4 ms·

Does Russia have to invade Ukraine? Does it have to keep killing civilians? They could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is wo

by brnt 4y ago

Does Russia have to invade Ukraine? Does it have to keep killing civilians? They could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life.

eshch 4y ago
The last sentence is applicable to both sides by the way. Especially because of https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai... But both sides are hostages of their own politics and narratives of who's good and who's bad.
- kadoban 4y ago
  Russia is the aggressor, and appeasement is a generally unsuccessful strategy.
  - eshch 4y ago
    It depends on the purposes of the actor and the purpose of the strategy.
- brnt 4y ago
  The Amnesty report doesn't change my question though: Russian leadership could end this right now by returning its armies home.
  - eshch 4y ago
    Well, I was not going to change your question. Why would I? I'm just going to draw attention to the situation both sides "could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life."
  - rdtwo 4y ago
    Not really. The only way this ends is if Europe and Russia cooperate to sell gas. Both parties have to agree. The actual war is related but not directly needed to end the energy problem. Even if Russia surrendered there would still need to be cooperation to resume gas sales
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      This seems to be a technically. If Russia withdraws from Ukraine tonight then tomorrow Europe would be far more like to take significant steps to get the gas and payment flowing.
      - rdtwo 4y ago
        More likely maybe but there are probably technical hurdles now too. Embargo’s don’t always get lifted. Russia would be forced to pay reputations, and parts aren’t available or repair so can’t be used immediately. It would take months or years to unwind this.
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Doubly down on the war is unlikely to produce a better outcome, for anyone.
        rdtwo 4y ago
        My points is that the immediate future (3 months) has already been decided in terms of gas prices and availability. Actions now could not meaningful affect that
impossiblefork 4y ago
Yes, but that doesn't change who is cutting off whom. Russia invaded Ukraine and diverse countries who did not understand the significance of their choice to make themselves dependent on Russian gas had to take what peaceful measures they could to deny resources to Russia, but obviously the Rusdians aren't going to sell something in return for something they can't access-- it's equivalent to nonpayment. There's no readon not to say that openly. The only bad thing about this affair is that some countries are trying to substitute their Russian gas for Azerbaijani gas, which is just as bad war-of-aggression wise , even though that is of course further away from Europe.
- Normille 4y ago
  >The only bad thing about this affair is that some countries are trying to substitute their Russian gas for Azerbaijani gas, which is just as bad war-of-aggression wise , even though that is of course further away from Europe. Yes. It's funny how moral outrage fades with distance, isn't it? And also with "Are they friends of ours or not?" I've not noticed any calls to boycott Saudi Arabian oil in response to that country's Bombing and killing of civilians in Yemen. It's incredible how otherwise intelligent people, switch off their critical faculties and revert to "baddies vs goodies" levels of analysis, when it comes to international politics.
  - impossiblefork 4y ago
    It's not really a matter of morality though. We care about Ukraine because we don't want Russian domination in eastern Europe-- it's simply a matter of security. Obviously security must go first, but if we can afford it morality is often good long-term.
    - Normille 4y ago
      What about NATO domination in Europe? Why can so many of you not see [beyond simplistic 'goodies' and 'baddies' labels] how much Russia feels threatened by that? Imagine if the cold war had been 'won' by the other side; Canada and Mexico had joined the Warsaw Pact and the USSR had troops and ICBMs stationed there. And now Alaska, which had declared independence from the rest of the USA was talking about doing likewise [0] How do you think the US would react? Clue: look up 'Cuban Missile Crisis' if you need a hint. One of the fundamental pre-requisites for solving crises diplomatically before the shooting starts is seeing things from the other guy's point of view. Simply dismissing 'them' as the 'baddies' and discounting their view of the world only leads to more conflict --as has happened in Ukraine. [0] Baggsy a share of the royalties, if someone decides to write this up as an Alternative History blockbuster!
ohiovr 4y ago
Reality is millions of people could freeze to death that probably couldn't find Ukraine on a map 10 months ago. Since the only view you get from is the one behind the electronic curtain it isn't surprising you are so misled. The green party in Germany laughed at the suggestion by Trump that Europe is too dependent on Russian gas.
Normille 4y ago
>Does Russia have to invade Ukraine? Does it have to keep killing civilians? You're changing the argument. I'm not arguing whether Russia was morally right or wrong to invade Ukraine. I'm arguing that Europe [in particular] was incredibly short-sighted to choose to respond by effectively forcing Russia to cut off our gas supplies in the run up to winter.

