7 ms·

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 o

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.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    I don't think there's a need to create much in the way of hypotheticals, because there is nothing in the 13 clauses of Minsk 2, even extrapolating out to the most concessionary outcomes of the clauses that are effectively TODOs, that is a concession "too far" that would justify war -- even IR so-called "realists" don't see the strategic logic. You can find a reasonable summary of the clauses of the Minsk agreements here: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreements-ukraine-conflict-2022-02-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreemen... The faults for the failure of Minsk 2 lie with both Russia and Ukraine, and NATO for effectively incentivizing the Ukrainian government to fail to implement key clauses, and for publicly signaling and pushing for continued talk of NATO membership, which effectively shuts down meaningful action on clause 13. And note that I am in no way a pacifist. I have no problem with NATO article 5 (up to a point -- I don't want any conflict to go to nuclear war, of course). Final note: this type of conversion comes up very frequently when anti-war arguments are made. Someone asks "is there nothing you would go to war to defend?", when, regarding the issue under discussion, there are usually relatively clear and reasonable terms already on the table that are totally absent from the public discussion. It's nobody's fault but that of our politicians and media that the discussion is so hollow and bombastic at the same time, but it is frustrating.
    - SinParadise 5y ago
      By that point Crimea has already been annexed so I cannot exactly fault Ukraine for trying to join a defensive alliance instead of trying to re-kindle the relationship with the invader. To me, that ship sailed a while ago.

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.
- dundarious 5y ago
  I don't think there's a need to create much in the way of hypotheticals, because there is nothing in the 13 clauses of Minsk 2, even extrapolating out to the most concessionary outcomes of the clauses that are effectively TODOs, that is a concession "too far" that would justify war -- even IR so-called "realists" don't see the strategic logic. You can find a reasonable summary of the clauses of the Minsk agreements here: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreements-ukraine-conflict-2022-02-21/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreemen... The faults for the failure of Minsk 2 lie with both Russia and Ukraine, and NATO for effectively incentivizing the Ukrainian government to fail to implement key clauses, and for publicly signaling and pushing for continued talk of NATO membership, which effectively shuts down meaningful action on clause 13. And note that I am in no way a pacifist. I have no problem with NATO article 5 (up to a point -- I don't want any conflict to go to nuclear war, of course). Final note: this type of conversion comes up very frequently when anti-war arguments are made. Someone asks "is there nothing you would go to war to defend?", when, regarding the issue under discussion, there are usually relatively clear and reasonable terms already on the table that are totally absent from the public discussion. It's nobody's fault but that of our politicians and media that the discussion is so hollow and bombastic at the same time, but it is frustrating.
  - SinParadise 5y ago
    By that point Crimea has already been annexed so I cannot exactly fault Ukraine for trying to join a defensive alliance instead of trying to re-kindle the relationship with the invader. To me, that ship sailed a while ago.