6 ms·

Yeah and we moved missiles out of Turkey - ie, we appeased.

by gfodor 4y ago

nosianu 4y ago
That is not the point as you should have noticed from where the argument came from. Escalation is very well on the table. Of course that does not preclude later negotiations, but the argument was against escalations and that's simply not true. Those were used -successfully - even under nuclear threat. The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. There was no argument "no negotiations ever" made by me or anyone.
- naasking 4y ago
  > The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. We have already escalated. NATO has been encroaching on Russia's borders for 20+ years now. Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war where thousands of people have died and where nuclear exchange is now on the table. I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy.
  - unrealhoang 4y ago
    Without NATO, how can the Baltics defend themselves against Russia? Working on nuclear weapon?
    - naasking 4y ago
      The same way Ukraine stayed neutral for so long: with agreements that NATO wouldn't encroach/allow membership as long as Russia doesn't expand. Sometimes that's the best you can (and should) do when the opposition has nuclear weapons because you don't want to risk escalating. Such agreements existed at the time and NATO continuously violated them in expanding membership towards Russia. It was a dangerous game and a lot of people have died because of it and because of Putin's paranoia.
      - unrealhoang 4y ago
        Ukraine applied to NATO AFTER they got their land annexed, not before. Also, before Feb 24th, Ukraine is still years away from being accepted into NATO. So no, whatever the real reason for the SMO was (highly likely to be oil), it was not because Putin/Russia was scared of being attack by NATO, and the agreement to not joining NATO will not stop the invasion.
        naasking 4y ago
        I fail to see what this has to do with the Baltics, which is what you asked about. Ukraine was making plenty of overtures to NATO and NATO's continued encroachment was definitely a threat to Russia. I'm not sure how you can so definitively conclude that Putin was not worried about this encroachment. Edit: I mean, just look at the recent history of Ukraine's friendly intermingling with NATO just prior to the invasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Presidency_of_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy_(from_2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations... You can certainly argue that this was just an excuse for Putin to invade, but there's little evidence to be so confident in that conclusion, and plenty of countervailing evidence.
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > Sometimes that's the best you can (and should) do when the opposition has nuclear weapons because you don't want to risk escalating. Sounds like a great argument for all countries that can to acquire nukes.
  - nosianu 4y ago
    > We have already escalated. No we have not! NATO did nothing to expand. It was those countries that wanted to join! Which brings us to the second point: > Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war Typical victim-aggressor reversal. It is Russia and its behavior, since forever, that made the neighbors fearful and desire NATO membership for protection against a vicious and aggressive neighbor. By the way, I speak a bit of Russian, have been to both Russia and Ukraine - East and West of the country - multiple times and have connections to people doing business there since the 1990s and we regularly converse. I'm not as knowledgeable as a real insider, but I'm also far form an armchair commenter. Also, I was a mix of sympathetic and willfully ignorant towards Russia all the way until 24 February. And it was Russian behavior during and accompanying the war, not that I (initially) cared much about the fate of Ukraine I have to admit. I realized I had suppressed and filtered a lot over the years, like most others. > I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy. I agree - we need to be much more forceful and less forgiving to Russian threats and atrocities!
    - naasking 4y ago
      > NATO did nothing to expand. It was those countries that wanted to join! NATO decides whether and how to expand their membership. They decide based on strategic considerations, like whether Russia would see allowing a member to join as a threat. NATO violated agreements with Russia not to expand towards Russia's borders over the past 20 years, and Russia's paranoia and aggression made this outcome predictable. In fact, many people predicted this would happen decades ago if NATO were to expand this way. This is not excusing the aggressor's behaviour, this is a simple recognition that if you poke a bully, he's going to punch you in the face. This doesn't mean you shouldn't stand up to him, but it does mean that if you have a fragile peace with a nuclear bully, you should be careful about how you threaten that peace. We should have learned these lessons decades ago during the cold war, but seemed to have forgotten them. > It is Russia and its behavior, since forever, that made the neighbors fearful and desire NATO membership for protection against a vicious and aggressive neighbor. Yes, that's a primary reason NATO was formed. Of course they want membership, that's perfectly normal and predictable. Ukraine would have joined long ago too but everyone recognized that that would have been a serious provocation, and ultimately a bad idea. It seems they thought they could incrementally creep towards Russia's borders and Russia wouldn't notice. They thought wrong.
- gfodor 4y ago
  The root of this thread is rejecting the idea of appeasement. Escalation that ultimately ends in appeasement is not a counterargument but evidence that appeasement is a valid strategy for ending a conflict when it comes to nuclear weapons. If you’re saying we should escalate and then appease, ok, but almost everyone I have engaged with on this is under the grip of a very poorly conceived Hitler analogy leading them to say that we must never, ever appease dictators. Meaning, I suppose, that as long as Putin remains in power, we must continue to escalate until he either gives up or nukes us all. What could go wrong?

