5 ms·

What makes the pope, a man who has dedicated his life to the study of religion and God an expert in global politics, that a quote from him has more value than a

What makes the pope, a man who has dedicated his life to the study of religion and God an expert in global politics, that a quote from him has more value than a comment from anyone here. He mentions in the article that an unnamed world leader told him Russia would get upset at NATO being so close to their border. Putin has publicly mentioned this multiple times before the war with Ukraine. Finally, Ukraine has the right to join any alliance it wants and for Russia to invade over that is bullshit. If you want to bring up promises about not joining NATO then we must talk about promises not to invade. Russia has already done this before in 2014

ozzythecat 4y ago
> Finally, Ukraine has the right to join any alliance it wants and for Russia to invade over that is bullshit. In geopolitics, nobody has any particular rights. Whoever has the bigger stick and better propaganda gets their way. One could argue that there’s no reason to have sanctions on Cuba, that Palestinians should also have the right to self determination, that America doesn’t have the right to interfere in the developing world. That’s not how the world works, regardless of right or wrong. IMO - the west could have prevented this war. Regardless of what Ukraine wants, an agreement that NATO will not expand eastwards for 60 years in exchange for Russia not invading. That was all we needed.
- themitigating 4y ago
  So "do this or we'll invade"? Why does it matter if a NATO country is on the border anyway? In the age of ICBMs, stealth bombers, and drones is the real concern that some large NATO force would march over the border for a land invasion of Russia?
  - mc32 4y ago
    Isn't it much the same as VietNam, don't help the NVA or we'll help them split and take over NV (though it worked out the other way around)?
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Whataboutism
      - mc32 4y ago
        Nope. It's just acknowledging how the world works (realpolitik --despite what anyone would love to think is a principled approach)
        themitigating 4y ago
        Our discussion was on the good and bad of the situation, that's what the pope was going on about. Doesn't matter if that's how the world works.
  - kingofpandora 4y ago
    The US hasn't exactly dropped the Monroe Doctrine.
    - simonblack 4y ago
      And yet doesn't recognise other countries' "Monroe Doctrines". I'm waiting for the Chinese to declare their version of the Monroe Doctrine forbidding Western Nations from East Asia. Imagine the screams from the US. <grin>
      - trasz 4y ago
        Chinese doctrine is explained in their constitution and it’s pretty much the exact opposite of Monroe.
  - ozzythecat 4y ago
    > Why does it matter if a NATO country is on the border anyway? This question, no matter how well intentioned, is irrelevant. Russia views NATO as an existential threat. It’s irrelevant whether you agree with that NATO is such a threat or not. Russia does not want NATO on or by its borders. They’ve been making this clear since the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can disagree with them, argue in favor of NATO expanding eastward, or specifically making Ukraine a member state, etc. These are all moot points. Russia has made their position extremely clear. The war is obviously not a surprise.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      It's not a surprise but it's still wrong. Also his opinion that NATO is a threat needs to have some backing otherwise I don't accept it as a valid fear
      - ozzythecat 4y ago
