3 ms·

The real geopolitics behind this is that Russia is trying to curb NATO influence. So this war is really about hurting NATO. A Russian loss helps NATO and a vict

The real geopolitics behind this is that Russia is trying to curb NATO influence. So this war is really about hurting NATO. A Russian loss helps NATO and a victory hurts NATO, but the war can be ended if either side makes the requisite concessions. But for unaffiliated parties they don’t necessarily take a pro-NATO stance so anti-war or anti-violence simply means “somebody please give in” rather than “NATO please win.” Asking India, or even China for this matter, to make sacrifices for the benefit of NATO is an unrealistic position to take.

oblio 5y ago
You use a lot of words in your post but none are "Ukraine". Ukrainians have the right to decide what they want to do and what, if anything, to give up.
- chrischen 5y ago
  Ukrainians certainly can, but you can't ignore the fact that a lot of NATO's motivations for helping isn't just altruism. Part of this is also the proxy war being fought, and even if India and China want Ukraine to win, they may not want to be the ones paying for a NATO victory.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Small wars almost always drag in bigger powers. But that doesn't change much. The US intervened in Vietnam and Afghanistan and because the locals didn't want them, the US still lost. Foreign contributions in Ukraine pale in comparison to Vietnam and Afghanistan yet Ukraine is resisting. And this a full blown Russian invasion, not just a Ukrainian civil war, yet Ukraine might even win this war. That's strictly the merit of the Ukrainians. You can gift weapons, but not the will to fight.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  > Ukrainians have the right Not yet, apparently, but they are fighting for it.
sidibe 5y ago
The recent tension kicked off in 2013 and was based on Ukraine approaching the EU. Over time Putin has sold the NATO story well since then but he started trying to directly control Ukraine politics in 2013 when they said they wanted to move forward with their EU candidacy. Ukrainians didn't accept this "veto" from Moscow hence Euromaidan and that led Putin to do what he did in Crimea and Donbass. None of that was about NATO Ukraine becoming a more successful county like all the other countries that have joined the EU would have made Russians wonder if Putin was holding them back given their closeness to Ukraine and more advantageous starting point.
- chrischen 5y ago
  > Ukraine becoming a more successful county like all the other countries that have joined the EU would have made Russians wonder if Putin was holding them back given their closeness to Ukraine and more advantageous starting point. Yes but this furthers the goals of Western Europe and The USA, regardless of how Ukraine behaves. It just so happens to be an aligned interest with Ukraine. If Ukraine wants to fight off Russia it certainly has the right to, but asking China/India to sanction Russia is like telling them to pay and actively contribute to the war. Maybe they should do that, but that payment is at their cost, for the benefit of Ukraine and NATO. I'm sure there are plenty of civil wars and atrocities such that the US probably should have interfered more, such as in Myanmar, so one has to wonder why in certain cases (Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine) that the US decides to intervene slightly more. I'm not saying that's what they should be doing or not be doing, I'm just helping laypeople rationalize why the self-interested approach of certain countries is rational... for their self interest. But then countries aren't people, but they are beholden to the interests of their own people first. The US just so happens to be aligned with the interests of Ukraine, but our interference definitely has self interest motivations too. We just can't go around pretending like China and India not "helping" for our self-interests as some kind of atrocity.

oblio 5y ago

You use a lot of words in your post but none are "Ukraine". Ukrainians have the right to decide what they want to do and what, if anything, to give up.

chrischen 5y ago
Ukrainians certainly can, but you can't ignore the fact that a lot of NATO's motivations for helping isn't just altruism. Part of this is also the proxy war being fought, and even if India and China want Ukraine to win, they may not want to be the ones paying for a NATO victory.
- oblio 5y ago
  Small wars almost always drag in bigger powers. But that doesn't change much. The US intervened in Vietnam and Afghanistan and because the locals didn't want them, the US still lost. Foreign contributions in Ukraine pale in comparison to Vietnam and Afghanistan yet Ukraine is resisting. And this a full blown Russian invasion, not just a Ukrainian civil war, yet Ukraine might even win this war. That's strictly the merit of the Ukrainians. You can gift weapons, but not the will to fight.
Koshkin 5y ago
> Ukrainians have the right Not yet, apparently, but they are fighting for it.

sidibe 5y ago

The recent tension kicked off in 2013 and was based on Ukraine approaching the EU. Over time Putin has sold the NATO story well since then but he started trying to directly control Ukraine politics in 2013 when they said they wanted to move forward with their EU candidacy. Ukrainians didn't accept this "veto" from Moscow hence Euromaidan and that led Putin to do what he did in Crimea and Donbass. None of that was about NATO Ukraine becoming a more successful county like all the other countries that have joined the EU would have made Russians wonder if Putin was holding them back given their closeness to Ukraine and more advantageous starting point.

chrischen 5y ago
> Ukraine becoming a more successful county like all the other countries that have joined the EU would have made Russians wonder if Putin was holding them back given their closeness to Ukraine and more advantageous starting point. Yes but this furthers the goals of Western Europe and The USA, regardless of how Ukraine behaves. It just so happens to be an aligned interest with Ukraine. If Ukraine wants to fight off Russia it certainly has the right to, but asking China/India to sanction Russia is like telling them to pay and actively contribute to the war. Maybe they should do that, but that payment is at their cost, for the benefit of Ukraine and NATO. I'm sure there are plenty of civil wars and atrocities such that the US probably should have interfered more, such as in Myanmar, so one has to wonder why in certain cases (Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine) that the US decides to intervene slightly more. I'm not saying that's what they should be doing or not be doing, I'm just helping laypeople rationalize why the self-interested approach of certain countries is rational... for their self interest. But then countries aren't people, but they are beholden to the interests of their own people first. The US just so happens to be aligned with the interests of Ukraine, but our interference definitely has self interest motivations too. We just can't go around pretending like China and India not "helping" for our self-interests as some kind of atrocity.