3 ms·

Extremely straightforward, yes. What I don't think a lot of Americans get is just how utterly, terrifyingly destructive the wars of conquest that preceded the c

by makomk 4y ago

Extremely straightforward, yes. What I don't think a lot of Americans get is just how utterly, terrifyingly destructive the wars of conquest that preceded the current era of peace were for Europe - especially the two world wars. Large chunks of entire generations killed, wounded and traumatized, whole citities levelled, regions rendered unfit for anything beyond farming. One of the major justifications for the European Union as an institution was to supposedly ensure that nothing like this would happen again. Now we have a brutal war of conquest right next to the EU's eastern border, and sabre-rattling about how some of its member states might be next. It's in the direct self-preservation interest of a lot of countries that Russia fails and fails hard.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
It's not straightforward, it's simplistic, and a way to scare people into accepting a narrative (like turning public opinion into agreeing to join Nato in some countries...) Europe (EU/Nato) is not at risk of attack by Russia. It's not clear why Finland would suddenly be at risk. What is happening is a continuation of the fall of the USSR when Russia lost very big and was hastily written off. Russia has somewhat recovered and is asserting its claims and interests. While we should hold firm when this clashes with our own, saying that Russia should be beaten into submission is not going to work and is only going to perpetuate conflicts. As it stands Russia is going to take the Donbas, and it took Crimea back in 2014. So the question is where we go from there. They are not going to hand those territories back to anyone. So we need to negotiate spheres of influence backed by serious force as was the case before the fall of the USSR. The proposal to have a neutral Ukraine was sensible provided all parties are very seriously held to their word. Lastly, we should remember that Crimea used to be Russian until very recently and that Ukraine is very special for Russia, so it's far from obvious to me that what they are doing there means they plan to attack/invade other neighbouring countries afterwards...
- jusssi 4y ago
  > It's not clear why Finland would suddenly be at risk. It's not that we're now suddenly at risk, it's more that we were at risk all the time and now we finally understand it. Also the highly visible "special operation" allows Russia a whole new level of pressuring us into various things. The message we're seeing is "if we decide to fuck you up, we don't much care if a bunch of our boys get hurt in the process". Which pretty much renders useless any "credible defense deterrent" which isn't an existential threat to them. > like turning public opinion into agreeing to join Nato in some countries The change of public opinion as result of the actions we've seen was such an obvious consequence, it makes me wonder if it wasn't one of the effects Putin wanted to get out of this campaign.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    This is beyond "drinking the Kool-Aid" at this point, and very skillfully organised mass hysteria. Finland, which kept relatively good relations with the USSR throughout the Cold War had actually been at extreme risk all along and must join Nato right now. Right... well at least they have a long border with Russia, not like Sweden... As long as they order F-35s everything's cool, I guess.
    - jusssi 4y ago
      The "relatively good relations" you speak of came with a great amount of licking ass and simultaneously preparing for the worst. It's not something we want to go back to. It's probably something that's hard to understand from a comfy armchair half a world away, so I guess that's an excuse for the condescending tone.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      Finlandisation is a dirty word in Finland. 'Good relations' were maintained by giving up an independent foreign policy, allowing Soviet-funded political parties, and censorship of anti-Soviet press. They were 'good relations' for the Soviets - not so much for the Finns.
- jleyank 4y ago
  Except that Russia broke agreements to respect Ukraine, which is why (obviously foolishly) they agreed to give up their nuclear arms. This affair has (again) shown the the only way to guarantee the survival of you country is to be able to respond with a sufficiently high pain level. This is a lesson that Iraq, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and probably Taiwan and Germany have taken to heart.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Meanwhile, Mark Rutte and other EU politicians are impacting livelihood of Dutch farmers to meet some Nitrogen emission targets by 2030. There is a farmer's revolt in Netherlands that's not covered by American media for some reason, but dw and Politico is: https://www.politico.eu/article/police-fire-dutch-farmer-protest-nitrogen-emission-cut/ https://www.politico.eu/article/police-fire-dutch-farmer-pro... This is the exact wrong time to do these things. First, you need a strong economy and a backbone that can sustain sustainable practices. Otherwise, the cost of climate change is acceptable over literal starvation, insurrection (Sri Lanka) and other destructive effects in the society. Has anyone done serious and with good faith, balance and ROI of some of these climate change policies? Note that I am not challenging the validity of CC science, just the economic policies. I hope that its open for debate.

