4 ms·

> Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war, especially after heroically successfully resisting

by lovich 4y ago

> Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war, especially after heroically successfully resisting the blitzkrieg-style initial invasion. By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower? Russia could take Ukraine today with no more materiel losses and they will be worse off than when they started. The only way they could consider this a win is if they consider ideological reasons, but if you include those you can’t say the Ukrainians would be better off if they value freedom more than they value staying alive

tsimionescu 4y ago
Russia is better off without a NATO presence at its borders, threatening regime change at the press of a button. Sure, NATO would avoid openly invading Russia, but just like we are currently fighting in Ukraine with everything except (overt) manpower, our expansion would not stop at Russia's current borders. Every separatist movement inside the Russian Federation would (will) find a good friend in NATO. Stopping this expansion at Ukraine, and reminding their people the immoral lengths they are willing to go to when their interests are threatened, is a major strategic goal for Russian leaders. > By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower? Absolutely, and what I'm saying is not justification for this disturbing invasion. The invasion obviously puts Putin and other Russian elites' interest above those of their citizens, as can be expected from an authoritarian oligarchy.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Gee. I wonder why the US and most other world powers don't have an international treaty organization exclusively dedicated to defending other countries against the possibility of aggression by them? If you don't invade your neighbors, you have nothing to fear from NATO. Edit due to rate-limiting: OK, I'll amend my comment. Don't invade your neighbors or commit genocide, and you don't have anything to fear from NATO. Better? As for Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO activated Article 5 because the US was attacked by terrorists based in Afghanistan on 9/11, but my understanding is that the coalition forces that went into Iraq were not NATO-affiliated. Is that understanding incorrect?
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    >If you don't invade your neighbors, you have nothing to fear from NATO. You have to be kidding about this. Have you ever heard of Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan? In fact, NATO has never defended an invaded country before Ukraine - the record is all aggression. Edit: I should mention that the aggression against Serbia was probably morally justified - what they were doing in Kosovo was truly despicable.
    - lovich 4y ago
      Alright bud this is just propaganda if you’re mixing Afghanistan in there. Iraq was straight aggression and Serbia I admit to not being too knowledgeable about, but Afghanistan was in direct response to 9/11 and not handing over bin laden. If that’s considered being an aggressor then there’s not much point in using the word anymore
      - the_af 4y ago
        At least if you read Wikipedia's summary, there is disagreement about whether the US was legally justified to go to war against Afghanistan and topple its government because of the al-Qaeda attack. It's not clear cut.
        lovich 4y ago
        What happened post invasion and whether that fit the notion of NATO members definition for legality is definitely up for debate but we’re there any serious considerations that invoking article 5 in light of the attacks was not legitimate? I’d need to see some documentation on that as, as far as I am aware, every NATO member responded to the call and did not leave NATO
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        Afghanistan was asking for proof that Bin Laden was to blame, and had offered to set up some common courts to decide on the matter - as was their right as a sovereign nation. The invasion of Serbia was much more morally justified, as it helped stop a genocide that Slobodan Milosevic was committing against the Islamic Albanian minority, mainly in Kosovo.
- lovich 4y ago
