4 ms·

>It probably doesn't make sense to attribute it to communism, because Russia is doing the same damn throw human life into a meat grinder approach in the modern

by pydry 4y ago

>It probably doesn't make sense to attribute it to communism, because Russia is doing the same damn throw human life into a meat grinder approach in the modern day despite no longer being nominally communist. Yeah, this is 100% about Russian borders, which are long, exposed, expensive to defend and present an existential threat on a (historically) fairly regular basis. America's geography is pretty much the polar opposite, so it's hard to empathize.

hcurtiss 4y ago
Yet, contrast USA with Mexico (not communist). Geography is no match for governance. The USSR failed because their system of government, like every other communist state, produced abject poverty.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  You're not completely incorrect, but the US has a far far better geography than Mexico, and it's not even close.
mindslight 4y ago
I would think that since the borders are expensive to defend, that would lead to trying to be more efficient with human life and other limited resources, rather than less. Furthermore, talking about the defense of Russian borders is kind of ridiculous in the context of the current attack on Ukraine, where Russia is trying to expand its borders which would otherwise remain stationary. It only makes sense if you interpret "borders" as referring to some larger area outside the actual country but which they nevertheless feel entitled to.
- pydry 4y ago
  >Furthermore, talking about the defense of Russian borders is kind of ridiculous in the context of the current attack on Ukraine, where Russia is trying to expand its borders which would otherwise just remain stationary. It's expanding at the points where the Nazi advance almost succeeded in breaking the USSR, where Russia has its only warm water ports and where, long term, NATO, the alliance that destroyed Libya on a whim, was planning to set up military bases with offensive capabilities. It's still about the vulnerability of its borders.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    You're no longer talking about defense, but rather trying to justify an offensive war. Those lines on the map are Schelling points that had enabled a great deal of peace. And frankly they were much more defensible through their legitimacy with other nations, than whatever geographic obstacles are hoped to be obtained.
    - pydry 4y ago
      >they were much more defensible through their legitimacy Right, just like the legitimacy of Libyan, Iraqi and Afghan borders conferred all the protection they needed. Putin was the one who tried to explain to America that it would be better if everybody respected each other's sovereignty in 2003 but in 2003 we decided that this principle can go fuck itself.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        If the threat model is to protect against an overt military invasion by the US, geographical features aren't going to matter much either. Furthermore, national borders do seem to matter very much to many people. Europeans widely condemned the Iraq war, because they saw through its false pretenses. And the borders we're talking about are shared with Europeans. But regardless, the countries the US has invaded still have intact borders! The US didn't annex part of Iraq to create a new US territory or carve off a chunk to give to Saudi Arabia. Rather it changed out the government wholesale while leaving the nominal country intact. Despite its shortcomings, this is a paradigm that helps these disputes converge over time. "Iraq" is now just a part of the US economic empire, regardless of the immoral actions leading to that. It's not right in the sense that it rewards the aggression, but it is right in the sense that it provides more civilian stability. If Putin were still just playing the covert/political influence game, most people wouldn't be concerned. He did that, and lost hard. He then tried the surgical strike to change out the government, and lost hard. Since he's a loser by current conventions, he flipped the table and descended into WWII-style razing of civilian infrastructure, exterminating the population, and conquering land area. Then he throws out the justification that other countries might engage in the same, even though nobody has. That is what is grossly unacceptable, and needs to be stamped down hard if we want our era of relative peace to continue. (Also, given that Putin speaks to play a situation rather than promote consistent ideals, what he's happened to say isn't really relevant)

by pydry 4y ago

hcurtiss 4y ago

Yet, contrast USA with Mexico (not communist). Geography is no match for governance. The USSR failed because their system of government, like every other communist state, produced abject poverty.

sudosysgen 4y ago
You're not completely incorrect, but the US has a far far better geography than Mexico, and it's not even close.

mindslight 4y ago

I would think that since the borders are expensive to defend, that would lead to trying to be more efficient with human life and other limited resources, rather than less. Furthermore, talking about the defense of Russian borders is kind of ridiculous in the context of the current attack on Ukraine, where Russia is trying to expand its borders which would otherwise remain stationary. It only makes sense if you interpret "borders" as referring to some larger area outside the actual country but which they nevertheless feel entitled to.

pydry 4y ago
>Furthermore, talking about the defense of Russian borders is kind of ridiculous in the context of the current attack on Ukraine, where Russia is trying to expand its borders which would otherwise just remain stationary. It's expanding at the points where the Nazi advance almost succeeded in breaking the USSR, where Russia has its only warm water ports and where, long term, NATO, the alliance that destroyed Libya on a whim, was planning to set up military bases with offensive capabilities. It's still about the vulnerability of its borders.
- mindslight 4y ago
  You're no longer talking about defense, but rather trying to justify an offensive war. Those lines on the map are Schelling points that had enabled a great deal of peace. And frankly they were much more defensible through their legitimacy with other nations, than whatever geographic obstacles are hoped to be obtained.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >they were much more defensible through their legitimacy Right, just like the legitimacy of Libyan, Iraqi and Afghan borders conferred all the protection they needed. Putin was the one who tried to explain to America that it would be better if everybody respected each other's sovereignty in 2003 but in 2003 we decided that this principle can go fuck itself.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      If the threat model is to protect against an overt military invasion by the US, geographical features aren't going to matter much either. Furthermore, national borders do seem to matter very much to many people. Europeans widely condemned the Iraq war, because they saw through its false pretenses. And the borders we're talking about are shared with Europeans. But regardless, the countries the US has invaded still have intact borders! The US didn't annex part of Iraq to create a new US territory or carve off a chunk to give to Saudi Arabia. Rather it changed out the government wholesale while leaving the nominal country intact. Despite its shortcomings, this is a paradigm that helps these disputes converge over time. "Iraq" is now just a part of the US economic empire, regardless of the immoral actions leading to that. It's not right in the sense that it rewards the aggression, but it is right in the sense that it provides more civilian stability. If Putin were still just playing the covert/political influence game, most people wouldn't be concerned. He did that, and lost hard. He then tried the surgical strike to change out the government, and lost hard. Since he's a loser by current conventions, he flipped the table and descended into WWII-style razing of civilian infrastructure, exterminating the population, and conquering land area. Then he throws out the justification that other countries might engage in the same, even though nobody has. That is what is grossly unacceptable, and needs to be stamped down hard if we want our era of relative peace to continue. (Also, given that Putin speaks to play a situation rather than promote consistent ideals, what he's happened to say isn't really relevant)