3 ms·

I think Russia's Article 51 defense for the invasion is, to be charitable, a stretch, and that the invasion is probably illegal. I say probably because I'm not

I think Russia's Article 51 defense for the invasion is, to be charitable, a stretch, and that the invasion is probably illegal. I say probably because I'm not a lawyer and it's a complicated matter of international law. Russia does at least have a cohesive argument. If anyone's curious, it has to do with defending the republics it recognized as independent, and then requiring the invasion to have a reasonable chance at that defense. My view is that the US baited Putin into this by making repeated overtures about Ukraine joining NATO (while Zelenskyy has himself said that he was told privately it wouldn't be admitted). This happened as Putin repeatedly said that Ukraine's NATO membership was a red line for him. We saw the Cuban Missle Crisis and our reaction. To me, from the Russian perspective, this is akin to Russia making preparations for a deal to put nukes in Tijuana. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces have spent the last 7 or 8 years shelling Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine, in violation of the (signed) Minsk accords. This is largely encouraged and participated in by forces that include entire units of Nazi sympathizers. We'd do well to bear in mind that from a uniquely Russian perspective, Nazism is often associated as much with being anti-Russian as it is anti-Jewish. Then we have leaked audio of US politicians (Victoria Nuland) hand picking the Ukrainian leadership after the 2014 coup that appears to have been backed by the US, and the far-right Nazi groups, to oust their democratically-elected (pro-Russian) president. I won't even get into the Hunter Biden stuff except to say that the NYT recently said his laptop was real. In sum, what Russia is doing is probably a war crime (war of aggression) and the whole situation is tragic. The US shares a lot of the blame, has done nothing but stoke the flames which is destroying Ukraine rather than push to broker a peace deal that includes the Ukrainian neutrality it had decided on anyway. The lack of open discussion about any of these issues is disheartening. I'm suspicious that the narrative being pushed by the US media has a lot more to do with the arms industry than a moral judgement by the US, which is shown through other ongoing conflicts (Yemen, Somalia) not to exist.

supramouse 5y ago
minsk and minsk ii were designed to fail, there's no way either the russian supported separatists or ukraine would abide by them not to mention that russia didn't uphold it's end of the frameworks anyway the russian idea of 'ukrainian neutrality' would require the US to formally reject the idea of a nations right to self-determination to satisfy the demands of a state that isn't even a peer or on good terms which isn't going to fly it weakens the united states and europe the rest is minutia, blowback, corruption and handwaving at the end of day this is the stupid game russian leadership setup and wanted to play
samastur 5y ago
It's comments like this that probably result in people accusing of being pro-Russia. You skip over annexation of Crimea and gas-rich parts of Ukraine, over Putin's rant how Ukraine shouldn't be a country, how all those new NATO countries don't have nukes stationed in them and the whole European NATO standing army is not larger than Russia's. And to top of it all, you think it's a complicated legal issue if a country that wasn't attacked or was about to attacks another one.
- tigershark 5y ago
  - user3939382 5y ago
    This is exactly the type of comment I was originally writing about, where there is no respect for other people's right to form their own conclusion.
    - Terretta 5y ago
      there is no respect for other people's right to form their own conclusion You have a right to be treated with respect, your conclusions do not. You have a right to form “your own” conclusion, no matter how hubristic. You do not have a right to expect others respect your own conclusion. E.g, if your conclusion tracks propaganda verbatim, interlocutors have their own right to call that out. Respect for conclusions based on regard for the reasoner’s “believability” is earned and can be lost. People can respect your right to be dead wrong, while still trying to help you be less so. The comment dismissing your conclusions wasn’t helpful, but was within both your and their rights.
      - user3939382 5y ago
        “You’re repeating bullshit propaganda” is a highly disrespectful way to disagree with someone. It implies that you don’t merely disagree, but that the reason you disagree is because the other person is either engaging in bad faith or otherwise lacks the intelligence to realize they’ve been “tricked” into their beliefs. My concerns about the US relationship to and other circumstances surrounding this conflict are legitimate, not “bullshit propaganda”. In some sense you have the “right” to be as rude, unproductive, and disrespectful as the moderators or regulators of whatever medium you’re on will allow, I’m commenting on the rights we should bestow on people we’re communicating with, especially when we disagree.

supramouse 5y ago

minsk and minsk ii were designed to fail, there's no way either the russian supported separatists or ukraine would abide by them not to mention that russia didn't uphold it's end of the frameworks anyway the russian idea of 'ukrainian neutrality' would require the US to formally reject the idea of a nations right to self-determination to satisfy the demands of a state that isn't even a peer or on good terms which isn't going to fly it weakens the united states and europe the rest is minutia, blowback, corruption and handwaving at the end of day this is the stupid game russian leadership setup and wanted to play

samastur 5y ago

It's comments like this that probably result in people accusing of being pro-Russia. You skip over annexation of Crimea and gas-rich parts of Ukraine, over Putin's rant how Ukraine shouldn't be a country, how all those new NATO countries don't have nukes stationed in them and the whole European NATO standing army is not larger than Russia's. And to top of it all, you think it's a complicated legal issue if a country that wasn't attacked or was about to attacks another one.

tigershark 5y ago
- user3939382 5y ago
  This is exactly the type of comment I was originally writing about, where there is no respect for other people's right to form their own conclusion.
  - Terretta 5y ago
    there is no respect for other people's right to form their own conclusion You have a right to be treated with respect, your conclusions do not. You have a right to form “your own” conclusion, no matter how hubristic. You do not have a right to expect others respect your own conclusion. E.g, if your conclusion tracks propaganda verbatim, interlocutors have their own right to call that out. Respect for conclusions based on regard for the reasoner’s “believability” is earned and can be lost. People can respect your right to be dead wrong, while still trying to help you be less so. The comment dismissing your conclusions wasn’t helpful, but was within both your and their rights.
    - user3939382 5y ago
      “You’re repeating bullshit propaganda” is a highly disrespectful way to disagree with someone. It implies that you don’t merely disagree, but that the reason you disagree is because the other person is either engaging in bad faith or otherwise lacks the intelligence to realize they’ve been “tricked” into their beliefs. My concerns about the US relationship to and other circumstances surrounding this conflict are legitimate, not “bullshit propaganda”. In some sense you have the “right” to be as rude, unproductive, and disrespectful as the moderators or regulators of whatever medium you’re on will allow, I’m commenting on the rights we should bestow on people we’re communicating with, especially when we disagree.