6 ms·

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 s

by 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.
    - bertil 4y ago
      The need for a balance of power is a moral argument. And again: there were no ties until the invasion (in 2014). After that, I’m not sure how talking about balance of power justifies overstepping national boundaries, but it’s not going to convince many people. If Russia uses nuclear weapons, that would be after they failed to win a regional conflict that they started and that they could have stopped at any point. It’s a self-inflicted wound. There’s only so much the balance of power can do for dictatorships with suicidal behaviours.
      - hackinthebochs 4y ago
        >The need for a balance of power is a moral argument. No. You can make a moral argument in favor of balance of power. But the statement that if you do X I will be forced to do Y is not a moral argument. >It’s a self-inflicted wound Yes, they will be the only ones that suffer. Because that's how nuclear weapons work. Fucking incredible.
        WeylandYutani 4y ago
        There is no balance of power. That's the thing Putin doesn't get: Russia is small time. This is not the cold war.
mint2 4y ago
“Hey little country next door, we must invade you because if we invade you nato will give you weapons and stuff and we don’t like nato being a barrier to our imperialism. Your only other option is to just surrender now to our extortion.” A few months later, Commenters blame nato after extorting bully invaded. It’s all natos fault!!

by bertil 4y ago

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.
  - bertil 4y ago
    The need for a balance of power is a moral argument. And again: there were no ties until the invasion (in 2014). After that, I’m not sure how talking about balance of power justifies overstepping national boundaries, but it’s not going to convince many people. If Russia uses nuclear weapons, that would be after they failed to win a regional conflict that they started and that they could have stopped at any point. It’s a self-inflicted wound. There’s only so much the balance of power can do for dictatorships with suicidal behaviours.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      >The need for a balance of power is a moral argument. No. You can make a moral argument in favor of balance of power. But the statement that if you do X I will be forced to do Y is not a moral argument. >It’s a self-inflicted wound Yes, they will be the only ones that suffer. Because that's how nuclear weapons work. Fucking incredible.
      - WeylandYutani 4y ago
        There is no balance of power. That's the thing Putin doesn't get: Russia is small time. This is not the cold war.

mint2 4y ago

“Hey little country next door, we must invade you because if we invade you nato will give you weapons and stuff and we don’t like nato being a barrier to our imperialism. Your only other option is to just surrender now to our extortion.” A few months later, Commenters blame nato after extorting bully invaded. It’s all natos fault!!