3 ms·

I don't have to understand those countries to believe they should have the right to make their own sovereign decisions. Let Russia try to influence by diplomati

I don't have to understand those countries to believe they should have the right to make their own sovereign decisions. Let Russia try to influence by diplomatic means, let the west do the same, let the country decide what it wants. You just seem to be arguing that these countries should be Russian proxies instead of Western proxies, which is absurd. Let them be neither. Russia's problem is that it's primary mode of influence is force. The west focusses much more on economic influence. And yes, lest you try for a simplistic "what about", they do use force too, but the focus is overwhelmingly on economic and diplomatic influence first.

thriftwy 4y ago
Almost all of the countries that you have listed depend on Russia economically to the same extent as on the West, or in greater fashion. "Let them be neither" does not work, as demonstrated by the NATO expansion.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  Countries can have a booming trade without being a client state. You are under the misapprehension that 1) A small country must make itself subservient to a larger more powerful one. And 2) It cannot have close ties with more than one large world power. Germany for example has very strong economic interests with both the US & Russia, and until the Ukrainian invasion there wasn't too much of a problem with that. The US warned that Russia would use its fossil fuel exports as a political weapon (as it turns out, correctly, but the US wields economic influence in similar, if more subtle ways) but Germany was still free to enter into an agreement despite that, and it did so, along with many other European countries to a lesser extent. Finland & Sweden were perfectly content to "be neither" for three quarters of a century! But now, faced with a belligerent Russian regime, they're driven to the extreme of knowing they could be next on Russia's list. Russia has brought this on itself, and if more countries are choosing a closer alliance to the west it is in no way through pressure or threats of violence by the west (or the US in particular) but instead due to fear of violence from a their neighbor to the east. Russia has created a situation where "we don't need to pick a side, we can be neither" is now a choice that risks annihilation of national sovereignty.
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    Kazakhstan has at least threeway close ties and it does not cause problems. They are also not subservient. They're just profiting from having stable relations with larger neighbours.
    - ineedasername 4y ago
      I think that supports what I'm saying? Countries do no have to pick a side, they can have have (or should be allowed to have) prosperous relationships with Russia, US, Europe, China, etc. Ukraine got on the bad side of Russia because it was trying to do just that. It gained leadership that was willing to develop stronger ties with the West and Russia perceived it as a threat, annexing Crimea as stage-1 in their plan to eliminate Ukrainian sovereignty. Instead they might simply have played nice, continue being the region's key supplier of natural gas/oil/etc., Used those proceeds to develop other areas of it's economy... You get the idea. Their leadership's nostalgia for empire building is, ironically, getting in the way of them building an economic empire. Their scientific tradition should have them at the forefront of new breakthroughs alongside other large nations. Instead, we get a fruitless invasion and another generation of isolation.
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        Ukraine tried to pick a side by dumping Russia. If they stayed reasonably multi-vectored and out of the discussions to join the EU/NATO, they'd be swimming in Russian money to that day. "Continue being the region's key supplier of natural gas/oil/etc" is not enough for Russia.
        ineedasername 4y ago
        It doesn't seem like they were trying to dump Russia. No, they were simply trying to also improve relationships with the West. Either way, it's their right to choose their economic partners. A military invasion by Russia is not an acceptable response.

thriftwy 4y ago

Almost all of the countries that you have listed depend on Russia economically to the same extent as on the West, or in greater fashion. "Let them be neither" does not work, as demonstrated by the NATO expansion.

ineedasername 4y ago
Countries can have a booming trade without being a client state. You are under the misapprehension that 1) A small country must make itself subservient to a larger more powerful one. And 2) It cannot have close ties with more than one large world power. Germany for example has very strong economic interests with both the US & Russia, and until the Ukrainian invasion there wasn't too much of a problem with that. The US warned that Russia would use its fossil fuel exports as a political weapon (as it turns out, correctly, but the US wields economic influence in similar, if more subtle ways) but Germany was still free to enter into an agreement despite that, and it did so, along with many other European countries to a lesser extent. Finland & Sweden were perfectly content to "be neither" for three quarters of a century! But now, faced with a belligerent Russian regime, they're driven to the extreme of knowing they could be next on Russia's list. Russia has brought this on itself, and if more countries are choosing a closer alliance to the west it is in no way through pressure or threats of violence by the west (or the US in particular) but instead due to fear of violence from a their neighbor to the east. Russia has created a situation where "we don't need to pick a side, we can be neither" is now a choice that risks annihilation of national sovereignty.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  Kazakhstan has at least threeway close ties and it does not cause problems. They are also not subservient. They're just profiting from having stable relations with larger neighbours.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    I think that supports what I'm saying? Countries do no have to pick a side, they can have have (or should be allowed to have) prosperous relationships with Russia, US, Europe, China, etc. Ukraine got on the bad side of Russia because it was trying to do just that. It gained leadership that was willing to develop stronger ties with the West and Russia perceived it as a threat, annexing Crimea as stage-1 in their plan to eliminate Ukrainian sovereignty. Instead they might simply have played nice, continue being the region's key supplier of natural gas/oil/etc., Used those proceeds to develop other areas of it's economy... You get the idea. Their leadership's nostalgia for empire building is, ironically, getting in the way of them building an economic empire. Their scientific tradition should have them at the forefront of new breakthroughs alongside other large nations. Instead, we get a fruitless invasion and another generation of isolation.
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      Ukraine tried to pick a side by dumping Russia. If they stayed reasonably multi-vectored and out of the discussions to join the EU/NATO, they'd be swimming in Russian money to that day. "Continue being the region's key supplier of natural gas/oil/etc" is not enough for Russia.
      - ineedasername 4y ago
        It doesn't seem like they were trying to dump Russia. No, they were simply trying to also improve relationships with the West. Either way, it's their right to choose their economic partners. A military invasion by Russia is not an acceptable response.