        “Wrong” or “right” is meaningless. The only alternative is war, and that’s what we have happening now. Tell us something. Why does it matter to the US when China tries to expand its sphere of influence over HK or islands in the Pacific? What would happen if a Chinese bloc propagated itself to the Western Hemisphere and established an alliance with Cuba or South America? Surely the same argument - that none of it matters in the day of nuclear weapons and ballistics capabilities - that same argument would valid, right? But would Washington stand for this? Absolutely not. Cuba is still being punished to this day. The Monroe doctrine is still very real. Russia warned about this for decades. The West basically told Russia that they don’t matter, that they’re a has been, and NATO will do whatever it wants. Well, here we have the consequences. Now Bidens administration is quietly admitting that the war is becoming an economic liability for the US, but I digress.
        trasz 4y ago
        There is a fundamental difference here: US and China are superpowers, as was USSR. Russia, however, is just Nigeria with nukes.
- jaybrendansmith 4y ago
  Please stop with this. Ukraine is an independent nation that can do what it wants. They may have wanted to provoke this war as Russia threatened it. That is their prerogative. It's possible they simply wanted to become part of Europe, and leave Putin, Luchenko, and the rest of the Eastern Kleptocratic Dictatorships behind. Can anyone blame them? Sometimes it's because exactly what is obviously the reason.
  - ozzythecat 4y ago
    > Please stop with this. Ukraine is an independent nation that can do what it wants. They may have wanted to provoke this war as Russia threatened it. Ukraine can do whatever it wants. It was up to NATO to flat out reject any prospects of Ukraine’s membership and prevent the war, but they egged it on. Ukraine can do whatever it wants, but the simply truth is that Ukraine is now just ground zero in Washington’s proxy war with Russia. They could have remained neutral and avoided this disaster.
    - trasz 4y ago
      Ukraine remained neutral, and yet Russia invaded it in 2014.
ghostwriter 4y ago
> Finally, Ukraine has the right to join any alliance it wants No, it doesn't have this right to join ANY alliance, as it may violate one of the conditions (military bloc neutrality) under which their sovereignty was granted to them by the USSR, which Russia is a legitimate successor of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31746866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31746866
- themitigating 4y ago
  How does the annexation of Crimea play into that agreement?
  - ghostwriter 4y ago
    There's no relation, as the annexation of Crimea has everything to do with a prior armed coup (you can call it "a successful January 6 event", if you wish) against a legitimately[1] elected president in Kyiv. The coup, among many other things, violated the right to a political representation of the people's voice who voted for that president. In case of president Yanukovych, these were the people of the eastern Ukraine, including Crimea, who were deprived of their right to a democratic process in their country. [1] The election has been widely recognized and endorsed as being fair and an accurate reflection of voters' intentions by all international agencies observing the election including the OSCE and PACE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
    - themitigating 4y ago
      I wouldn't consider it similar to January 6th at all You provided a source to show the elections were valid but who was questioning that? The cause of the uprising (from wiki) "In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. " And you also speak about lack of representation but "A total of 315 of the 349 MPs registered in the sitting hall supported the document on Friday." [1] That's a huge majority in any political system. I think there's room for debate whether the people were represented sufficiently by the president's actions. Regardless, again unlike jan 6th, a foreign country was involed and later invaded. Two, the revolutionaries reason was truthful and not a lie about election fraud , and three a meaningful percentage of the population was involved which gives some merit to a revolution. Sources 1.https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/parliament-passes-statement-on-ukraines-aspirations-for-european-integration-320792.html https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/pa...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ozzythecat 4y ago