by makomk 4y ago

mytailorisrich 4y ago

It's not straightforward, it's simplistic, and a way to scare people into accepting a narrative (like turning public opinion into agreeing to join Nato in some countries...) Europe (EU/Nato) is not at risk of attack by Russia. It's not clear why Finland would suddenly be at risk. What is happening is a continuation of the fall of the USSR when Russia lost very big and was hastily written off. Russia has somewhat recovered and is asserting its claims and interests. While we should hold firm when this clashes with our own, saying that Russia should be beaten into submission is not going to work and is only going to perpetuate conflicts. As it stands Russia is going to take the Donbas, and it took Crimea back in 2014. So the question is where we go from there. They are not going to hand those territories back to anyone. So we need to negotiate spheres of influence backed by serious force as was the case before the fall of the USSR. The proposal to have a neutral Ukraine was sensible provided all parties are very seriously held to their word. Lastly, we should remember that Crimea used to be Russian until very recently and that Ukraine is very special for Russia, so it's far from obvious to me that what they are doing there means they plan to attack/invade other neighbouring countries afterwards...

jusssi 4y ago
> It's not clear why Finland would suddenly be at risk. It's not that we're now suddenly at risk, it's more that we were at risk all the time and now we finally understand it. Also the highly visible "special operation" allows Russia a whole new level of pressuring us into various things. The message we're seeing is "if we decide to fuck you up, we don't much care if a bunch of our boys get hurt in the process". Which pretty much renders useless any "credible defense deterrent" which isn't an existential threat to them. > like turning public opinion into agreeing to join Nato in some countries The change of public opinion as result of the actions we've seen was such an obvious consequence, it makes me wonder if it wasn't one of the effects Putin wanted to get out of this campaign.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  This is beyond "drinking the Kool-Aid" at this point, and very skillfully organised mass hysteria. Finland, which kept relatively good relations with the USSR throughout the Cold War had actually been at extreme risk all along and must join Nato right now. Right... well at least they have a long border with Russia, not like Sweden... As long as they order F-35s everything's cool, I guess.
  - jusssi 4y ago
    The "relatively good relations" you speak of came with a great amount of licking ass and simultaneously preparing for the worst. It's not something we want to go back to. It's probably something that's hard to understand from a comfy armchair half a world away, so I guess that's an excuse for the condescending tone.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    Finlandisation is a dirty word in Finland. 'Good relations' were maintained by giving up an independent foreign policy, allowing Soviet-funded political parties, and censorship of anti-Soviet press. They were 'good relations' for the Soviets - not so much for the Finns.
jleyank 4y ago
Except that Russia broke agreements to respect Ukraine, which is why (obviously foolishly) they agreed to give up their nuclear arms. This affair has (again) shown the the only way to guarantee the survival of you country is to be able to respond with a sufficiently high pain level. This is a lesson that Iraq, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and probably Taiwan and Germany have taken to heart.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Meanwhile, Mark Rutte and other EU politicians are impacting livelihood of Dutch farmers to meet some Nitrogen emission targets by 2030. There is a farmer's revolt in Netherlands that's not covered by American media for some reason, but dw and Politico is: https://www.politico.eu/article/police-fire-dutch-farmer-protest-nitrogen-emission-cut/ https://www.politico.eu/article/police-fire-dutch-farmer-pro... This is the exact wrong time to do these things. First, you need a strong economy and a backbone that can sustain sustainable practices. Otherwise, the cost of climate change is acceptable over literal starvation, insurrection (Sri Lanka) and other destructive effects in the society. Has anyone done serious and with good faith, balance and ROI of some of these climate change policies? Note that I am not challenging the validity of CC science, just the economic policies. I hope that its open for debate.