7 ms·

On the one hand, Russia be damned with their immoral, illegal invasion. OTOH, Russia allege that they are not fighting Ukraine, backed by NATO weapons, but NAT

On the one hand, Russia be damned with their immoral, illegal invasion. OTOH, Russia allege that they are not fighting Ukraine, backed by NATO weapons, but NATO, fronted by Ukrainian troops. This appears to support their allegations, and IMHO maybe goes too far. We should be imposing maximum cost on their aggression, but not pushing so hard as to cause a global conflagration.

fazfq 4y ago
- jacknews 4y ago
  Of course, it always has been, obviously, and as Russia have been saying. But it's a matter of degree. Are you 'supporting' a proxy war, or are you actually directing it. This seems like evidence of the latter. Will Russia respond? I mean this whole thing is basically a Russian response to the US waving NATO expansion in their face for years, contrary to what they promised.
  - pohuing 4y ago
    For such an important guarantee of no Nato expansion it sure is weird that they never had a binding contract on paper somewhere.
    - jacknews 4y ago
      They weren't exactly in a strong negotiating position at the time, so perhaps this is a case of an unfair lack of contract.
    - epicureanideal 4y ago
      There is plenty of evidence for the agreement in written diplomatic records.
  - mint2 4y ago
    The nato expansion argument is garbage because in the face of it Russia did the one move nearly guaranteed to strengthen nato. Guess what, now historically averse to joining nato countries are rushing to sign up.
    - jacknews 4y ago
      That doesn't make sense. They were promised that NATO wouldn't expand, eg to all the baltics, etc, and yet it did. That is why they are now lashing out. The fact that their bad and badly miscalculated reaction is causing further NATO expansion is beside the point.
- ericmay 4y ago
  It’s not a proxy war. Russia is actually fighting Ukraine. Also countries are allowed to buy weapons from other countries to defend themselves and such actions don’t make your country a proxy for another.
bertil 4y ago
I’m not entirely sure what is the moral case for Russia to complain that NATO is supporting Ukraine. They seem to think that justifies aggression, but I’m not sure that’s as convincing as they make it.
- jacknews 4y ago
  Are we 'supporting' Ukraine, or directing them? It's a crucial difference IMHO.
  - gautamdivgi 4y ago
    I suspect we are definitely ‘advising’ - that’s probably the official term.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  Why should a "moral case" be the overriding conceptual framework to analyze geopolitical dispute? If the goal is to accurately predict the space of responses and maximize one's own interests, citing the moral properties of the dispute is counter-productive.
  - bertil 4y ago
    That's the framework Russia, and OC, chose: outrage that NATO was helping Ukraine. If you want to use microeconomics, sure, go for it but… NATO, Ukraine and Allies vs. Russia on a pure realpolitik plan doesn’t seem to lead to better outcomes for any Russian decision maker.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      This is a strange comment. Russia didn't object to growing NATO ties with Ukraine over moral outrage, it objected based on balance of power politics. The US and NATO chose to ignore it, and we are seeing the predictable result. The issue that faces is us whether Russia will escalate to nuclear weapons if all their conventional means are exhausted by the US's continued involvement.
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Really? Russia has assassinated or attempted assassination of British citizens and Russian ex-pats on British soil multiple times. They spread radioactive polonium all over the London transit system and put a British police officer in the hospital in critical care. They've shot down a civilian airliner full of Dutch and other citizens. They've funded far right parties abroad in an attempt to manipulate other country's elections. They've attacked US and other country's electronic infrastructure for years. They've been caught spying and manipulating local country's elections. The global conflict already existed. It isn't just Ukraine's sovereignty that has been violated. I fail to see how what NATO is doing now is an escalation. Unless you count "fighting back" as escalatory. Lavrov and Putin use the language of 1960s anti-imperialism, while acting like a 1800s imperial power.
- mistermann 4y ago
  How about we look at the stats on "total body count" (maybe broken down by military and civilian) for the US and Russian militaries over the last, say, 30 years? I like to start with just the raw numbers, and then the narratives used to justify the actions can be layered on top afterwards... I think this can be helpful to better see how the process works.
  - mft_ 4y ago
    …because that’s a major tangent (or straw man; presumably intentional) away from the topic being discussed?
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    How about don't play stupid whataboutist games in which somehow US crimes justify Russian ones? FWIW I'm not a citizen of either country, and my country didn't kill Iraqis because our citizens forced our government to not get involved. In my ideal world Lavrov would be held in the same prison cell as Kissinger.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      >How about don't play stupid whataboutist games in which somehow US crimes justify Russian ones? It's not whataboutism, its pointing out the absurdity that we're heading towards a nuclear showdown over the very same acts the U.S. regularly engages in, even within recent memory. It's pointing out that the moral arguments only apply when the aggressors are not the U.S. This is not whataboutism, this is pointing out hypocrisy and naked manipulation.
bobiny 4y ago
Russia began alleged NATO fighting well after it annexed Crimea and invaded Donbas.
relativ575 4y ago
> OTOH, Russia allege that they are not fighting Ukraine, backed by NATO weapons, but NATO, fronted by Ukrainian troops. Listen to what you're saying. Russia don't need to fight anyone. Just stop. Withdraw back to within Russia's border. End of story. They wouldn't have to fight Ukraine, let alone NATO. They are the one who invade Ukraine, do they expect Ukraine not to fight back, and other countries not to support Ukraine? Russia sound a lot like a bully.

