4 ms·

>It is this same neocolonial "manifest destiny" thinking that is resulting in so much hostility with China. You completely deny the agency of the people of Ukr

>It is this same neocolonial "manifest destiny" thinking that is resulting in so much hostility with China. You completely deny the agency of the people of Ukraine. They want to align themselves with the West. That's why Putin is invading and trying to genocide their culture.

_8j50 4y ago
> They want to align themselves with the West. That's why Putin is invading and trying to genocide their culture. I am not denying that or even saying there is anything wrong with Ukraine being friendly with any country. Ukraine is the victim in the middle here, what I talked about is the west's hostility toward putin and Russia only because of how he runs Russia. In an ideal world, Ukraine and eastern europe would be friendly with both Russia and the west. Matter of fact there could have been a day in our lifetime when Russia itself joins NATO! It was before putin invaded georgia that relations with the US strained because of the US's insistent on exporting a superior way of life. "Manifest destiny" is what this thinking has been called in US history. Some call it neo-colonialism these days. In other words, Ukraine being friendly with the west is not a problem. The west needlessly being hostile towards Russia is the root cause of the current conflict. The west refuses to ever accept an anti-democratic anti-liberal dictator unless they really need the dictator as with Erdogan and Turkey. Peace would have prevailed if the west respected the sovreignity of non-democratic countries.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > Peace would have prevailed if the west respected the sovreignity of non-democratic countries. A yes I keep forgetting its the west that forced Putin to invade and try and genocide Ukraine. This kind of talk takes agency away from Russia, Russia had every ability to not invade if they didn't want. Russia is solely responsible for Russias actions.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    No it does not. Agency and responsibility are not the same thing. Russia can be responsible for an unjustified invasion and at the same time it is possible that the west also knowingly acted in a way that undermined a russian dictator and this became the root cause of the problem. You people are on HN, why don't you understand the concept of the diffefence between cause and root cause? Are you this blinded by partisan politics?
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  >Peace would have prevailed if the west respected the sovreignity of non-democratic countries. The only country's soverignty that has not been respected is Ukraine's. You're providing cover for the regime of a genocidal lunatic
  - _8j50 4y ago
    No, not the only. You make a claim without adressing my points to counter that claim. It is not politically practical to invade russia, so, america and western eurpe attempted to export their way of life by influencing the Russian people and going as far as having politicians publicly opposing internal matters of Russia as if they were a party that had a right to do so, like a man telling another man how he should treat his family without being asked. And it would be something else if the west stopped there, they moved wartime weapons closer to Russia and increased the size of an alliance specifically created to counteract a Russian threat. They refused to accept Russia and chose agression but were fine with installing Erdogan in Turkey. Not only did they undermine a dictator and initiated the agression but they did so hypocritically. Ukranian blood is on the hands of those you kept choosing to elect to represent you! There is no cover for Putin, no Cover for western politicans and no cover for westerners who continue to support them. Your support to have your leaders cease unneccesary hostility towards Russia and China is needed to stop further bloodshed. Your ways should not be exported at these high costs.
    - mopsi 4y ago
      > And it would be something else if the west stopped there, they moved wartime weapons closer to Russia and increased the size of an alliance specifically created to counteract a Russian threat This is completely false. Becoming a member of NATO has always been the initiative of Eastern European countries, not "the west". Existing North American and Western European members were always hesitant at best, because they did not believe that EE had anything to fear from Russia (which is obviously false, as we can see now). Whatever illusions there were about post-1991 Russia in Eastern Europe, Chechen wars shattered them already in 1995. The same applies to weapons. NA and WEU countries have always been very hesitant to station any weapons in EE, even if there is an obvious gap, such as total lack of air force, which is the case in some smaller EE members who can't afford one, but need a few jets just for basic policing (to respond to events like hijacked or otherwise non-responsive airplanes). This changed only in 2022. HIMARS, PATRIOT and other advanced weapons arrived only now to protect Eastern Europe. Before, NA and WEU military presence in Eastern Europe was limited to infrantry, in small numbers, mostly for mutual training purposes. This was the so-called "tripwire concept", as any attack on American, British or French soldiers in EE could lead to nuclear escalation, which would hopefully deter from the attack in the first place. This concept was abandoned in 2022 in favor of establishing a much larger multinational force that could successfully counter a Russian invasion from day 1. Thanks to the stupid actions of Vladimir Vladimirovich, Russia will have hundreds of HIMARSes and other advanced weapons right on its border instead of light infrantry battalions with 4 tanks and 2 Apaches.

