4 ms·

Russian war crimes apologists are the worst. Nobody forced Russia to invade a sovereign country (or to consider itself the rightful owner of those lands for tha

by sofixa 4y ago

Russian war crimes apologists are the worst. Nobody forced Russia to invade a sovereign country (or to consider itself the rightful owner of those lands for that matter), that's entirely their fault. And it was mind bogglingly stupid, as we can see a few months in, with the massive losses to their army and economy. It wasn't something to prepare for because it was unthinkable. It was still a huge risk to prepare for though.

pydry 4y ago
Nobody forced NATO to expand to Ukraine either. Or to invade Libya. Or to invade Iraq/Afghanistan. Whataboutism as a rationale for war escalation with a nuclear power is insane. To consider reining in NATO expansion war to be equivalent to war crime apologetics is beyond absurd. If we get to winter and the Russian economy fares better than ours (and at first glance it looks like it will) then a lot of people should be eating a lot of humble pie. Alas I suspect theyll just call for escalation.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Nobody forced NATO to expand to Ukraine either Cut the Russian propaganda, NATO didn't expand to Ukraine. Ukraine, a sovereign country, wanted to join NATO, as is their every right. Denying Ukraine that right and excusing Russia's war crimes is pretty bad.
  - pydry 4y ago
    I'm not excusing Russian anything and Im not repeating any propaganda. I'm explaining that war, gas crisis and 18% inflation was a predictable and deliberately chosen path that wasnt hard to avoid if we'd wanted to - simply by withdrawing an invitation. You didnt want to avoid this scenario and consider withdrawing this invitation and "denying ukraine that right". I get that.
    - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
      > deliberately chosen path that wasnt hard to avoid if we'd wanted to - simply by withdrawing an invitation. Yes, imagine what would have happened to Chechnya or Georgia if we had let them into NATO. No, that would have been an invitation to attack Ukraine, we should have let them in.
      - pydry 4y ago
        Well, we put Georgia on a NATO membership action plan after years of meddling in their politics and that triggered the invasion in 2008. Ukraine isnt the first time this happened. It's just this time stirring up ethnic conflict along Russia's border is causing us to really suffer.
        CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
        And what did we do to Chechnya? Have you considered you've got your causality backwards? These countries want to join NATO because they are sick of Russian meddling. No country is being forced into NATO.
armitron 4y ago
> Nobody forced Russia to invade a sovereign country (or to consider itself the rightful owner of those lands for that matter), that's entirely their fault. Alas, the world doesn't operate based on the moral principles you imply, but cold hard realpolitik. Actions have consequences in the great power game between nation states. > And it was mind bogglingly stupid, as we can see a few months in, with the massive losses to their army and economy. The Russian economy is doing fine, business with India and China is thriving. "Massive losses to their army" I believe is far from accurate. I'll be greatly surprised if at the end of this, Ukraine isn't economically destroyed, geographically devastated. Territories lost will remain lost, and the deaths of so many people will have been for nothing more than furthering the geopolitical and industrial interests of the main instigators.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Alas, the world doesn't operate based on the moral principles you imply, but cold hard realpolitik. Actions have consequences in the great power game between nation states. If there's anything the Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't, it's realpolitik. Invading a country because "they aren't a real country and they should be ours" is as far as the cold practicality of realpolitik as possible. (Unless you choose to believe Russia's propaganda that it was all due to NATO's expansion, which even if true is even stupider - check Finland and Sweden which joined). Invading with the walking clown of an excuse of an army is also pretty far from practical considerations. > The Russian economy is doing fine, business with India and China is thriving. What are you basing this on? Have you checked their official interest rates, inflation rates (of course a bucket of salt is to be applied with those) and the warnings from the central bank governess? Not only is their economy not doing great, they are still yet to feel the effects of being cut off from industrial machinery and electronics they used to rely on. China and India can't replace all their planes, tractors, cars, trucks, phones, computers. > "Massive losses to their army" I believe is far from accurate Well thankfully people are actively working on this so we don't have to "believe" into anything. We have cold hard data from the ground in OSINT, compiled by volunteers such as Oryx. The fog of war is certainly obscuring things, but it's plainly obvious to see that Russian losses are massive in absolute and relative terms, in men and matériel. And the Russian army confirms that itself by the type of machines it fields (they've started reactivating obsolete tanks from the reserves) and it's desperate recruitment drives.