fazfq 4y ago

jacknews 4y ago
Of course, it always has been, obviously, and as Russia have been saying. But it's a matter of degree. Are you 'supporting' a proxy war, or are you actually directing it. This seems like evidence of the latter. Will Russia respond? I mean this whole thing is basically a Russian response to the US waving NATO expansion in their face for years, contrary to what they promised.
- pohuing 4y ago
  For such an important guarantee of no Nato expansion it sure is weird that they never had a binding contract on paper somewhere.
  - jacknews 4y ago
    They weren't exactly in a strong negotiating position at the time, so perhaps this is a case of an unfair lack of contract.
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    There is plenty of evidence for the agreement in written diplomatic records.
- mint2 4y ago
  The nato expansion argument is garbage because in the face of it Russia did the one move nearly guaranteed to strengthen nato. Guess what, now historically averse to joining nato countries are rushing to sign up.
  - jacknews 4y ago
    That doesn't make sense. They were promised that NATO wouldn't expand, eg to all the baltics, etc, and yet it did. That is why they are now lashing out. The fact that their bad and badly miscalculated reaction is causing further NATO expansion is beside the point.
ericmay 4y ago
It’s not a proxy war. Russia is actually fighting Ukraine. Also countries are allowed to buy weapons from other countries to defend themselves and such actions don’t make your country a proxy for another.

bertil 4y ago

I’m not entirely sure what is the moral case for Russia to complain that NATO is supporting Ukraine. They seem to think that justifies aggression, but I’m not sure that’s as convincing as they make it.

jacknews 4y ago
Are we 'supporting' Ukraine, or directing them? It's a crucial difference IMHO.
- gautamdivgi 4y ago
  I suspect we are definitely ‘advising’ - that’s probably the official term.
hackinthebochs 4y ago
Why should a "moral case" be the overriding conceptual framework to analyze geopolitical dispute? If the goal is to accurately predict the space of responses and maximize one's own interests, citing the moral properties of the dispute is counter-productive.
- bertil 4y ago
  That's the framework Russia, and OC, chose: outrage that NATO was helping Ukraine. If you want to use microeconomics, sure, go for it but… NATO, Ukraine and Allies vs. Russia on a pure realpolitik plan doesn’t seem to lead to better outcomes for any Russian decision maker.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    This is a strange comment. Russia didn't object to growing NATO ties with Ukraine over moral outrage, it objected based on balance of power politics. The US and NATO chose to ignore it, and we are seeing the predictable result. The issue that faces is us whether Russia will escalate to nuclear weapons if all their conventional means are exhausted by the US's continued involvement.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

Really? Russia has assassinated or attempted assassination of British citizens and Russian ex-pats on British soil multiple times. They spread radioactive polonium all over the London transit system and put a British police officer in the hospital in critical care. They've shot down a civilian airliner full of Dutch and other citizens. They've funded far right parties abroad in an attempt to manipulate other country's elections. They've attacked US and other country's electronic infrastructure for years. They've been caught spying and manipulating local country's elections. The global conflict already existed. It isn't just Ukraine's sovereignty that has been violated. I fail to see how what NATO is doing now is an escalation. Unless you count "fighting back" as escalatory. Lavrov and Putin use the language of 1960s anti-imperialism, while acting like a 1800s imperial power.

mistermann 4y ago
How about we look at the stats on "total body count" (maybe broken down by military and civilian) for the US and Russian militaries over the last, say, 30 years? I like to start with just the raw numbers, and then the narratives used to justify the actions can be layered on top afterwards... I think this can be helpful to better see how the process works.
- mft_ 4y ago
  …because that’s a major tangent (or straw man; presumably intentional) away from the topic being discussed?
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  How about don't play stupid whataboutist games in which somehow US crimes justify Russian ones? FWIW I'm not a citizen of either country, and my country didn't kill Iraqis because our citizens forced our government to not get involved. In my ideal world Lavrov would be held in the same prison cell as Kissinger.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    >How about don't play stupid whataboutist games in which somehow US crimes justify Russian ones? It's not whataboutism, its pointing out the absurdity that we're heading towards a nuclear showdown over the very same acts the U.S. regularly engages in, even within recent memory. It's pointing out that the moral arguments only apply when the aggressors are not the U.S. This is not whataboutism, this is pointing out hypocrisy and naked manipulation.

bobiny 4y ago

Russia began alleged NATO fighting well after it annexed Crimea and invaded Donbas.

relativ575 4y ago

> OTOH, Russia allege that they are not fighting Ukraine, backed by NATO weapons, but NATO, fronted by Ukrainian troops. Listen to what you're saying. Russia don't need to fight anyone. Just stop. Withdraw back to within Russia's border. End of story. They wouldn't have to fight Ukraine, let alone NATO. They are the one who invade Ukraine, do they expect Ukraine not to fight back, and other countries not to support Ukraine? Russia sound a lot like a bully.