_8j50 4y ago

> They want to align themselves with the West. That's why Putin is invading and trying to genocide their culture. I am not denying that or even saying there is anything wrong with Ukraine being friendly with any country. Ukraine is the victim in the middle here, what I talked about is the west's hostility toward putin and Russia only because of how he runs Russia. In an ideal world, Ukraine and eastern europe would be friendly with both Russia and the west. Matter of fact there could have been a day in our lifetime when Russia itself joins NATO! It was before putin invaded georgia that relations with the US strained because of the US's insistent on exporting a superior way of life. "Manifest destiny" is what this thinking has been called in US history. Some call it neo-colonialism these days. In other words, Ukraine being friendly with the west is not a problem. The west needlessly being hostile towards Russia is the root cause of the current conflict. The west refuses to ever accept an anti-democratic anti-liberal dictator unless they really need the dictator as with Erdogan and Turkey. Peace would have prevailed if the west respected the sovreignity of non-democratic countries.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> Peace would have prevailed if the west respected the sovreignity of non-democratic countries. A yes I keep forgetting its the west that forced Putin to invade and try and genocide Ukraine. This kind of talk takes agency away from Russia, Russia had every ability to not invade if they didn't want. Russia is solely responsible for Russias actions.
- _8j50 4y ago
  No it does not. Agency and responsibility are not the same thing. Russia can be responsible for an unjustified invasion and at the same time it is possible that the west also knowingly acted in a way that undermined a russian dictator and this became the root cause of the problem. You people are on HN, why don't you understand the concept of the diffefence between cause and root cause? Are you this blinded by partisan politics?
throwaway6734 4y ago
>Peace would have prevailed if the west respected the sovreignity of non-democratic countries. The only country's soverignty that has not been respected is Ukraine's. You're providing cover for the regime of a genocidal lunatic
- _8j50 4y ago
  No, not the only. You make a claim without adressing my points to counter that claim. It is not politically practical to invade russia, so, america and western eurpe attempted to export their way of life by influencing the Russian people and going as far as having politicians publicly opposing internal matters of Russia as if they were a party that had a right to do so, like a man telling another man how he should treat his family without being asked. And it would be something else if the west stopped there, they moved wartime weapons closer to Russia and increased the size of an alliance specifically created to counteract a Russian threat. They refused to accept Russia and chose agression but were fine with installing Erdogan in Turkey. Not only did they undermine a dictator and initiated the agression but they did so hypocritically. Ukranian blood is on the hands of those you kept choosing to elect to represent you! There is no cover for Putin, no Cover for western politicans and no cover for westerners who continue to support them. Your support to have your leaders cease unneccesary hostility towards Russia and China is needed to stop further bloodshed. Your ways should not be exported at these high costs.
  - mopsi 4y ago
    > And it would be something else if the west stopped there, they moved wartime weapons closer to Russia and increased the size of an alliance specifically created to counteract a Russian threat This is completely false. Becoming a member of NATO has always been the initiative of Eastern European countries, not "the west". Existing North American and Western European members were always hesitant at best, because they did not believe that EE had anything to fear from Russia (which is obviously false, as we can see now). Whatever illusions there were about post-1991 Russia in Eastern Europe, Chechen wars shattered them already in 1995. The same applies to weapons. NA and WEU countries have always been very hesitant to station any weapons in EE, even if there is an obvious gap, such as total lack of air force, which is the case in some smaller EE members who can't afford one, but need a few jets just for basic policing (to respond to events like hijacked or otherwise non-responsive airplanes). This changed only in 2022. HIMARS, PATRIOT and other advanced weapons arrived only now to protect Eastern Europe. Before, NA and WEU military presence in Eastern Europe was limited to infrantry, in small numbers, mostly for mutual training purposes. This was the so-called "tripwire concept", as any attack on American, British or French soldiers in EE could lead to nuclear escalation, which would hopefully deter from the attack in the first place. This concept was abandoned in 2022 in favor of establishing a much larger multinational force that could successfully counter a Russian invasion from day 1. Thanks to the stupid actions of Vladimir Vladimirovich, Russia will have hundreds of HIMARSes and other advanced weapons right on its border instead of light infrantry battalions with 4 tanks and 2 Apaches.