7 ms·
> Moreover, it’s easy to criticize Cold War eta interventions when the stakes were very high Were they, though? Which nation was primarily responsible for esca
by salt-thrower 5y ago
> Moreover, it’s easy to criticize Cold War eta interventions when the stakes were very high
Were they, though? Which nation was primarily responsible for escalation of tensions during that time? And for whom were the stakes high enough to justify overthrowing democratic governments in favor of brutal dictators?
- throwaway894345 5y agoI'm not defending any particular action, I'm cautioning against context-less comparisons. But to answer your other questions, the stakes were very high for the whole world (global thermonuclear war, communism, etc) and the USSR was primarily responsible for escalating though no doubt the west was not uniformly virtuous. If your goal is to compare the West or the US in particular with its dictatorial rivals, it's probably not very enlightening to account only for Western errors. You need to account for the errors and contributions of both sides. Unfortunately, this seems like hidden knowledge because virtually this debate is nearly always framed in the "only enumerate Western errors" fashion.
- pessimizer 5y ago> the west was not uniformly virtuous. So not absolutely perfect angels at all times? Harsh criticism. The US started the thermonuclear arms race, and escalated it until it consumed a large part of the economy, based on literal calculated lies about the "missile gap." > If your goal is to compare the West or the US in particular with its dictatorial rivals The goal should be to point out its dictatorial tendencies, and its preference for predictable dictatorial regimes all over the world that it is willing to spend huge amounts of resources to install and preserve, bathing countries around the world in blood. China is not doing that, Russia is not doing that, Iran is not doing that, North Korea is not doing that.
- adventured 5y agoRussia is supporting murderous regimes all over Africa right now, which is why so many African nations abstained from the Ukraine vote at the UN recently. Russia has been propping up the brutal dictatorship in Syria for a very long time, and several others before it across the Middle East. It has also propped up both the Belarus dictatorship and the authoritarian regime in Kazakhstan, and those are merely very recent examples.
- creato 5y agoIt’s pretty easy to look at North Korea, Cambodia, or Eastern Europe during the Cold War and say “hmm, it’s worth going to extreme lengths to prevent this from happening elsewhere”. That may have been misguided in many instances, but the basic motivation is sound. Characterizing the situation as “overthrowing democratic governments in favor of brutal dictators” is a vast oversimplification if not outright wrong at least in many cases.
- pphysch 5y ago> It’s pretty easy to look at North Korea, Cambodia, or Eastern Europe during the Cold War and say “hmm, it’s worth going to extreme lengths to prevent this from happening elsewhere”. That may have been misguided in many instances, but the basic motivation is sound. Careful, this is literally Moscow's reason for its invasion of Ukraine -- to prevent the rise of a hostile fascist entity in its frontyard.
- solveit 5y agoA bad actor claiming reasonable motivation does not make the motivation unreasonable... Obviously you have to also be sincere (debatable in Russia's case) and correct (Russian claims are simply wrong).
- pessimizer 5y agoRussian claims of an interest in controlling the government of Ukraine are at least as legitimate as US claims of an interest in controlling Korea, or Afghanistan.
- solveit 5y agoAnd is the Ukrainean state actually fascist? How about Korea? In the absence of UN intervention, would there have arisen an authoritarian state that was a menace to not only its own citizens but every neighbouring country? Clearly Ukraine is not fascist and Korea would have been. There is a difference.