5 ms·

Not OP, but there are - to a first approximation - two explanations for the Russian aggression. The more popular one in the West is that Putin is nostalgic abou

Not OP, but there are - to a first approximation - two explanations for the Russian aggression. The more popular one in the West is that Putin is nostalgic about past Soviet powers and wants to restore those. The other and rather unpopular explanation is that Putin is afraid of NATO and wants a buffer between Russia and NATO members, hence Ukraine moving towards a NATO membership is considered a threat, diplomatic solutions were not reached - I am not going to assign blame here - so war it is. This is of course a much less popular opinion because it might imply that NATO actions might have contributed to the escalation, but all things considered I also think that this is the more probable explanation or at least the dominant contributing factor. This in turn makes Ukraine the victim of a conflict between Russia and NATO.

reducesuffering 5y ago
If Putin is afraid of NATO, then why did he create the scenario where Sweden and Finland are now joining NATO? Do you think he's stupid? Why would he be afraid of a NATO offense on Russia when NATO won't do defense to protect an invasion against Ukraine?
- danbruc 5y ago
  The early 1960s, the United States are afraid of Soviet influence spreading from Cuba. They support the Bay of Pigs Invasion [1] in hope to get rid of the pro-Soviet government but this fails. So the CIA starts Operation Mongoose [2] hoping to achieve the goal with terrorist attacks, assassinations, sabotage, and so on. In order to deter the United States from further interference, Cuba asks the Soviet Union to station missiles in Cuba which results in the Cuban Missile Crisis [3] bringing the world closer to nuclear war than ever before or since. What were they thinking? Were they stupid? Why would they risk worsening the situation by messing with Cuba? And while we are at it, why do the United States have any say in whether or not the Soviet Union stations missiles in Cuba? Cuba is a sovereign state, if they want Soviet missiles, they should be allowed to have them, right? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    Classic whataboutism entirely deflecting the question. Yes, US did not handle Cuba correctly 60 (!!) years ago. Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are dying today and could be stopped by Russia immediately, but they don’t. I guess if every country can be overly paranoid about their neighbors, when Russia built up troops on its border, it’s within Finland’s, Estonia’s, Lithuania’s, Latvia’s, and Ukraine’s right to just start shelling Russia right? Because the Russian buildup “could” be a threat?
    - danbruc 5y ago
      I start to hate the term whataboutism - this is none. I am not justifying one situation with another, I am just demanding consistent judgment of similar situations. This is also why it does not really matter that it was 60 years ago. You say the United States handled Cuba incorrectly, I do not know what exactly that means, but this is also not too important as long as you are consistent. We will probably disagree at least somewhat in our judgment. In my opinion it was not unreasonable for the United States to demand no missiles on Cuba given the tensions and mutual distrust in order to not increase tensions further. I could maybe also understand if Cuba or the Soviet Union had rejected that demand as reasonable in principle but not justifiable in this specific situation because of the aggression by the United States. In the end the Soviet Union did the right thing and deescalated. And they still got somewhat screwed by the United States because the concessions by the United States were no real concessions - removing the missiles from Turkey was already planned before the crisis because they were obsolete. In consequence I also think that it is not a totally unreasonable demand from Russia to not want NATO at all its borders. With that said, is still do not think that attacking Ukraine is an acceptable way to achieve this, for example sabotaging or destroying NATO military installations once they pop up in Ukraine would seem much more justifiable. But then again, once Ukraine is a NATO member, Russia would have to deal with article 5. In the end I think this should never have escalated this far to begin with, Ukraine and NATO should maybe have aimed for a limited membership like Norway or no NATO membership at all. This is of course only reasonable if you think that sovereign states sometimes have to accept limits to their sovereignty because of the interest of other states. You can of course disagree with this, but then I would ask you, for example, for your opinion on the destruction of Iranian centrifuges by Stuxnet. Justified or an act of war? I also want you to consider that it is easy from today's perspective to argue that the United States should just have accepted Soviet missiles in Cuba, therefore it might be better to consider how the United States would act today if China and Mexico reached a deal to station Chinese military assets in Mexico in exchange for economic support, maybe not even missiles but say a lot of ground forces. Would the United States be fine with that? And you can of course completely reject the idea that NATO expansion is an important factor for the Russian aggression, then the discussion has to shift completely to evidence for different explanations.