> Finally, Ukraine has the right to join any alliance it wants and for Russia to invade over that is bullshit. In geopolitics, nobody has any particular rights. Whoever has the bigger stick and better propaganda gets their way. One could argue that there’s no reason to have sanctions on Cuba, that Palestinians should also have the right to self determination, that America doesn’t have the right to interfere in the developing world. That’s not how the world works, regardless of right or wrong. IMO - the west could have prevented this war. Regardless of what Ukraine wants, an agreement that NATO will not expand eastwards for 60 years in exchange for Russia not invading. That was all we needed.

themitigating 4y ago
So "do this or we'll invade"? Why does it matter if a NATO country is on the border anyway? In the age of ICBMs, stealth bombers, and drones is the real concern that some large NATO force would march over the border for a land invasion of Russia?
- mc32 4y ago
  Isn't it much the same as VietNam, don't help the NVA or we'll help them split and take over NV (though it worked out the other way around)?
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Whataboutism
    - mc32 4y ago
      Nope. It's just acknowledging how the world works (realpolitik --despite what anyone would love to think is a principled approach)
      - themitigating 4y ago
        Our discussion was on the good and bad of the situation, that's what the pope was going on about. Doesn't matter if that's how the world works.
- kingofpandora 4y ago
  The US hasn't exactly dropped the Monroe Doctrine.
  - simonblack 4y ago
    And yet doesn't recognise other countries' "Monroe Doctrines". I'm waiting for the Chinese to declare their version of the Monroe Doctrine forbidding Western Nations from East Asia. Imagine the screams from the US. <grin>
    - trasz 4y ago
      Chinese doctrine is explained in their constitution and it’s pretty much the exact opposite of Monroe.
- ozzythecat 4y ago
  > Why does it matter if a NATO country is on the border anyway? This question, no matter how well intentioned, is irrelevant. Russia views NATO as an existential threat. It’s irrelevant whether you agree with that NATO is such a threat or not. Russia does not want NATO on or by its borders. They’ve been making this clear since the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can disagree with them, argue in favor of NATO expanding eastward, or specifically making Ukraine a member state, etc. These are all moot points. Russia has made their position extremely clear. The war is obviously not a surprise.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    It's not a surprise but it's still wrong. Also his opinion that NATO is a threat needs to have some backing otherwise I don't accept it as a valid fear
    - ozzythecat 4y ago
      “Wrong” or “right” is meaningless. The only alternative is war, and that’s what we have happening now. Tell us something. Why does it matter to the US when China tries to expand its sphere of influence over HK or islands in the Pacific? What would happen if a Chinese bloc propagated itself to the Western Hemisphere and established an alliance with Cuba or South America? Surely the same argument - that none of it matters in the day of nuclear weapons and ballistics capabilities - that same argument would valid, right? But would Washington stand for this? Absolutely not. Cuba is still being punished to this day. The Monroe doctrine is still very real. Russia warned about this for decades. The West basically told Russia that they don’t matter, that they’re a has been, and NATO will do whatever it wants. Well, here we have the consequences. Now Bidens administration is quietly admitting that the war is becoming an economic liability for the US, but I digress.
      - trasz 4y ago
        There is a fundamental difference here: US and China are superpowers, as was USSR. Russia, however, is just Nigeria with nukes.
jaybrendansmith 4y ago
Please stop with this. Ukraine is an independent nation that can do what it wants. They may have wanted to provoke this war as Russia threatened it. That is their prerogative. It's possible they simply wanted to become part of Europe, and leave Putin, Luchenko, and the rest of the Eastern Kleptocratic Dictatorships behind. Can anyone blame them? Sometimes it's because exactly what is obviously the reason.
- ozzythecat 4y ago
  > Please stop with this. Ukraine is an independent nation that can do what it wants. They may have wanted to provoke this war as Russia threatened it. Ukraine can do whatever it wants. It was up to NATO to flat out reject any prospects of Ukraine’s membership and prevent the war, but they egged it on. Ukraine can do whatever it wants, but the simply truth is that Ukraine is now just ground zero in Washington’s proxy war with Russia. They could have remained neutral and avoided this disaster.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Ukraine remained neutral, and yet Russia invaded it in 2014.

ghostwriter 4y ago

> Finally, Ukraine has the right to join any alliance it wants No, it doesn't have this right to join ANY alliance, as it may violate one of the conditions (military bloc neutrality) under which their sovereignty was granted to them by the USSR, which Russia is a legitimate successor of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31746866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31746866

themitigating 4y ago
How does the annexation of Crimea play into that agreement?
- ghostwriter 4y ago
  There's no relation, as the annexation of Crimea has everything to do with a prior armed coup (you can call it "a successful January 6 event", if you wish) against a legitimately[1] elected president in Kyiv. The coup, among many other things, violated the right to a political representation of the people's voice who voted for that president. In case of president Yanukovych, these were the people of the eastern Ukraine, including Crimea, who were deprived of their right to a democratic process in their country. [1] The election has been widely recognized and endorsed as being fair and an accurate reflection of voters' intentions by all international agencies observing the election including the OSCE and PACE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
  - themitigating 4y ago
    I wouldn't consider it similar to January 6th at all You provided a source to show the elections were valid but who was questioning that? The cause of the uprising (from wiki) "In November 2013, a wave of large-scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. " And you also speak about lack of representation but "A total of 315 of the 349 MPs registered in the sitting hall supported the document on Friday." [1] That's a huge majority in any political system. I think there's room for debate whether the people were represented sufficiently by the president's actions. Regardless, again unlike jan 6th, a foreign country was involed and later invaded. Two, the revolutionaries reason was truthful and not a lie about election fraud , and three a meaningful percentage of the population was involved which gives some merit to a revolution. Sources 1.https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/parliament-passes-statement-on-ukraines-aspirations-for-european-integration-320792.html https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/pa...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]