5 ms·

I don't think anyone is disputing that the US was wrong in Vietnam. And in Iraq (the second time at least) for that matter. Yet I often see people use these exa

by mcv 5y ago

I don't think anyone is disputing that the US was wrong in Vietnam. And in Iraq (the second time at least) for that matter. Yet I often see people use these examples where the US was clearly wrong as reasons why Russia should be permitted to invade Ukraine.

throwaway4aday 5y ago
When we argue for you to view things from Russia's perspective we aren't condoning their actions, we're trying to prevent an escalation in response to misinformed policy. No one here has stated that they should be allowed to invade Ukraine. What many are trying to do is tamp down the calls for further military engagement or even all out war with Russia. Diplomacy is the only way we get out of this without piling up more dead bodies on all sides.
- mcv 5y ago
  I agree. The problem is that Putin is not interested in diplomacy. Putin has made it very clear that he only respects force. So the only way to convince him not to invade a country he wants to invade, is a hard guarantee that NATO will defend that country. That's the only way. And NATO didn't give that promise to Ukraine, which is why Putin felt he could invade it. NATO is now trying to prevent escalation while still trying to help Ukraine and prevent it from being conquered. The problem is that now there's a violent and bloody stalemate. It needs to stop, but the only way to stop is for Putin to pull his forces out of Ukraine, and he's not going to do that without some very strong arguments.
refurb 5y ago
The argument isn't "we should let Russia invade Ukraine". The argument is "if the US could be so wrong about the best path forward in Vietnam and Iraq, why are we so sure we're right about Ukraine"? Instead of viewing everything from a US/Western European/NATO lens, take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?". The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries, then that seems like a good trade off versus what we have now. Of course the criticism is "Russia would have invaded anyways even if NATO hadn't expanded". And maybe that's right, but we'll never know at this point since that decision was never made.
- mcv 5y ago
  So do you agree that letting Russia invade Ukraine is wrong? Like I said, the US was wrong to invade Vietnam and Iraq, and Russia is just as wrong to invade Ukraine. > take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?" As a big mistake. Russia is not getting anything out of this that's going to help Russia in any way. Russia has made itself the enemy of everybody around them. They've completely alienated all Ukrainians, nearly half of which used to be friendly towards Russia. > The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries "Expanding NATO" is the wrong way to look at this. NATO doesn't expand itself, it accepts new members who apply to join NATO. NATO hasn't conquered anyone. Membership is entirely voluntary. NATO membership has shown itself to be the best protection against Russian aggression; Georgia and Ukraine have been invaded, but Estonia has not. Refusing membership to Estonia in a faint hope that Russia would not attack is a dangerous game to play with an entire country.
  - refurb 5y ago
    What do you mean “letting Russia”? We didn’t let them do anything, they just did it. And maybe a better analogy is if your next door neighbor was blasting music at 2am. They’re wrong but you have a choice:1) call the cops and now you have a pissed of neighbor you get to live with forever or 2) go over and nicely ask them to turn it down. The neighbor is wrong and your right to call the cops but you may just screw yourself over rather than just nicely asking them to turn it down.
    - fsloth 5y ago
      The war in Ukraine was not some neigborly dispute. It is a logical continuation of Russian imperialism which for centuries has used genocide and terror to suppress the masses. That's how Russia gained it's land area. Pure fucking violence. I have no idea while western colonialism has been judged harshly no-one in the west has spent much effort lamenting the fates of the people subjugated by Russia. This is not you neighbour blasting music. This is a narcist psycho terrorizing the neighbourhood by wanton burglary and murder. For years. The war in Ukraine is this psycho once again breaking in, shooting your grandmother, raping your son, stealing your washing machine and then telling everyone proudly how rightfull he was to do so. They went in with the full intent to end Ukrainian identity once and for all. Pure genocide. The last time they tried this was by manufacturing a famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor What's the best analogue to think about this? While Germany was effectively de-nazified after ww2 Russia never de-stalinized or made amends for it's imperial stance. You really have to think of the Russian state you would think about Germany if it was run by third reich institutions.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> why Russia should be permitted to invade Ukraine That's awkward language. Who gets to grant permission for the invasion of a foreign country? The question is whether it's legitimate to go to war against the invader. NATO is not a schoolmaster, issuing invasion passes. Unfortunately NATO doesn't have clean hands (Libya, and arguably Iraq).
- mcv 5y ago
  I guess the UN could pass a resolution to authorize an invasion (though they can't really enforce anything). It's why the US presented their case against Iraq to the UN 20 years ago. Though in this particular case, the demands Putin made before the invasion, that NATO should promise never to allow Ukraine in, and should abandon eastern Europe entirely, sounded a lot to me like Putin was basically demanding permission to invade those countries. Because while NATO can't give permission to invade, it can most certainly enforce a denial of that permission by defending the target of the invasion. And that's what Putin was asking from NATO: a promise not to defend Ukraine or any other country in eastern Europe.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > I guess the UN could pass a resolution to authorize an invasion Could it? Isn't that in direct opposition to the declared purpose of the UN?
    - mcv 5y ago
      Kinda, but if I'm not mistaken, a military intervention can be declared necessary in cases of genocide, for example. It's not clear whether WMDs would count, but that was Bush's case for the invasion of Iraq.