  > Stopping this expansion at Ukraine, and reminding their people the immoral lengths they are willing to go to when their interests are threatened, is a major strategic goal for Russian leaders. And Ukraine reminding Russia that they will fight to the death and leave scorched earth behind, so invading will cost more than they earn isn’t a major strategic goal? I don’t have a problem with the justifications you have on Russias side of the argument, it’s just that you seem to view that as inevitable so the Ukrainians are the ones being unreasonable by providing any resistance. They both are trying to accomplish strategic goals here and Ukraine didn’t decide on war just because they were “goaded”
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    The difference is that Russian civilians and all of their belongings are not being murdered, raped, destroyed - only Ukrainians are. So one side has a much more powerful incentive not to take this war too far. My fear is that all of the NATO support and information is giving Ukrainian leadership a wrong assessment of their chances of ending this without reducing the entire country to rubble. Essentially Ukraine has agreed to become a proxy for NATO in a bid to cripple Russian power. NATO has little lose if this fails, but Ukraine's leaders are gambling the lives and livelihoods of an awful lot of people. I do wish I am wrong and they are right, but as I said elsewhere, I don't beleive Russia will stop at anything not to let that happen.
    - lovich 4y ago
      Do the Ukrainian people have no agency? We’ve already seen mass defections in the contested regions by locals who felt the Russian government was the better master. The people still fighting in Ukraine appear to _want_ to fight Russia regardless of the damage it’s incurring to them. Theyre far less likely to be candidates being tricked into fighting unlike the Russian conscript POWs reporting that they were just loaded into trucks and didn’t realize they were being brought to a war
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        Of course they have agency. Many, perhaps most, of those who have been allowed to have fled the country. It is of course their right to stay and fight for anything they believe in. When I say I don't think it's in their best interest to do so, and that I think they are misjudging Russia's determination if they believe they can win, I'm not taking away their agency. As such, I don't believe my leaders are doing them a service when they are supplying them with weapons and military intel, and if it were in my power, I would stop this supply (all the leadership, and the vast majority of the public, in my country is almost rabidly anti-Russian and pro-NATO, so this is an extremely theoretical exercise). In the end, I believe NATO is playing chicken with Russia, but putting Ukraine in the speeding car instead of driving it themselves. I don't think this is wise, and definitely not good for Ukraine.
the_af 4y ago
> By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower? Well, yes. I don't know anyone who would seriously argue otherwise. I don't think the person you are arguing with disagrees with you on this.
- lovich 4y ago
  They’re arguing in this thread that the war is acoomplishing strategic goals for Russia so it’s a win even with the material loss, but implying that Ukraine has no legitimate strategic goals in resisting or otherwise they wouldn’t claim that Ukraine should have just worked with Russia
- jollybean 4y ago
  No, Russia would not be 'better off'. Their concern is not 'industrial base' - it's 'Imperial Conquest'. As of today, they've expanded their territory and now have Crimean, most of Donbas and S. Ukraine as acquisitions. Theoretically we could get to a peace agreement and in 40 years, Russia will be 'just fine' and Putin will be a 'grand hero' of Russia along the lines one of their big baller Tsars. All of this 'But their GPD is crashing' stuff is incredibly short sighted, of course it matters, but much less in the long run. I suggest Ukrainians probably will prevail, and Putin will mostly 'lose' - but only because he lost ground, not really for any other reason, in the eyes of 'Net future Russian Historical Perspective'.
  - the_af 4y ago
    I don't know. If this debacle turns into Putin being toppled and Russia as an empire collapsing, and increasing casualties and quality of life declining further for Russians, how is this going to help anybody's dream of imperial conquest? Even if this alleged empire doesn't fall, if it gets isolated and dependent on, say, China (as some claim will happen), how is this going to help these dreams of imperial conquest? A subservient empire.

