has only won here a minor strategic battle.
- shrikant 5y ago
  I agree with everything you've said in this reply, and yet it feels a bitter pill to swallow that the target of an invasion should just shut up and put up.