5 ms·

> The assumption that any victory in Ukraine for Putin will inevitably result in further expansive attempts is a convenient narrative but doesn't hold up to scr

> The assumption that any victory in Ukraine for Putin will inevitably result in further expansive attempts is a convenient narrative but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Well we things differently then. From what I see the rhetoric remains: to have Ukraine under Russian control, and all actions point in that direction. So I'd say, so far, it's holding up. > If nothing else it stops at NATO's border. Well, then the message is clear - join NATO or you risk being gobbled until it's borders, since that's the new limit. I don't think that's much of a game to be played in 2022. Plus it won't stop any World War, history has shown in the past what territorial concessions to expansionist leads to. > That era is coming to an end. I not sure if that's straight forward, and I'm not seeing many wanting to play with Russia in the split you're talking about, especially after these events. And to leave the weak at the will of an expansionist nation doesn't seem like much of world to be part of.

mikem170 4y ago
> And to leave the weak at the will of an expansionist nation doesn't seem like much of world to be part of. Is there any limit to how much you would escalate a war with Russia to defend the weak? It's interesting that we are having this discussion about Ukraine, justifying a military response based on how morally wrong it was for Putin to start this war, while Ethopia and Sudan are fighting each other and nobody cares. I assume that Western governments care about Ukraine because it is strategically important to them. It seems that self-interest is ultimately more important than morality in geopolitics.
- hbrn 4y ago
  Of course it's not about morals. But Russia does see the west and US specifically as their major enemy. And morals are a good way to justify your strategic interests. So yeah, it is strategically important for the West that Russia loses. Because the end goal of Russia is not Ukraine. It's revanchism.
  - mikem170 4y ago
    You're talking too high-falutin for me! Major enemy, justify, revanchism - people don't want to die for those words, words I consider to be propaganda words. What are the people running Russia really afraid of? I assume they've been feeling existentially threatened, their boarders being indefensible, centuries of being invaded repeatedly across the open plains, declining economy and demographics, etc. Putin rolled the dice trying to take more of Ukraine, on his way towards defensible mountain passes, and it hasn't gone well for him. The real motivation is not revanchism, it's strategic. Countries come and go, sometimes disappearing. Russia is in decline, and they are doing what they think will improve their situation. What are the people running the West afraid of? I assume they'd rather arm Ukrainians and have them die fighting Russians, in order to avoid having Western Europe possibly be involved first-hand in a war. Better that Ukrainians die than Westerners. The US is not existentially threatened, but we feel that it is in our interests to be involved in this war, as opposed to others that we don't care about. I agree with what you said that it is strategically important for the West that Russia loses, but I wonder if I look at it more cynically than you do. I guess I'd be happier if people recognized that states are usually selfish more than moral, and often hypocrites.
    - yobbo 4y ago
      > What are the people running Russia really afraid of? Democracy. > Better that Ukrainians die than Westerners. The west is saving Ukrainian lives at the moment. Not "sort of" - the aid is actually stopping Russia's ethnic cleansing. They find mass graves of tortured civilians in each liberated town. Western soldiers in Ukraine would escalate the war. > What are the people running the West afraid of? Russian military.
      - mikem170 4y ago
        > Democracy I don't think avoiding democracy is the reason that Russia invaded Ukraine. How are the two related? I assume they attempted to seize Ukraine in an attempt to better their strategic military and economic position. > The west is saving Ukrainian lives at the moment. I don't think that saving Ukrainian lives is the reason that the West is supporting Ukraine. In fact, our support of Ukraine has probably caused many Ukranians to die in the short term. If we wanted to save Ukrainian lives we would have told them to surrender. > Russian military I agree with you that the West is afraid of the Russian military. That's why we are involved. Not because of morals, not to save Ukrainian lives.
- yobbo 4y ago
  > Ethopia and Sudan are fighting each other and nobody cares. This is not a "border skirmish" with some AKs being fired. The amount of equipment and manpower Russia has directed to Ukraine is larger than most of the world's militaries, except US and China. Their losses of main battle tanks as of today correspond to 1/3 of the total number of US tanks, and more than the total number of tanks in western Europe. Russia's casualties are now larger than the total US casualties during the Vietnam war. The 800000 artillery shells in aid, correspond to 5000-10000 truckloads being delivered from neighbouring Nato countries. Civilian Ukrainian casualties are in the tens of thousands, and counting.
  - mikem170 4y ago
    I think that we agree. The US is not helping Ukraine because they are weak, they are helping Ukraine because Russia is a large threat to our allies, trade partners, energy markets, etc. I brought up the other conflict as a way of showing that we don't prioritize helping the weak. Other factors are more important.