by mcv 5y ago

throwaway4aday 5y ago

When we argue for you to view things from Russia's perspective we aren't condoning their actions, we're trying to prevent an escalation in response to misinformed policy. No one here has stated that they should be allowed to invade Ukraine. What many are trying to do is tamp down the calls for further military engagement or even all out war with Russia. Diplomacy is the only way we get out of this without piling up more dead bodies on all sides.

mcv 5y ago
I agree. The problem is that Putin is not interested in diplomacy. Putin has made it very clear that he only respects force. So the only way to convince him not to invade a country he wants to invade, is a hard guarantee that NATO will defend that country. That's the only way. And NATO didn't give that promise to Ukraine, which is why Putin felt he could invade it. NATO is now trying to prevent escalation while still trying to help Ukraine and prevent it from being conquered. The problem is that now there's a violent and bloody stalemate. It needs to stop, but the only way to stop is for Putin to pull his forces out of Ukraine, and he's not going to do that without some very strong arguments.

refurb 5y ago

The argument isn't "we should let Russia invade Ukraine". The argument is "if the US could be so wrong about the best path forward in Vietnam and Iraq, why are we so sure we're right about Ukraine"? Instead of viewing everything from a US/Western European/NATO lens, take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?". The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries, then that seems like a good trade off versus what we have now. Of course the criticism is "Russia would have invaded anyways even if NATO hadn't expanded". And maybe that's right, but we'll never know at this point since that decision was never made.

mcv 5y ago
So do you agree that letting Russia invade Ukraine is wrong? Like I said, the US was wrong to invade Vietnam and Iraq, and Russia is just as wrong to invade Ukraine. > take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?" As a big mistake. Russia is not getting anything out of this that's going to help Russia in any way. Russia has made itself the enemy of everybody around them. They've completely alienated all Ukrainians, nearly half of which used to be friendly towards Russia. > The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries "Expanding NATO" is the wrong way to look at this. NATO doesn't expand itself, it accepts new members who apply to join NATO. NATO hasn't conquered anyone. Membership is entirely voluntary. NATO membership has shown itself to be the best protection against Russian aggression; Georgia and Ukraine have been invaded, but Estonia has not. Refusing membership to Estonia in a faint hope that Russia would not attack is a dangerous game to play with an entire country.
- refurb 5y ago
  What do you mean “letting Russia”? We didn’t let them do anything, they just did it. And maybe a better analogy is if your next door neighbor was blasting music at 2am. They’re wrong but you have a choice:1) call the cops and now you have a pissed of neighbor you get to live with forever or 2) go over and nicely ask them to turn it down. The neighbor is wrong and your right to call the cops but you may just screw yourself over rather than just nicely asking them to turn it down.
  - fsloth 5y ago
    The war in Ukraine was not some neigborly dispute. It is a logical continuation of Russian imperialism which for centuries has used genocide and terror to suppress the masses. That's how Russia gained it's land area. Pure fucking violence. I have no idea while western colonialism has been judged harshly no-one in the west has spent much effort lamenting the fates of the people subjugated by Russia. This is not you neighbour blasting music. This is a narcist psycho terrorizing the neighbourhood by wanton burglary and murder. For years. The war in Ukraine is this psycho once again breaking in, shooting your grandmother, raping your son, stealing your washing machine and then telling everyone proudly how rightfull he was to do so. They went in with the full intent to end Ukrainian identity once and for all. Pure genocide. The last time they tried this was by manufacturing a famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor What's the best analogue to think about this? While Germany was effectively de-nazified after ww2 Russia never de-stalinized or made amends for it's imperial stance. You really have to think of the Russian state you would think about Germany if it was run by third reich institutions.

denton-scratch 5y ago

> why Russia should be permitted to invade Ukraine That's awkward language. Who gets to grant permission for the invasion of a foreign country? The question is whether it's legitimate to go to war against the invader. NATO is not a schoolmaster, issuing invasion passes. Unfortunately NATO doesn't have clean hands (Libya, and arguably Iraq).

mcv 5y ago
I guess the UN could pass a resolution to authorize an invasion (though they can't really enforce anything). It's why the US presented their case against Iraq to the UN 20 years ago. Though in this particular case, the demands Putin made before the invasion, that NATO should promise never to allow Ukraine in, and should abandon eastern Europe entirely, sounded a lot to me like Putin was basically demanding permission to invade those countries. Because while NATO can't give permission to invade, it can most certainly enforce a denial of that permission by defending the target of the invasion. And that's what Putin was asking from NATO: a promise not to defend Ukraine or any other country in eastern Europe.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > I guess the UN could pass a resolution to authorize an invasion Could it? Isn't that in direct opposition to the declared purpose of the UN?
  - mcv 5y ago
    Kinda, but if I'm not mistaken, a military intervention can be declared necessary in cases of genocide, for example. It's not clear whether WMDs would count, but that was Bush's case for the invasion of Iraq.