6 ms·

Oversimplification from which point of view? Russians, Ukrainians, or some outside observer?

by deelly 4y ago

malwrar 4y ago
I think OP means Russia’s actions are much better understood by their national interest and history, rather than by the individual barbarity of their troops. Russia should not be in Ukraine and should not be firing missiles into population centers, but they are. Their reasons for doing so appear more complicated than mere evil. To be explicit, if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars on the north european plains once every ~33 years. Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs and approach further by way of NATO expansion despite in some cases explicitly promising otherwise. Ukraine, a previous warsaw pact country, is a prospective NATO member who not only represents a convenient corridor into Russia but also controls a large stretch of coast (Russia wants this) and has massive plains for food production and tank conveyance. Under this interpretation, Russia seeks to resist expansion of a european alliance composed of several former enemies and retain access to key strategic locations outside its borders. Russia’s motives are much more tangible under this perspective, and who knows maybe there’s a solution we’re not seeing from that perspective than one that places outsized emphasis on individual atrocities. It’s a war, after all, and doesn’t appear to be stopping despite the upset faces of spectators.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  You make a reasoned argument why Russia might want to invade Ukraine while ignoring Russia's actual actions. Russia keeps changing it's stated 'reasons', with Russian's themselves saying the silent part you ignore out loud. They say Ukraine is not a real country, Ukrainians are not a separate people from Russians, and that because Ukraine tried to go it's own way it must be folded back into mother Russia and along with Belarus create a new slavic union. Ukrainian is being removed from the schools in Russian conquered land. Ukrainian books are being removed. Russia has human trafficked 2 million people from Ukraine to Russia at this point. None of that is to protect Russia from NATO. Why do you cover Russia's visible actions with a pretty pretense? Russia has said it is fine with Finland joining NATO, greatly expanding NATO on Russia's border. Your argument makes no sense outside the theoretical paragraphs in which you write it.
  - malwrar 4y ago
    > Why do you cover Russia's visible actions with a pretty pretense? Some of Russia’s individual politicians and news outlets no doubt have genuine nationalistic motivations surrounding Ukraine, but it is not clear to me that these are the predominant motives for spending Russian lives and risking Russian security by engaging their forces in an armed conflict. The rhetoric and actions you cite is probably believed and condoned by an increasingly nonzero percentage of the population, but I’m personally not convinced these are much more than pretexts useful to the state in providing political cover to what is ultimately a sovereign chess move (prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, demotivate it and others from future attempts). Russia benefited massively by their previous USSR-era relationship with the surrounding baltic states, and Putin, a former USSR man, has said [1] that the breakup of the warsaw pact was one of Russia’s greatest geopolitical tragedies. I believe his greatest defensive focus is on re-establishing a buffer zone between it and western powers, and likely it’s longer term goals include acquisition of warm water ports and influence over the oil trade. This does, of course, not justify any of Russia’s actions on a moral basis. I expect many Russian officials will be tried and convicted of war crimes. It merely provides a basis by which european leaders/armchair presidents (me) can ground Russia’s actions and plot countermoves. > Russia has said it is fine with Finland joining NATO, greatly expanding NATO on Russia's border. Not even a year ago Russia implied a military consequence if Finland was to join NATO [2]. A few months after this statement was given Russia invaded Ukraine, though this ironically emboldened Finlanders into being majority in favor of joining NATO. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Geography-Coming-Conflicts-Against/dp/0812982223/ref=nodl_?dplnkId=db45cb40-2ed9-4c25-a782-79b583d2da12 https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Geography-Coming-Conflicts-Ag... (can’t find a source for the exact quote, but cited in chapter 2). [2]: https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-warns-nato-against-inclusion-of-finland-sweden-440093 https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-warns-nato-against-incl...
    - Sporktacular 4y ago
      You starmanning an entire invasion force makes my point perfectly.
      - deleted 4y ago
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  "Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs and approach further by way of NATO expansion despite in some cases explicitly promising otherwise." This is a lie. 'not one inch eastward' never referred to NATO expansion to other countries. At least according to the man who received it, Gorbachev. If interference in a neighbours affairs and then threatening the very existence of that neighbour are undesirable then I'm sure you'll agree there is no more apt example of the silliness of starmanning some Russians who support its present expansionist actions. You can seek all the interpretations your want. The example wa to illustrate my point that there's no rhetorical solution to find between an imperialist wanting some land and the sovereign nation holding it. Not between the adversarial geopolitical leaders and not between victims' families and war criminals.
- xdennis 4y ago
  > To be explicit, if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars on the north european plains once every ~33 years. Between Napoleon and the present day Russia has only been invaded twice. By countries trying to liberate themselves in WW1 from the Russian Empire, and by Germany and others in WW2 (also partially a liberation, e.g. Romania tried to liberate the territories which Russia annexed at the start of the war). > Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs. Russia has constantly tried to annex everybody (even Putin jokes about this) and you cry about "meddling". Nobody would be meddling in Russian affairs if Russia was broken up like Austria (the previous Jail of Nations).
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    People always conveniently forget that time the US invaded the USSR. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-it-true-1918-america-invaded-russia-77646 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-it-true-1918-amer... And wasn't that Romanian land given to the USSR by Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? So the Nazis were "liberating" land they had already agreed to give to someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... These are two minor points. They both, though, serve to show that you're lacking a grounding in the very history you're trying to swat aside.
- _hcuq 4y ago
  The problem being that until the invasion NATO was falling apart because Western Europeans didn’t see Russia as a threat. Even Ukraine didn’t believe Russia would invade. So… Putin has made the Russian position worse. He will have a very heavily armed Ukraine on his western flank, with or without NATO backing. Behind them he will have a newly rearmed Germany.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  > firing missiles into population centers, but they are. Their reasons for doing so appear more complicated than mere evil. From what I heard, they do this because their whole way of fighting was designed around land wars with neighbors which is where huge quantities of artillary and "dumb" rockets are cheap enough to transport by land but have to flatten large areas to be effective. In contrast, the US fights mostly overseas so they want more mobile weapons which also means more efficiently targetted. And now we have a convenient "moral" idea that precision weapons are good and broad-desctruction weapons are "bad". That moral just happens to favor the west, today. It wasn't like that back in WWI and WWII so back then, westeners didn't care about such morality - they wouldn't be able to place themselves on top. Whenever people start making moral judgements based on ideas like war crimes, human rights, or terrorism, I feel they're blinded by the fact that these concepts conveniently favor western countries and their capabilities so it suits us to think they're what makes a country "good".
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    First, Russia has precision cruise missiles so that is NO excuse for their leadership, nor for you excusing them. Second, of course bombing civilians was immoral during the great wars. The fact that they're TARGETTING population centres at all is evil, regardless of technology, antagonist or time on history. Third, if people in Western countries did subsequently develop a distaste for such immorality, that's to their credit. It doesn't make them hypocrites, it puts them further down the road of human development than those who didn't. Fourth, it's not only Westerners that value human rights, deplore war crimes and terrorism and those that do are often the first to publicly criticise their own countries records and hypocrisies. The fact they can do that made their countries "better", it's what helps make them "good" today. You almost seem to dislike modernity.
- leaflets2 4y ago
  > Their greatest existential threat [against Russia] is a united europe. No, it's Putin. He's an existential threat to the people in Russia. Whilst NATO is not and he knows it. (Except for replying if Putin starts firing nukes.) > if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars That's not how people think. "Let's attack Ukraine because Napoleon ..." I doubt you seriously believe in those things yourself, and the other things you wrote.