by brnt 4y ago

Does Russia have to invade Ukraine? Does it have to keep killing civilians? They could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life.

eshch 4y ago

The last sentence is applicable to both sides by the way. Especially because of https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrai... But both sides are hostages of their own politics and narratives of who's good and who's bad.

kadoban 4y ago
Russia is the aggressor, and appeasement is a generally unsuccessful strategy.
- eshch 4y ago
  It depends on the purposes of the actor and the purpose of the strategy.
brnt 4y ago
The Amnesty report doesn't change my question though: Russian leadership could end this right now by returning its armies home.
- eshch 4y ago
  Well, I was not going to change your question. Why would I? I'm just going to draw attention to the situation both sides "could put an end to this today, but they won't, because the loss of face is worse than the loss of life."
- rdtwo 4y ago
  Not really. The only way this ends is if Europe and Russia cooperate to sell gas. Both parties have to agree. The actual war is related but not directly needed to end the energy problem. Even if Russia surrendered there would still need to be cooperation to resume gas sales
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    This seems to be a technically. If Russia withdraws from Ukraine tonight then tomorrow Europe would be far more like to take significant steps to get the gas and payment flowing.
    - rdtwo 4y ago
      More likely maybe but there are probably technical hurdles now too. Embargo’s don’t always get lifted. Russia would be forced to pay reputations, and parts aren’t available or repair so can’t be used immediately. It would take months or years to unwind this.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Doubly down on the war is unlikely to produce a better outcome, for anyone.
        rdtwo 4y ago
        My points is that the immediate future (3 months) has already been decided in terms of gas prices and availability. Actions now could not meaningful affect that

impossiblefork 4y ago

Yes, but that doesn't change who is cutting off whom. Russia invaded Ukraine and diverse countries who did not understand the significance of their choice to make themselves dependent on Russian gas had to take what peaceful measures they could to deny resources to Russia, but obviously the Rusdians aren't going to sell something in return for something they can't access-- it's equivalent to nonpayment. There's no readon not to say that openly. The only bad thing about this affair is that some countries are trying to substitute their Russian gas for Azerbaijani gas, which is just as bad war-of-aggression wise , even though that is of course further away from Europe.

Normille 4y ago
>The only bad thing about this affair is that some countries are trying to substitute their Russian gas for Azerbaijani gas, which is just as bad war-of-aggression wise , even though that is of course further away from Europe. Yes. It's funny how moral outrage fades with distance, isn't it? And also with "Are they friends of ours or not?" I've not noticed any calls to boycott Saudi Arabian oil in response to that country's Bombing and killing of civilians in Yemen. It's incredible how otherwise intelligent people, switch off their critical faculties and revert to "baddies vs goodies" levels of analysis, when it comes to international politics.
- impossiblefork 4y ago
  It's not really a matter of morality though. We care about Ukraine because we don't want Russian domination in eastern Europe-- it's simply a matter of security. Obviously security must go first, but if we can afford it morality is often good long-term.
  - Normille 4y ago
    What about NATO domination in Europe? Why can so many of you not see [beyond simplistic 'goodies' and 'baddies' labels] how much Russia feels threatened by that? Imagine if the cold war had been 'won' by the other side; Canada and Mexico had joined the Warsaw Pact and the USSR had troops and ICBMs stationed there. And now Alaska, which had declared independence from the rest of the USA was talking about doing likewise [0] How do you think the US would react? Clue: look up 'Cuban Missile Crisis' if you need a hint. One of the fundamental pre-requisites for solving crises diplomatically before the shooting starts is seeing things from the other guy's point of view. Simply dismissing 'them' as the 'baddies' and discounting their view of the world only leads to more conflict --as has happened in Ukraine. [0] Baggsy a share of the royalties, if someone decides to write this up as an Alternative History blockbuster!

ohiovr 4y ago

Reality is millions of people could freeze to death that probably couldn't find Ukraine on a map 10 months ago. Since the only view you get from is the one behind the electronic curtain it isn't surprising you are so misled. The green party in Germany laughed at the suggestion by Trump that Europe is too dependent on Russian gas.

Normille 4y ago

>Does Russia have to invade Ukraine? Does it have to keep killing civilians? You're changing the argument. I'm not arguing whether Russia was morally right or wrong to invade Ukraine. I'm arguing that Europe [in particular] was incredibly short-sighted to choose to respond by effectively forcing Russia to cut off our gas supplies in the run up to winter.