6 ms·

The West is “weaponizing everything” as you put it against Russia “as they see fit” in response to the actual aggression against another sovereign country using

The West is “weaponizing everything” as you put it against Russia “as they see fit” in response to the actual aggression against another sovereign country using actual weapons. There is also another alternative you forgot to add to the list that Russia could consider - don’t invade neighboring countries, don’t murder people. It seems to work fine for, I don’t know, let’s say Iceland - much smaller, much weaker country. Wonder why is that?

mytailorisrich 5y ago
This is an emotional view based on the narrative we are being flooded with. What's happening to Russia is because they are not the West and are acting against the West, not because "an actual aggression against another sovereign country using actual weapons", which something the West and allies routinely do as well (and with no less horrible consequences to populations but without any sanctions).
- VincentEvans 5y ago
  No, it’s happening exactly because it invaded and is killing people in Ukraine. Why invent an alternative and much more complicated reason? Russia was a mess, weak and poor for 20 of the last 30 years. All the West did during this time was invest and assist trying to integrate a former adversary into the world economy.
  - forum_ghost 5y ago
- zoomablemind 5y ago
  > ...This is an emotional view based on the narrative we are being flooded with. Over 2mil refugee exodus from Ukraine in a mere 2week span is the flood of lives, not the emotional narrative. Any practical ideas to halting the still ongoing Russian effort to demolish Ukraine? Asking the Russian state to "just stop" does not seem to work for now.
sudosysgen 5y ago
You're forgetting that it's selective. Countries allied with the US get to invade neighboring countries and murder people, others don't. So it's not used a force of good, just as a cudgel to maintain US hegemony.
- VincentEvans 5y ago
  I don’t in general have too much fondness for US military adventures or alliances, though I think in fairness they fall on a spectrum from pretty sketchy to at least well intentioned. But that doesn’t make me unable to judge other events on their merits. Two wrongs don’t make a right, false equivocation and all that.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    That is completely orthogonal to what I am saying. I am saying that these sanctions and restrictions are only applied to US adversaries. So they do not serve at all, whatsoever, in any shape or form, to dissuade wrongs. They solely serve to create an unequal cost to the use of force, which creates a geopolitical advantage. It has nothing to do with the moral content of anything, really. It's clear that the main criterion for whether this happens or not isn't morality, it's just whether the US approves.
    - VincentEvans 5y ago
      Does the us have a lot of the countries in it’s circle of allies that are guilty of actions that require similar magnitude of response? Jumping ahead, my guess would be you are talking about Saudis? Or would it be Israel?
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Yes, there are many. The Saudis, the Israelis, Turkey, the French and British (Libya), the US itself (Iraq, Vietnam), etc... Any single of these countries in the last 20 years have engaged in wars of aggression that have done more damage than Russia has and is likely to inflict on Ukraine, and thus deserve a similar magnitude of response.
dingoegret12 5y ago
Venezuela. Iran . Afghanistan.
- VincentEvans 5y ago
  When was Venezuela invaded? In respect to Iran US has poor history as it relates to the Iranian Revolution, but with things as they currently are - do you believe Iran should be unopposed? By the way, it’s not that I think people should ignore what happened 80 years ago, but at the same time I think it’s a long time, politics change and old conflicts are not as relevant as some like to argue. UK is not the colonial Britain, modern Germany and Japan are not the Axis of WW2. Though Russia appears to be good ol’ scarecrow Russia, so I guess some things change and some stay the same… And call me naive, but I am of the opinion that US of the last 30 years honestly tries to be on the right side of history and it’s not the hegemon real despots of the world try to paint it as. And lastly Afghanistan - I mean you can argue with me I guess, but I think the 20 years and trillions spent can serve as an evidence that there US really tried to do something at least well intentioned. I guess what I am trying to say that these days I hear a lot of “but look over there!” kind of argument, and they often even contain some truth to them, but I think they also contain a lot of differences that are overlooked to better serve the argument. But even if they were exactly the same - you don’t justify an atrocity by pointing at another atrocity.
  - dingoegret12 5y ago
    You stated that the west, in scare quotations, was only weaponizing commerce because of the exceptional circumstance being that the target was engaged in an invasion of a country. Contradicting the assertion of the parent comment that the imperial core countries will weaponize everything that they have against countries that don't align with their interests. I brought up an example of three countries that have been similarly condemned and were not invading anybody. Regarding The Iran comment. Why are you even thinking about a far-away country needing to be "opposed"? This is a very weird world police mindset to me. Do you think NATO shouldn't be opposed? America spent 2 trillion on it's own military budget in Afghanistan. Half of which were interest payments. The US didn't spend trillions to sponsor Afghanistan's infrastructure. The US occupied that country for 20 years and destroyed not only it's infrastructure but the fabric of that society as well as the mental well-being of several generations of Afganis. The toll is incalculable. How you spun 20 years to be evidence of benevolence, I'll never know. So I assume Russia occupying civilized Ukraine for the next two decades, despite violent, traumatic and desperate resistance will also be seen as benevolence?

mytailorisrich 5y ago

This is an emotional view based on the narrative we are being flooded with. What's happening to Russia is because they are not the West and are acting against the West, not because "an actual aggression against another sovereign country using actual weapons", which something the West and allies routinely do as well (and with no less horrible consequences to populations but without any sanctions).