by lovich 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

Russia is better off without a NATO presence at its borders, threatening regime change at the press of a button. Sure, NATO would avoid openly invading Russia, but just like we are currently fighting in Ukraine with everything except (overt) manpower, our expansion would not stop at Russia's current borders. Every separatist movement inside the Russian Federation would (will) find a good friend in NATO. Stopping this expansion at Ukraine, and reminding their people the immoral lengths they are willing to go to when their interests are threatened, is a major strategic goal for Russian leaders. > By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower? Absolutely, and what I'm saying is not justification for this disturbing invasion. The invasion obviously puts Putin and other Russian elites' interest above those of their citizens, as can be expected from an authoritarian oligarchy.

CamperBob2 4y ago
Gee. I wonder why the US and most other world powers don't have an international treaty organization exclusively dedicated to defending other countries against the possibility of aggression by them? If you don't invade your neighbors, you have nothing to fear from NATO. Edit due to rate-limiting: OK, I'll amend my comment. Don't invade your neighbors or commit genocide, and you don't have anything to fear from NATO. Better? As for Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO activated Article 5 because the US was attacked by terrorists based in Afghanistan on 9/11, but my understanding is that the coalition forces that went into Iraq were not NATO-affiliated. Is that understanding incorrect?
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  >If you don't invade your neighbors, you have nothing to fear from NATO. You have to be kidding about this. Have you ever heard of Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan? In fact, NATO has never defended an invaded country before Ukraine - the record is all aggression. Edit: I should mention that the aggression against Serbia was probably morally justified - what they were doing in Kosovo was truly despicable.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Alright bud this is just propaganda if you’re mixing Afghanistan in there. Iraq was straight aggression and Serbia I admit to not being too knowledgeable about, but Afghanistan was in direct response to 9/11 and not handing over bin laden. If that’s considered being an aggressor then there’s not much point in using the word anymore
    - the_af 4y ago
      At least if you read Wikipedia's summary, there is disagreement about whether the US was legally justified to go to war against Afghanistan and topple its government because of the al-Qaeda attack. It's not clear cut.
      - lovich 4y ago
        What happened post invasion and whether that fit the notion of NATO members definition for legality is definitely up for debate but we’re there any serious considerations that invoking article 5 in light of the attacks was not legitimate? I’d need to see some documentation on that as, as far as I am aware, every NATO member responded to the call and did not leave NATO
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Afghanistan was asking for proof that Bin Laden was to blame, and had offered to set up some common courts to decide on the matter - as was their right as a sovereign nation. The invasion of Serbia was much more morally justified, as it helped stop a genocide that Slobodan Milosevic was committing against the Islamic Albanian minority, mainly in Kosovo.
lovich 4y ago
> Stopping this expansion at Ukraine, and reminding their people the immoral lengths they are willing to go to when their interests are threatened, is a major strategic goal for Russian leaders. And Ukraine reminding Russia that they will fight to the death and leave scorched earth behind, so invading will cost more than they earn isn’t a major strategic goal? I don’t have a problem with the justifications you have on Russias side of the argument, it’s just that you seem to view that as inevitable so the Ukrainians are the ones being unreasonable by providing any resistance. They both are trying to accomplish strategic goals here and Ukraine didn’t decide on war just because they were “goaded”
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  The difference is that Russian civilians and all of their belongings are not being murdered, raped, destroyed - only Ukrainians are. So one side has a much more powerful incentive not to take this war too far. My fear is that all of the NATO support and information is giving Ukrainian leadership a wrong assessment of their chances of ending this without reducing the entire country to rubble. Essentially Ukraine has agreed to become a proxy for NATO in a bid to cripple Russian power. NATO has little lose if this fails, but Ukraine's leaders are gambling the lives and livelihoods of an awful lot of people. I do wish I am wrong and they are right, but as I said elsewhere, I don't beleive Russia will stop at anything not to let that happen.
  - lovich 4y ago
    Do the Ukrainian people have no agency? We’ve already seen mass defections in the contested regions by locals who felt the Russian government was the better master. The people still fighting in Ukraine appear to _want_ to fight Russia regardless of the damage it’s incurring to them. Theyre far less likely to be candidates being tricked into fighting unlike the Russian conscript POWs reporting that they were just loaded into trucks and didn’t realize they were being brought to a war
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Of course they have agency. Many, perhaps most, of those who have been allowed to have fled the country. It is of course their right to stay and fight for anything they believe in. When I say I don't think it's in their best interest to do so, and that I think they are misjudging Russia's determination if they believe they can win, I'm not taking away their agency. As such, I don't believe my leaders are doing them a service when they are supplying them with weapons and military intel, and if it were in my power, I would stop this supply (all the leadership, and the vast majority of the public, in my country is almost rabidly anti-Russian and pro-NATO, so this is an extremely theoretical exercise). In the end, I believe NATO is playing chicken with Russia, but putting Ukraine in the speeding car instead of driving it themselves. I don't think this is wise, and definitely not good for Ukraine.

the_af 4y ago

> By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower? Well, yes. I don't know anyone who would seriously argue otherwise. I don't think the person you are arguing with disagrees with you on this.

lovich 4y ago
They’re arguing in this thread that the war is acoomplishing strategic goals for Russia so it’s a win even with the material loss, but implying that Ukraine has no legitimate strategic goals in resisting or otherwise they wouldn’t claim that Ukraine should have just worked with Russia
jollybean 4y ago
No, Russia would not be 'better off'. Their concern is not 'industrial base' - it's 'Imperial Conquest'. As of today, they've expanded their territory and now have Crimean, most of Donbas and S. Ukraine as acquisitions. Theoretically we could get to a peace agreement and in 40 years, Russia will be 'just fine' and Putin will be a 'grand hero' of Russia along the lines one of their big baller Tsars. All of this 'But their GPD is crashing' stuff is incredibly short sighted, of course it matters, but much less in the long run. I suggest Ukrainians probably will prevail, and Putin will mostly 'lose' - but only because he lost ground, not really for any other reason, in the eyes of 'Net future Russian Historical Perspective'.
- the_af 4y ago
  I don't know. If this debacle turns into Putin being toppled and Russia as an empire collapsing, and increasing casualties and quality of life declining further for Russians, how is this going to help anybody's dream of imperial conquest? Even if this alleged empire doesn't fall, if it gets isolated and dependent on, say, China (as some claim will happen), how is this going to help these dreams of imperial conquest? A subservient empire.