4 ms·

I agree that there are many holes in the rationales provided. We should be able to say this without being accused of supporting either side. I'm not sure this

I agree that there are many holes in the rationales provided. We should be able to say this without being accused of supporting either side. I'm not sure this would be as controversial if posters considered that it is possible for both 'sides' to be wrong. Of course the article has a way to frame the issue. It exists on one 'side' of the issue. Similar to how these shortages are largely blamed on the war, rather than the sanctions or the pandemic restrictions. It isn't just the (perhaps misplaced) controversy that I find interesting here. It is the constant transitioning from one crisis to the next, each one with economic implications. A cynical conspiracy theorist might even wonder if these crises are manufactured to suit these economic ends. Is attributing motive even important? We are here now, dealing with the results. Just the same, the constant state of emergency demanded by these fear promotions and the short attention span of those who indulge them does remind me of a cat chasing a laser pointer.

etherael 5y ago
Russia can be provoked into the war and the war can still be unjust at the same time. It's not an either or scenario. If someone calls me a name and I summarily execute them, it would be both provoked, and unjust in much the same way. Seems to me Russia blundered pretty badly. Even if it had been as easy as they were assuming they would always come out of this having paid an extremely heavy toll diplomatically and economically. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why they couldn't use the same tactics their opposition was using and keep it out of the hot war it's turned into.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  The simplest answer is that Russia did view NATO in Ukraine as an existential threat. It explains why thy were willing to risk such harsh consequences. >I don't understand why they couldn't use the same tactics their opposition was using and keep it out of the hot war it's turned into. They were using other means in Ukraine to avoid full scale war for decades, but loosing badly at them (eg politics, manipulation, trade offers, ect)

etherael 5y ago

Russia can be provoked into the war and the war can still be unjust at the same time. It's not an either or scenario. If someone calls me a name and I summarily execute them, it would be both provoked, and unjust in much the same way. Seems to me Russia blundered pretty badly. Even if it had been as easy as they were assuming they would always come out of this having paid an extremely heavy toll diplomatically and economically. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why they couldn't use the same tactics their opposition was using and keep it out of the hot war it's turned into.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
The simplest answer is that Russia did view NATO in Ukraine as an existential threat. It explains why thy were willing to risk such harsh consequences. >I don't understand why they couldn't use the same tactics their opposition was using and keep it out of the hot war it's turned into. They were using other means in Ukraine to avoid full scale war for decades, but loosing badly at them (eg politics, manipulation, trade offers, ect)