Oversimplification from which point of view? Russians, Ukrainians, or some outside observer?

by deelly 4y ago

Oversimplification from which point of view? Russians, Ukrainians, or some outside observer?

I think OP means Russia’s actions are much better understood by their national interest and history, rather than by the individual barbarity of their troops. Russia should not be in Ukraine and should not be firing missiles into population centers, but they are. Their reasons for doing so appear more complicated than mere evil. To be explicit, if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars on the north european plains once every ~33 years. Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs and approach further by way of NATO expansion despite in some cases explicitly promising otherwise. Ukraine, a previous warsaw pact country, is a prospective NATO member who not only represents a convenient corridor into Russia but also controls a large stretch of coast (Russia wants this) and has massive plains for food production and tank conveyance. Under this interpretation, Russia seeks to resist expansion of a european alliance composed of several former enemies and retain access to key strategic locations outside its borders. Russia’s motives are much more tangible under this perspective, and who knows maybe there’s a solution we’re not seeing from that perspective than one that places outsized emphasis on individual atrocities. It’s a war, after all, and doesn’t appear to be stopping despite the upset faces of spectators.

ROTMetro 4y ago
You make a reasoned argument why Russia might want to invade Ukraine while ignoring Russia's actual actions. Russia keeps changing it's stated 'reasons', with Russian's themselves saying the silent part you ignore out loud. They say Ukraine is not a real country, Ukrainians are not a separate people from Russians, and that because Ukraine tried to go it's own way it must be folded back into mother Russia and along with Belarus create a new slavic union. Ukrainian is being removed from the schools in Russian conquered land. Ukrainian books are being removed. Russia has human trafficked 2 million people from Ukraine to Russia at this point. None of that is to protect Russia from NATO. Why do you cover Russia's visible actions with a pretty pretense? Russia has said it is fine with Finland joining NATO, greatly expanding NATO on Russia's border. Your argument makes no sense outside the theoretical paragraphs in which you write it.
- malwrar 4y ago
  > Why do you cover Russia's visible actions with a pretty pretense? Some of Russia’s individual politicians and news outlets no doubt have genuine nationalistic motivations surrounding Ukraine, but it is not clear to me that these are the predominant motives for spending Russian lives and risking Russian security by engaging their forces in an armed conflict. The rhetoric and actions you cite is probably believed and condoned by an increasingly nonzero percentage of the population, but I’m personally not convinced these are much more than pretexts useful to the state in providing political cover to what is ultimately a sovereign chess move (prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, demotivate it and others from future attempts). Russia benefited massively by their previous USSR-era relationship with the surrounding baltic states, and Putin, a former USSR man, has said [1] that the breakup of the warsaw pact was one of Russia’s greatest geopolitical tragedies. I believe his greatest defensive focus is on re-establishing a buffer zone between it and western powers, and likely it’s longer term goals include acquisition of warm water ports and influence over the oil trade. This does, of course, not justify any of Russia’s actions on a moral basis. I expect many Russian officials will be tried and convicted of war crimes. It merely provides a basis by which european leaders/armchair presidents (me) can ground Russia’s actions and plot countermoves. > Russia has said it is fine with Finland joining NATO, greatly expanding NATO on Russia's border. Not even a year ago Russia implied a military consequence if Finland was to join NATO [2]. A few months after this statement was given Russia invaded Ukraine, though this ironically emboldened Finlanders into being majority in favor of joining NATO. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Geography-Coming-Conflicts-Against/dp/0812982223/ref=nodl_?dplnkId=db45cb40-2ed9-4c25-a782-79b583d2da12 https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Geography-Coming-Conflicts-Ag... (can’t find a source for the exact quote, but cited in chapter 2). [2]: https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-warns-nato-against-inclusion-of-finland-sweden-440093 https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-warns-nato-against-incl...
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    You starmanning an entire invasion force makes my point perfectly.
    - deleted 4y ago
Sporktacular 4y ago
"Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs and approach further by way of NATO expansion despite in some cases explicitly promising otherwise." This is a lie. 'not one inch eastward' never referred to NATO expansion to other countries. At least according to the man who received it, Gorbachev. If interference in a neighbours affairs and then threatening the very existence of that neighbour are undesirable then I'm sure you'll agree there is no more apt example of the silliness of starmanning some Russians who support its present expansionist actions. You can seek all the interpretations your want. The example wa to illustrate my point that there's no rhetorical solution to find between an imperialist wanting some land and the sovereign nation holding it. Not between the adversarial geopolitical leaders and not between victims' families and war criminals.
xdennis 4y ago
> To be explicit, if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars on the north european plains once every ~33 years. Between Napoleon and the present day Russia has only been invaded twice. By countries trying to liberate themselves in WW1 from the Russian Empire, and by Germany and others in WW2 (also partially a liberation, e.g. Romania tried to liberate the territories which Russia annexed at the start of the war). > Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs. Russia has constantly tried to annex everybody (even Putin jokes about this) and you cry about "meddling". Nobody would be meddling in Russian affairs if Russia was broken up like Austria (the previous Jail of Nations).
- drewcoo 4y ago
  People always conveniently forget that time the US invaded the USSR. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-it-true-1918-america-invaded-russia-77646 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-it-true-1918-amer... And wasn't that Romanian land given to the USSR by Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? So the Nazis were "liberating" land they had already agreed to give to someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... These are two minor points. They both, though, serve to show that you're lacking a grounding in the very history you're trying to swat aside.
_hcuq 4y ago
The problem being that until the invasion NATO was falling apart because Western Europeans didn’t see Russia as a threat. Even Ukraine didn’t believe Russia would invade. So… Putin has made the Russian position worse. He will have a very heavily armed Ukraine on his western flank, with or without NATO backing. Behind them he will have a newly rearmed Germany.
sacrosancty 4y ago
> firing missiles into population centers, but they are. Their reasons for doing so appear more complicated than mere evil. From what I heard, they do this because their whole way of fighting was designed around land wars with neighbors which is where huge quantities of artillary and "dumb" rockets are cheap enough to transport by land but have to flatten large areas to be effective. In contrast, the US fights mostly overseas so they want more mobile weapons which also means more efficiently targetted. And now we have a convenient "moral" idea that precision weapons are good and broad-desctruction weapons are "bad". That moral just happens to favor the west, today. It wasn't like that back in WWI and WWII so back then, westeners didn't care about such morality - they wouldn't be able to place themselves on top. Whenever people start making moral judgements based on ideas like war crimes, human rights, or terrorism, I feel they're blinded by the fact that these concepts conveniently favor western countries and their capabilities so it suits us to think they're what makes a country "good".
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  First, Russia has precision cruise missiles so that is NO excuse for their leadership, nor for you excusing them. Second, of course bombing civilians was immoral during the great wars. The fact that they're TARGETTING population centres at all is evil, regardless of technology, antagonist or time on history. Third, if people in Western countries did subsequently develop a distaste for such immorality, that's to their credit. It doesn't make them hypocrites, it puts them further down the road of human development than those who didn't. Fourth, it's not only Westerners that value human rights, deplore war crimes and terrorism and those that do are often the first to publicly criticise their own countries records and hypocrisies. The fact they can do that made their countries "better", it's what helps make them "good" today. You almost seem to dislike modernity.
leaflets2 4y ago
> Their greatest existential threat [against Russia] is a united europe. No, it's Putin. He's an existential threat to the people in Russia. Whilst NATO is not and he knows it. (Except for replying if Putin starts firing nukes.) > if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars That's not how people think. "Let's attack Ukraine because Napoleon ..." I doubt you seriously believe in those things yourself, and the other things you wrote.