5 ms·

The same treatment should apply to the US or any other great/middle power. You’re responsible for predictable consequences. Especially when nuclear weapons ente

The same treatment should apply to the US or any other great/middle power. You’re responsible for predictable consequences. Especially when nuclear weapons enter the equation. There is no sense or satisfaction in ascribing the “blame” to Putin when the ICBMs are in the air. Some even explicitly extend your logic to those ludicrous ends, though I don’t presume to know your own thoughts. Moral considerations of course matter, but there is no such thing as “morally” doing something that leads to an innocent people being invaded for “just” reasons, when perfectly reasonable alternatives exist. Never mind that no major power reaches the level of minimal moral integrity. And to be clear, NATO is not guilty of war crimes (for Ukraine), but the Russian government is — not that Ukrainians will feel the difference of my moral ranking either way. It’s clear who deserves more moral consternation. But I have zero influence over Putin. I have almost, but not exactly zero influence over NATO. I have no responsibility for Russian actions, and some for NATO’s. And the comment I was replying to was advocating for what I think is the diametric opposite of what NATO should do. Those policy choices are the kinds of actions that will have a material effect on peace or war in Ukraine.

sverhagen 5y ago
If you felt compelled to acknowledge the exceedingly small influence you have on NATO, why not acknowledge the exceedingly small chance you would cause a Russian revolution by leaving a five star review on the website of an eatery in Moscow?
- dundarious 5y ago
  I mean this as a genuine question, but is your comment just to say that I was technically wrong to say I have “exactly zero” influence over Russian government policy, given unlikely butterfly effects exist? Would you dispute that I have a tiny influence on all government policy, but I have orders of magnitude less over Russia compared to the US where I live? I covered responsibility also: do you agree that I am not responsible for Russian government actions (here I think exactly zero would be correct) but I have some responsibility for NATO actions, which are notionally done for my benefit?
  - sverhagen 5y ago
    I liked your comment and didn't mean to come across overly critical. But one of the scenarios I hear discussed in the media I consume is for this crisis to be resolved through internal changes in Russia, and that de-escalation through western actions is unlikely. I don't know enough to know how realistic that is. But in that case support for Russians could be more valuable than our voting power toward NATO.
    - dundarious 5y ago
      There is a path to a peace agreement. Obviously these wouldn't be unilateral actions, but offerings or part of a final agreement with concessions on all sides: - no NATO membership for Ukraine (it has already been invaded, there is no loss in taking this position now, and much to gain even if it leads to Russian withdrawal) - some wider security agreement for the region -- if this means no more events like the NATO bombing of Serbia without UN authorization, that is perfectly acceptable - repeal of discriminatory language laws, etc., and implement some meaningful degree regional autonomy for eastern parts of Ukraine (and western if they want it), basically Minsk 2 clause 4; or some internationally observed (so not like Crimea) referenda in those regions - relax and withdraw most/all sanctions, but absolutely those on the central bank and SWIFT (though Russia will obviously and rationally accelerate economic links outside of Western control, as will many other countries) I think a crucial condition should be no imposed change of government in Ukraine (so like what Russia wants in its military intervention in Syria, and not what the US wanted in military interventions in Libya, Iraq, and wants in Syria, etc.) As for supporting Russians, I totally agree. One of the problems with the sanctions is that they are going to hurt ordinary Russian people, and are just as likely to strengthen the authorities as much as "encourage" ordinary Russians to change their government ("encourage" through collective punishment). The long legacy of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, etc., shows that this tactic far more often just hurts and even kills ordinary people rather than anything else. There are many news pundits and analysts with prominent positions and exposure in print and television news in the US, who say things like, "There are no neutral Russian citizens now, they are all responsible for the invasion now" (this is paraphrasing, but not an exaggeration), at least on their personal twitter feeds. Unfortunately, I think most of the focus on "internal changes" is focused on severe collective punishment of ordinary people, rather than anything else, and so I find most of it counter-productive and cruel.
SinParadise 5y ago
This is my issue with your use of word "cause". To me it insinuated culpability by NATO and the lack of agency from Russia. So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade. I wish to clarify that I am not talking about blame or morality, but simply to address the underlying implication that one that caused it ought to be the one to make concessions to fix it, and by removing agency from Russia and placing cause on NATO, you essentially suggests that NATO ought to be the party that ought to make concessions, and my post should've be abundantly clear that I don't agree with that position.
- dundarious 5y ago
  I think causation is not a binary, and tried to mitigate thinking along those lines by saying "factor in causing to happen" not just "causing", but admittedly I didn't make that aspect fully clear. I meant "influenced a chain of events" not "is the absolute most significant factor in the chain of events". I think NATO's actions were a hugely significant factor though, because it's the factor that we control! As I said, we don't control or have responsibility for the actions of the Russian government, so in our decision-making process, we must take those largely as a given. I support the various stop-the-war movements that were making this all plain -- an invasion would be evil, and it would be evil for us to knowingly fail to take reasonable actions to avoid invasion, and likewise for us to knowingly pour fuel on the kindling of war. > So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade. I'd quibble with the negation of causation for NATO's actions and the use of "simply", but, if I understand the final clause correctly, then yes I ultimately agree, there was absolutely a reasonable chain of events under our control that would have lead to there being no invasion, but also, there absolutely exists a plausible Russian government that would not have invaded. But we don't live in a world with such a government, and we have no control over that fact.
  - SinParadise 5y ago
    I don't disagree with the premise that "we ought to avoid war if we can", but pacifism and appeasement to an actor not acting rationally or in good faith is not fruitful, historically speaking. My question to you is, where do you draw the line between "I am willing to make such a concession to avoid a war" and "then let there be war"? I am clearly more hawkish but I am curious to where you stand.

