4 ms·

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 Al

• 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.