reducesuffering 5y ago

If Putin is afraid of NATO, then why did he create the scenario where Sweden and Finland are now joining NATO? Do you think he's stupid? Why would he be afraid of a NATO offense on Russia when NATO won't do defense to protect an invasion against Ukraine?

danbruc 5y ago
The early 1960s, the United States are afraid of Soviet influence spreading from Cuba. They support the Bay of Pigs Invasion [1] in hope to get rid of the pro-Soviet government but this fails. So the CIA starts Operation Mongoose [2] hoping to achieve the goal with terrorist attacks, assassinations, sabotage, and so on. In order to deter the United States from further interference, Cuba asks the Soviet Union to station missiles in Cuba which results in the Cuban Missile Crisis [3] bringing the world closer to nuclear war than ever before or since. What were they thinking? Were they stupid? Why would they risk worsening the situation by messing with Cuba? And while we are at it, why do the United States have any say in whether or not the Soviet Union stations missiles in Cuba? Cuba is a sovereign state, if they want Soviet missiles, they should be allowed to have them, right? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  Classic whataboutism entirely deflecting the question. Yes, US did not handle Cuba correctly 60 (!!) years ago. Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are dying today and could be stopped by Russia immediately, but they don’t. I guess if every country can be overly paranoid about their neighbors, when Russia built up troops on its border, it’s within Finland’s, Estonia’s, Lithuania’s, Latvia’s, and Ukraine’s right to just start shelling Russia right? Because the Russian buildup “could” be a threat?
  - danbruc 5y ago
    I start to hate the term whataboutism - this is none. I am not justifying one situation with another, I am just demanding consistent judgment of similar situations. This is also why it does not really matter that it was 60 years ago. You say the United States handled Cuba incorrectly, I do not know what exactly that means, but this is also not too important as long as you are consistent. We will probably disagree at least somewhat in our judgment. In my opinion it was not unreasonable for the United States to demand no missiles on Cuba given the tensions and mutual distrust in order to not increase tensions further. I could maybe also understand if Cuba or the Soviet Union had rejected that demand as reasonable in principle but not justifiable in this specific situation because of the aggression by the United States. In the end the Soviet Union did the right thing and deescalated. And they still got somewhat screwed by the United States because the concessions by the United States were no real concessions - removing the missiles from Turkey was already planned before the crisis because they were obsolete. In consequence I also think that it is not a totally unreasonable demand from Russia to not want NATO at all its borders. With that said, is still do not think that attacking Ukraine is an acceptable way to achieve this, for example sabotaging or destroying NATO military installations once they pop up in Ukraine would seem much more justifiable. But then again, once Ukraine is a NATO member, Russia would have to deal with article 5. In the end I think this should never have escalated this far to begin with, Ukraine and NATO should maybe have aimed for a limited membership like Norway or no NATO membership at all. This is of course only reasonable if you think that sovereign states sometimes have to accept limits to their sovereignty because of the interest of other states. You can of course disagree with this, but then I would ask you, for example, for your opinion on the destruction of Iranian centrifuges by Stuxnet. Justified or an act of war? I also want you to consider that it is easy from today's perspective to argue that the United States should just have accepted Soviet missiles in Cuba, therefore it might be better to consider how the United States would act today if China and Mexico reached a deal to station Chinese military assets in Mexico in exchange for economic support, maybe not even missiles but say a lot of ground forces. Would the United States be fine with that? And you can of course completely reject the idea that NATO expansion is an important factor for the Russian aggression, then the discussion has to shift completely to evidence for different explanations.