3 ms·

Who is to say Russia will stop at Ukraine? They clearly weren't satisfied with Crimea. Is Poland safe? Is Germany? I don't mean to be alarmist but we've seen s

Who is to say Russia will stop at Ukraine? They clearly weren't satisfied with Crimea. Is Poland safe? Is Germany? I don't mean to be alarmist but we've seen similar scenarios play out in Europe before. This isn't merely about what's morally correct, it's also about self-interest.

oxff 4y ago
The sanctions do nothing to stop this. They're not acting like they're a marketing firm that gets shocked because of some red in the GDP, they're on a war footing. That will only react to, you guessed it, equal force (war).
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  I mean, are you suggesting we go to war with Russia directly? That's not going to help with the natural gas shortage. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it could some day, I don't know, obviously if Russia attacks... well, in the meantime, I don't think we should be giving Russia more money it can use to further develop its military.
  - oxff 4y ago
    > I mean, are you suggesting we go to war with Russia directly? That's not going to help with the natural gas shortage. I am stating that going to war with Russia is the only way to walk the walk and be provably morally good over the issue. The sanctions are just a particularly expensive form of virtue signaling that does not alter the outcome of the war, but makes EU leaders Feel Good. > Don't think we should be giving Russia money it can use to pay its soldiers and build more weapons. And I disagree, my extended family is already in troubles and the proper price increase doesn't even come until winter. It's not a "don't think" question either. Would I like to be energy independent? Of course. Can I currently? No, not without risking energy security for winter. So I would pay (but EU has decided it is a Moral Bad, and tells me to warm myself with Moral Good). Suffering ~10%+ inflation and having no guaranteed energy (all depends on Germany) for moral good boy points only helps nobody, and neither of the conditions alter the material facts on the frontline, nor does it make EU resilient either (economical turmoil has generally been a politically radicalizing agent in democracies). It is just stupid, hysterical politics.
zirror 4y ago
Russia can't win a war against NATO, so they will not attack Poland or Germany. Maybe Moldova or something. This fear mongering is ridiciouslus. They can't even win against Ukraine, for crying out loud. Poland, France, UK, Germany(, Turkey?) would together crush them in a couple of months. Add Finland and Sweden and it gets reduced to weeks. Add the US and it'll take a couple of days. (Hyperbole, but still). They are hopelessly outclassed in all categories but nukes. And UK/France has a couple of them, so Russia can't nuke willy nilly.
- XorNot 4y ago
  No, but as soon as you start asking questions like "is X country really worth it compared to nuclear war?" then the deterrent has failed. A loss in Ukraine means every non-NATO state in the region either gets nuclear armed up, or gets annexed. The expectation that the result of "letting it happen" would also be cheap gas is laughable: if someone's willing to trade away their morals and a country for something you sell them, then you already know it's underpriced.
  - oxff 4y ago
    > The expectation that the result of "letting it happen" ... EU and USA are letting it happen though: there is no military deployment to Ukraine to protect it, and (my guess is) there will not be.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      There's a whole spectrum of actions between "do nothing" and "open hot war between nuclear powers". It's quite clear Western military aid, intelligence, and diplomatic support has been critical to Ukraine in the current conflict.

oxff 4y ago

The sanctions do nothing to stop this. They're not acting like they're a marketing firm that gets shocked because of some red in the GDP, they're on a war footing. That will only react to, you guessed it, equal force (war).

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
I mean, are you suggesting we go to war with Russia directly? That's not going to help with the natural gas shortage. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it could some day, I don't know, obviously if Russia attacks... well, in the meantime, I don't think we should be giving Russia more money it can use to further develop its military.
- oxff 4y ago
  > I mean, are you suggesting we go to war with Russia directly? That's not going to help with the natural gas shortage. I am stating that going to war with Russia is the only way to walk the walk and be provably morally good over the issue. The sanctions are just a particularly expensive form of virtue signaling that does not alter the outcome of the war, but makes EU leaders Feel Good. > Don't think we should be giving Russia money it can use to pay its soldiers and build more weapons. And I disagree, my extended family is already in troubles and the proper price increase doesn't even come until winter. It's not a "don't think" question either. Would I like to be energy independent? Of course. Can I currently? No, not without risking energy security for winter. So I would pay (but EU has decided it is a Moral Bad, and tells me to warm myself with Moral Good). Suffering ~10%+ inflation and having no guaranteed energy (all depends on Germany) for moral good boy points only helps nobody, and neither of the conditions alter the material facts on the frontline, nor does it make EU resilient either (economical turmoil has generally been a politically radicalizing agent in democracies). It is just stupid, hysterical politics.

zirror 4y ago

Russia can't win a war against NATO, so they will not attack Poland or Germany. Maybe Moldova or something. This fear mongering is ridiciouslus. They can't even win against Ukraine, for crying out loud. Poland, France, UK, Germany(, Turkey?) would together crush them in a couple of months. Add Finland and Sweden and it gets reduced to weeks. Add the US and it'll take a couple of days. (Hyperbole, but still). They are hopelessly outclassed in all categories but nukes. And UK/France has a couple of them, so Russia can't nuke willy nilly.

XorNot 4y ago
No, but as soon as you start asking questions like "is X country really worth it compared to nuclear war?" then the deterrent has failed. A loss in Ukraine means every non-NATO state in the region either gets nuclear armed up, or gets annexed. The expectation that the result of "letting it happen" would also be cheap gas is laughable: if someone's willing to trade away their morals and a country for something you sell them, then you already know it's underpriced.
- oxff 4y ago
  > The expectation that the result of "letting it happen" ... EU and USA are letting it happen though: there is no military deployment to Ukraine to protect it, and (my guess is) there will not be.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    There's a whole spectrum of actions between "do nothing" and "open hot war between nuclear powers". It's quite clear Western military aid, intelligence, and diplomatic support has been critical to Ukraine in the current conflict.