by sofixa 4y ago

pydry 4y ago

Nobody forced NATO to expand to Ukraine either. Or to invade Libya. Or to invade Iraq/Afghanistan. Whataboutism as a rationale for war escalation with a nuclear power is insane. To consider reining in NATO expansion war to be equivalent to war crime apologetics is beyond absurd. If we get to winter and the Russian economy fares better than ours (and at first glance it looks like it will) then a lot of people should be eating a lot of humble pie. Alas I suspect theyll just call for escalation.

sofixa 4y ago
> Nobody forced NATO to expand to Ukraine either Cut the Russian propaganda, NATO didn't expand to Ukraine. Ukraine, a sovereign country, wanted to join NATO, as is their every right. Denying Ukraine that right and excusing Russia's war crimes is pretty bad.
- pydry 4y ago
  I'm not excusing Russian anything and Im not repeating any propaganda. I'm explaining that war, gas crisis and 18% inflation was a predictable and deliberately chosen path that wasnt hard to avoid if we'd wanted to - simply by withdrawing an invitation. You didnt want to avoid this scenario and consider withdrawing this invitation and "denying ukraine that right". I get that.
  - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
    > deliberately chosen path that wasnt hard to avoid if we'd wanted to - simply by withdrawing an invitation. Yes, imagine what would have happened to Chechnya or Georgia if we had let them into NATO. No, that would have been an invitation to attack Ukraine, we should have let them in.
    - pydry 4y ago
      Well, we put Georgia on a NATO membership action plan after years of meddling in their politics and that triggered the invasion in 2008. Ukraine isnt the first time this happened. It's just this time stirring up ethnic conflict along Russia's border is causing us to really suffer.
      - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
        And what did we do to Chechnya? Have you considered you've got your causality backwards? These countries want to join NATO because they are sick of Russian meddling. No country is being forced into NATO.

armitron 4y ago

> Nobody forced Russia to invade a sovereign country (or to consider itself the rightful owner of those lands for that matter), that's entirely their fault. Alas, the world doesn't operate based on the moral principles you imply, but cold hard realpolitik. Actions have consequences in the great power game between nation states. > And it was mind bogglingly stupid, as we can see a few months in, with the massive losses to their army and economy. The Russian economy is doing fine, business with India and China is thriving. "Massive losses to their army" I believe is far from accurate. I'll be greatly surprised if at the end of this, Ukraine isn't economically destroyed, geographically devastated. Territories lost will remain lost, and the deaths of so many people will have been for nothing more than furthering the geopolitical and industrial interests of the main instigators.

sofixa 4y ago
> Alas, the world doesn't operate based on the moral principles you imply, but cold hard realpolitik. Actions have consequences in the great power game between nation states. If there's anything the Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't, it's realpolitik. Invading a country because "they aren't a real country and they should be ours" is as far as the cold practicality of realpolitik as possible. (Unless you choose to believe Russia's propaganda that it was all due to NATO's expansion, which even if true is even stupider - check Finland and Sweden which joined). Invading with the walking clown of an excuse of an army is also pretty far from practical considerations. > The Russian economy is doing fine, business with India and China is thriving. What are you basing this on? Have you checked their official interest rates, inflation rates (of course a bucket of salt is to be applied with those) and the warnings from the central bank governess? Not only is their economy not doing great, they are still yet to feel the effects of being cut off from industrial machinery and electronics they used to rely on. China and India can't replace all their planes, tractors, cars, trucks, phones, computers. > "Massive losses to their army" I believe is far from accurate Well thankfully people are actively working on this so we don't have to "believe" into anything. We have cold hard data from the ground in OSINT, compiled by volunteers such as Oryx. The fog of war is certainly obscuring things, but it's plainly obvious to see that Russian losses are massive in absolute and relative terms, in men and matériel. And the Russian army confirms that itself by the type of machines it fields (they've started reactivating obsolete tanks from the reserves) and it's desperate recruitment drives.