Yeah and we moved missiles out of Turkey - ie, we appeased.

by gfodor 4y ago

Yeah and we moved missiles out of Turkey - ie, we appeased.

That is not the point as you should have noticed from where the argument came from. Escalation is very well on the table. Of course that does not preclude later negotiations, but the argument was against escalations and that's simply not true. Those were used -successfully - even under nuclear threat. The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. There was no argument "no negotiations ever" made by me or anyone.

naasking 4y ago
> The argument attempted now is that we should not escalate. We have already escalated. NATO has been encroaching on Russia's borders for 20+ years now. Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war where thousands of people have died and where nuclear exchange is now on the table. I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy.
- unrealhoang 4y ago
  Without NATO, how can the Baltics defend themselves against Russia? Working on nuclear weapon?
  - naasking 4y ago
    The same way Ukraine stayed neutral for so long: with agreements that NATO wouldn't encroach/allow membership as long as Russia doesn't expand. Sometimes that's the best you can (and should) do when the opposition has nuclear weapons because you don't want to risk escalating. Such agreements existed at the time and NATO continuously violated them in expanding membership towards Russia. It was a dangerous game and a lot of people have died because of it and because of Putin's paranoia.
    - unrealhoang 4y ago
      Ukraine applied to NATO AFTER they got their land annexed, not before. Also, before Feb 24th, Ukraine is still years away from being accepted into NATO. So no, whatever the real reason for the SMO was (highly likely to be oil), it was not because Putin/Russia was scared of being attack by NATO, and the agreement to not joining NATO will not stop the invasion.
      - naasking 4y ago
        I fail to see what this has to do with the Baltics, which is what you asked about. Ukraine was making plenty of overtures to NATO and NATO's continued encroachment was definitely a threat to Russia. I'm not sure how you can so definitively conclude that Putin was not worried about this encroachment. Edit: I mean, just look at the recent history of Ukraine's friendly intermingling with NATO just prior to the invasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Presidency_of_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy_(from_2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations... You can certainly argue that this was just an excuse for Putin to invade, but there's little evidence to be so confident in that conclusion, and plenty of countervailing evidence.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > Sometimes that's the best you can (and should) do when the opposition has nuclear weapons because you don't want to risk escalating. Sounds like a great argument for all countries that can to acquire nukes.
- nosianu 4y ago
  > We have already escalated. No we have not! NATO did nothing to expand. It was those countries that wanted to join! Which brings us to the second point: > Our foreign policies are one of the main causal factors in the current war Typical victim-aggressor reversal. It is Russia and its behavior, since forever, that made the neighbors fearful and desire NATO membership for protection against a vicious and aggressive neighbor. By the way, I speak a bit of Russian, have been to both Russia and Ukraine - East and West of the country - multiple times and have connections to people doing business there since the 1990s and we regularly converse. I'm not as knowledgeable as a real insider, but I'm also far form an armchair commenter. Also, I was a mix of sympathetic and willfully ignorant towards Russia all the way until 24 February. And it was Russian behavior during and accompanying the war, not that I (initially) cared much about the fate of Ukraine I have to admit. I realized I had suppressed and filtered a lot over the years, like most others. > I think it's time to reevaluate that strategy. I agree - we need to be much more forceful and less forgiving to Russian threats and atrocities!
  - naasking 4y ago
    > NATO did nothing to expand. It was those countries that wanted to join! NATO decides whether and how to expand their membership. They decide based on strategic considerations, like whether Russia would see allowing a member to join as a threat. NATO violated agreements with Russia not to expand towards Russia's borders over the past 20 years, and Russia's paranoia and aggression made this outcome predictable. In fact, many people predicted this would happen decades ago if NATO were to expand this way. This is not excusing the aggressor's behaviour, this is a simple recognition that if you poke a bully, he's going to punch you in the face. This doesn't mean you shouldn't stand up to him, but it does mean that if you have a fragile peace with a nuclear bully, you should be careful about how you threaten that peace. We should have learned these lessons decades ago during the cold war, but seemed to have forgotten them. > It is Russia and its behavior, since forever, that made the neighbors fearful and desire NATO membership for protection against a vicious and aggressive neighbor. Yes, that's a primary reason NATO was formed. Of course they want membership, that's perfectly normal and predictable. Ukraine would have joined long ago too but everyone recognized that that would have been a serious provocation, and ultimately a bad idea. It seems they thought they could incrementally creep towards Russia's borders and Russia wouldn't notice. They thought wrong.
gfodor 4y ago
The root of this thread is rejecting the idea of appeasement. Escalation that ultimately ends in appeasement is not a counterargument but evidence that appeasement is a valid strategy for ending a conflict when it comes to nuclear weapons. If you’re saying we should escalate and then appease, ok, but almost everyone I have engaged with on this is under the grip of a very poorly conceived Hitler analogy leading them to say that we must never, ever appease dictators. Meaning, I suppose, that as long as Putin remains in power, we must continue to escalate until he either gives up or nukes us all. What could go wrong?