mikem170 4y ago

> And to leave the weak at the will of an expansionist nation doesn't seem like much of world to be part of. Is there any limit to how much you would escalate a war with Russia to defend the weak? It's interesting that we are having this discussion about Ukraine, justifying a military response based on how morally wrong it was for Putin to start this war, while Ethopia and Sudan are fighting each other and nobody cares. I assume that Western governments care about Ukraine because it is strategically important to them. It seems that self-interest is ultimately more important than morality in geopolitics.

hbrn 4y ago
Of course it's not about morals. But Russia does see the west and US specifically as their major enemy. And morals are a good way to justify your strategic interests. So yeah, it is strategically important for the West that Russia loses. Because the end goal of Russia is not Ukraine. It's revanchism.
- mikem170 4y ago
  You're talking too high-falutin for me! Major enemy, justify, revanchism - people don't want to die for those words, words I consider to be propaganda words. What are the people running Russia really afraid of? I assume they've been feeling existentially threatened, their boarders being indefensible, centuries of being invaded repeatedly across the open plains, declining economy and demographics, etc. Putin rolled the dice trying to take more of Ukraine, on his way towards defensible mountain passes, and it hasn't gone well for him. The real motivation is not revanchism, it's strategic. Countries come and go, sometimes disappearing. Russia is in decline, and they are doing what they think will improve their situation. What are the people running the West afraid of? I assume they'd rather arm Ukrainians and have them die fighting Russians, in order to avoid having Western Europe possibly be involved first-hand in a war. Better that Ukrainians die than Westerners. The US is not existentially threatened, but we feel that it is in our interests to be involved in this war, as opposed to others that we don't care about. I agree with what you said that it is strategically important for the West that Russia loses, but I wonder if I look at it more cynically than you do. I guess I'd be happier if people recognized that states are usually selfish more than moral, and often hypocrites.
  - yobbo 4y ago
    > What are the people running Russia really afraid of? Democracy. > Better that Ukrainians die than Westerners. The west is saving Ukrainian lives at the moment. Not "sort of" - the aid is actually stopping Russia's ethnic cleansing. They find mass graves of tortured civilians in each liberated town. Western soldiers in Ukraine would escalate the war. > What are the people running the West afraid of? Russian military.
    - mikem170 4y ago
      > Democracy I don't think avoiding democracy is the reason that Russia invaded Ukraine. How are the two related? I assume they attempted to seize Ukraine in an attempt to better their strategic military and economic position. > The west is saving Ukrainian lives at the moment. I don't think that saving Ukrainian lives is the reason that the West is supporting Ukraine. In fact, our support of Ukraine has probably caused many Ukranians to die in the short term. If we wanted to save Ukrainian lives we would have told them to surrender. > Russian military I agree with you that the West is afraid of the Russian military. That's why we are involved. Not because of morals, not to save Ukrainian lives.
yobbo 4y ago
> Ethopia and Sudan are fighting each other and nobody cares. This is not a "border skirmish" with some AKs being fired. The amount of equipment and manpower Russia has directed to Ukraine is larger than most of the world's militaries, except US and China. Their losses of main battle tanks as of today correspond to 1/3 of the total number of US tanks, and more than the total number of tanks in western Europe. Russia's casualties are now larger than the total US casualties during the Vietnam war. The 800000 artillery shells in aid, correspond to 5000-10000 truckloads being delivered from neighbouring Nato countries. Civilian Ukrainian casualties are in the tens of thousands, and counting.
- mikem170 4y ago
  I think that we agree. The US is not helping Ukraine because they are weak, they are helping Ukraine because Russia is a large threat to our allies, trade partners, energy markets, etc. I brought up the other conflict as a way of showing that we don't prioritize helping the weak. Other factors are more important.