VincentEvans 5y ago
No, it’s happening exactly because it invaded and is killing people in Ukraine. Why invent an alternative and much more complicated reason? Russia was a mess, weak and poor for 20 of the last 30 years. All the West did during this time was invest and assist trying to integrate a former adversary into the world economy.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
zoomablemind 5y ago
> ...This is an emotional view based on the narrative we are being flooded with. Over 2mil refugee exodus from Ukraine in a mere 2week span is the flood of lives, not the emotional narrative. Any practical ideas to halting the still ongoing Russian effort to demolish Ukraine? Asking the Russian state to "just stop" does not seem to work for now.

sudosysgen 5y ago

You're forgetting that it's selective. Countries allied with the US get to invade neighboring countries and murder people, others don't. So it's not used a force of good, just as a cudgel to maintain US hegemony.

VincentEvans 5y ago
I don’t in general have too much fondness for US military adventures or alliances, though I think in fairness they fall on a spectrum from pretty sketchy to at least well intentioned. But that doesn’t make me unable to judge other events on their merits. Two wrongs don’t make a right, false equivocation and all that.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  That is completely orthogonal to what I am saying. I am saying that these sanctions and restrictions are only applied to US adversaries. So they do not serve at all, whatsoever, in any shape or form, to dissuade wrongs. They solely serve to create an unequal cost to the use of force, which creates a geopolitical advantage. It has nothing to do with the moral content of anything, really. It's clear that the main criterion for whether this happens or not isn't morality, it's just whether the US approves.
  - VincentEvans 5y ago
    Does the us have a lot of the countries in it’s circle of allies that are guilty of actions that require similar magnitude of response? Jumping ahead, my guess would be you are talking about Saudis? Or would it be Israel?
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Yes, there are many. The Saudis, the Israelis, Turkey, the French and British (Libya), the US itself (Iraq, Vietnam), etc... Any single of these countries in the last 20 years have engaged in wars of aggression that have done more damage than Russia has and is likely to inflict on Ukraine, and thus deserve a similar magnitude of response.

dingoegret12 5y ago

Venezuela. Iran . Afghanistan.

VincentEvans 5y ago
When was Venezuela invaded? In respect to Iran US has poor history as it relates to the Iranian Revolution, but with things as they currently are - do you believe Iran should be unopposed? By the way, it’s not that I think people should ignore what happened 80 years ago, but at the same time I think it’s a long time, politics change and old conflicts are not as relevant as some like to argue. UK is not the colonial Britain, modern Germany and Japan are not the Axis of WW2. Though Russia appears to be good ol’ scarecrow Russia, so I guess some things change and some stay the same… And call me naive, but I am of the opinion that US of the last 30 years honestly tries to be on the right side of history and it’s not the hegemon real despots of the world try to paint it as. And lastly Afghanistan - I mean you can argue with me I guess, but I think the 20 years and trillions spent can serve as an evidence that there US really tried to do something at least well intentioned. I guess what I am trying to say that these days I hear a lot of “but look over there!” kind of argument, and they often even contain some truth to them, but I think they also contain a lot of differences that are overlooked to better serve the argument. But even if they were exactly the same - you don’t justify an atrocity by pointing at another atrocity.
- dingoegret12 5y ago
  You stated that the west, in scare quotations, was only weaponizing commerce because of the exceptional circumstance being that the target was engaged in an invasion of a country. Contradicting the assertion of the parent comment that the imperial core countries will weaponize everything that they have against countries that don't align with their interests. I brought up an example of three countries that have been similarly condemned and were not invading anybody. Regarding The Iran comment. Why are you even thinking about a far-away country needing to be "opposed"? This is a very weird world police mindset to me. Do you think NATO shouldn't be opposed? America spent 2 trillion on it's own military budget in Afghanistan. Half of which were interest payments. The US didn't spend trillions to sponsor Afghanistan's infrastructure. The US occupied that country for 20 years and destroyed not only it's infrastructure but the fabric of that society as well as the mental well-being of several generations of Afganis. The toll is incalculable. How you spun 20 years to be evidence of benevolence, I'll never know. So I assume Russia occupying civilized Ukraine for the next two decades, despite violent, traumatic and desperate resistance will also be seen as benevolence?