sverhagen 5y ago

If you felt compelled to acknowledge the exceedingly small influence you have on NATO, why not acknowledge the exceedingly small chance you would cause a Russian revolution by leaving a five star review on the website of an eatery in Moscow?

dundarious 5y ago
I mean this as a genuine question, but is your comment just to say that I was technically wrong to say I have “exactly zero” influence over Russian government policy, given unlikely butterfly effects exist? Would you dispute that I have a tiny influence on all government policy, but I have orders of magnitude less over Russia compared to the US where I live? I covered responsibility also: do you agree that I am not responsible for Russian government actions (here I think exactly zero would be correct) but I have some responsibility for NATO actions, which are notionally done for my benefit?
- sverhagen 5y ago
  I liked your comment and didn't mean to come across overly critical. But one of the scenarios I hear discussed in the media I consume is for this crisis to be resolved through internal changes in Russia, and that de-escalation through western actions is unlikely. I don't know enough to know how realistic that is. But in that case support for Russians could be more valuable than our voting power toward NATO.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    There is a path to a peace agreement. Obviously these wouldn't be unilateral actions, but offerings or part of a final agreement with concessions on all sides: - no NATO membership for Ukraine (it has already been invaded, there is no loss in taking this position now, and much to gain even if it leads to Russian withdrawal) - some wider security agreement for the region -- if this means no more events like the NATO bombing of Serbia without UN authorization, that is perfectly acceptable - repeal of discriminatory language laws, etc., and implement some meaningful degree regional autonomy for eastern parts of Ukraine (and western if they want it), basically Minsk 2 clause 4; or some internationally observed (so not like Crimea) referenda in those regions - relax and withdraw most/all sanctions, but absolutely those on the central bank and SWIFT (though Russia will obviously and rationally accelerate economic links outside of Western control, as will many other countries) I think a crucial condition should be no imposed change of government in Ukraine (so like what Russia wants in its military intervention in Syria, and not what the US wanted in military interventions in Libya, Iraq, and wants in Syria, etc.) As for supporting Russians, I totally agree. One of the problems with the sanctions is that they are going to hurt ordinary Russian people, and are just as likely to strengthen the authorities as much as "encourage" ordinary Russians to change their government ("encourage" through collective punishment). The long legacy of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, etc., shows that this tactic far more often just hurts and even kills ordinary people rather than anything else. There are many news pundits and analysts with prominent positions and exposure in print and television news in the US, who say things like, "There are no neutral Russian citizens now, they are all responsible for the invasion now" (this is paraphrasing, but not an exaggeration), at least on their personal twitter feeds. Unfortunately, I think most of the focus on "internal changes" is focused on severe collective punishment of ordinary people, rather than anything else, and so I find most of it counter-productive and cruel.

SinParadise 5y ago

This is my issue with your use of word "cause". To me it insinuated culpability by NATO and the lack of agency from Russia. So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade. I wish to clarify that I am not talking about blame or morality, but simply to address the underlying implication that one that caused it ought to be the one to make concessions to fix it, and by removing agency from Russia and placing cause on NATO, you essentially suggests that NATO ought to be the party that ought to make concessions, and my post should've be abundantly clear that I don't agree with that position.

dundarious 5y ago
I think causation is not a binary, and tried to mitigate thinking along those lines by saying "factor in causing to happen" not just "causing", but admittedly I didn't make that aspect fully clear. I meant "influenced a chain of events" not "is the absolute most significant factor in the chain of events". I think NATO's actions were a hugely significant factor though, because it's the factor that we control! As I said, we don't control or have responsibility for the actions of the Russian government, so in our decision-making process, we must take those largely as a given. I support the various stop-the-war movements that were making this all plain -- an invasion would be evil, and it would be evil for us to knowingly fail to take reasonable actions to avoid invasion, and likewise for us to knowingly pour fuel on the kindling of war. > So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade. I'd quibble with the negation of causation for NATO's actions and the use of "simply", but, if I understand the final clause correctly, then yes I ultimately agree, there was absolutely a reasonable chain of events under our control that would have lead to there being no invasion, but also, there absolutely exists a plausible Russian government that would not have invaded. But we don't live in a world with such a government, and we have no control over that fact.
- SinParadise 5y ago
  I don't disagree with the premise that "we ought to avoid war if we can", but pacifism and appeasement to an actor not acting rationally or in good faith is not fruitful, historically speaking. My question to you is, where do you draw the line between "I am willing to make such a concession to avoid a war" and "then let there be war"? I am clearly more hawkish but I am curious to where you stand.