6 ms·

There is only one party at fault for Russia's unprovoked murderous attack on their neighbors and the slaughter and rape of its innocents. There is no communique

There is only one party at fault for Russia's unprovoked murderous attack on their neighbors and the slaughter and rape of its innocents. There is no communique that could have resolved this because Russia believed that it would quickly roll into Kiev and end it. They continue to believe that it will be in their interest to prevail as they believe they will long term. Negotiation is unlikely to change this analysis if the rotting corpses of its own dead isn't sufficiently persuasive.

EGreg 4y ago
Sure this could have been prevented, and resolved, in many different ways. 1. The most straightforward way would be for Russia and Ukraine to have implemented the Minsk II Agreements at any time since 2015, when they were introduced. Minsk II says as soon as the Donbas region gets some autonomy and votes for their own representatives, Ukraine would get control over the entire borders of its country, everyone would get amnesty, lay down their arms, and unicorns would frolic around. But for some reason this was considered "bad" and the election kept being postponed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Evaluation_and_abandonment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Evaluation_an... As a libertarian, I blame the politicians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4Jmnw3xQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4Jmnw3xQg 2. An easy way that the USA could unilaterally prevent this escalation is simply to say that Ukraine would not join NATO. Tulsi Gabbard for instance literally said this in the first days of the war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 Until 2009, most of Ukraine was against joining NATO: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10444 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10444 But George W Bush, besides invading Iraq, also for some reason insisted, demanded that Ukraine and Georgia join NATO anyway: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush/bush-vows-to-press-for-ukraine-georgia-in-nato-idUSL0141706220080401 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush/bush-vo... The following presidents could have simply rolled this back. Not even other NATO countries really wanted what George W Bush was pushing, but it turned into an escalation. And literally every responsible person was warning about this for decades: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w... https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o... The problem is these people were just ignored by the decision makers in power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KqE7UTptgGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KqE7UTptgGg I wouldn't say it's "unprovoked". It was not provoked by Ukraine, but certainly by NATO's expansion. A lot of people around the world feel this way, including leaders of billions of people (China, India, the catholic Pope, etc.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEbVBi1f0e8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEbVBi1f0e8 and the people themselves India: https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsible-for-ukraine-war-than-russia-survey https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsib... China: https://uscnpm.org/2022/04/19/chinese-public-opinion-war-in-ukraine/ https://uscnpm.org/2022/04/19/chinese-public-opinion-war-in-... 3. To be 100% clear, the CIVILIANS of any country are not to blame for any of this. The people of Ukraine are victims in this, just like Iraqis were victims of US invasion and occupation. But I can still blame Saddam Hussein for ousting inspectors and giving the US an excuse to invade. If you think the Russian invasion was "unprovoked", then the invasion on Iraq was even more unprovoked. But both are far more provoked than, say, the US bombing of Laos to the stone age, more than any country has ever been bombed in history. Totally unprovoked "special military operation", completely. There have to be ways to stop this. And it's called respect for human life and having public discussions with leaders instead of bombing their population. Just my 2 cents.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  As the old 'Ukraine just has to have no agency for there to be peace'. Remember the Minsk II Agreements were based on the predicate that the 'little green men' WEREN'T Russian soldiers. Which even Russia now admits was a lie. How could a framework based on a lie about one side's aggression work to.... prevent future aggression by that lying side?
  - EGreg 4y ago
    Wait, what? I think you have a lot confused. Ukraine implementing the Minsk II agreements is exercising its agency. It's a country, that's party to an agreement. And implementing a peace agreement is a great way to exercise your agency. In fact, Ukraine's position (and I guess yours, tacitly) is that Donetsk and Luhansk should have no agency, for there to be "peace". Just like Hong Kong, Catalonia, and many others. I mean, as far back as 2014 Ukraine's army were using cluster munitions in Donbas, the same munitions that were used in Bucha...: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-c...
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      Laws define the limits on the agency of particular subsets of nations. Its perfectly boringly normal for a subset of a nation to have zero unilateral agency insofar as to their membership in large groups. London can't choose to be part of France nor the nation of London not even everyone agreed on the matter. Less do they have the right to murder their neighbors to effect such a change.
      - EGreg 4y ago
        Well, you were the one who brought up that someone has to have "no agency" for there to be peace, as being obscene. Then you agreed that, actually, subsets of nations should have "no agency". So for example if Crimea voted in 1991 overwhelmingly (over 95%) to become independent of Ukraine and that vote was not implemented, but a few months later voted 54% to become part of Ukraine, then Crimea should have no agency ever again. So if in 2014 they vote again overwhelmingly to become independent of Ukraine, it's just too bad. The OSCE shouldn't even observe the vote, because that would give it legitimacy as "what the people who live there want". And we can't have that, so therefore let's just claim that it was a disputed vote because of "little green men" somewhere, and that way we don't have to deal with what they want. We can just claim that they secretly all wanted to be part of Ukraine, and everyone changed their minds from 1991 and just overwhelmingly voted against that because they were afraid of what the little green men would do when they learned how they anonymously voted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer... Same with Hong Kong. Catalonia. Basque people. Kurds. And so on. What the people want doesn't matter, that way there can be peace. So you already seem to agree with the principle that for there to be peace, we have to shut some people up. (Separatists, nationalists, etc.) I happen to strongly disagree with that principle, but I also don't want violent revolutions. I would want for the UN to somehow allow more self-determination and autonomy, like they did for Kosovo. I know it's a pipe dream since UN is composed of countries, so none of its members want to allow too much secession or autonomy, they looove to maintain power and control within their borders. But if you look at what they do to secessionists, including indeed the Holodomor in Ukraine, I think harming your own people is far more obscene. But do you agree at least that Ukraine should have a responsibility to its citizens, not to bomb them? Maybe you can agree that the Minsk II agreements to grant them some degree of autonomy WITHIN UKRAINE were more than reasonable, and that everything happening now is far, far worse for everyone than if Ukraine's government simply implemented the Minsk agreements? If yes, then we have a point of strong agreement.
imjustforyou 4y ago
I would highly suggest you watch this informative lecture from an IR professor examining the causes of the current crisis in Ukraine (a lecture, mind you, given nearly a decade ago that accurately projected forward to now, perhaps the one mistake being that the lecturer did not expect Putin to attempt a full-scale invasion of Ukraine). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 The tl;dw: the West has pursued a policy since the end of the Cold War to march NATO and the EU to Russia's doorstep. Each time tangible actions or declarations have occurred, Russia has clearly expressed that it views this as an existential threat and that it will not tolerate NATO or the EU on its doorstep. We have ignored these warnings and continued this policy. Ultimately, it is not clear we have any good reason to be doing this for our own strategic interests, especially paired with the rise of China.
- selectodude 4y ago
  And I'd highly suggest that you read Mearsheimer's more recent interview with The New Yorker where he reminds us that he's a complete fraud that shouldn't be spoken about anymore. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/john-mearsheimer-on-putins-ambitions-after-nine-months-of-war https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/john-mearsheimer-on-p...
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Nothing about Russia's neighbors forming a defensive alliance is an attack or justifies a war of aggression. Russia was never endangered by such. Nuclear weapons in and of themselves represent sufficient check on any ambitions. The only way for Russians to end up in piles of blood and meat was to march their own people to their deaths in foreign lands where they could safely be slaughtered without provoking Armageddon. If the Russian people ought to be afraid of anyone they ought to fear their leaders.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    NATO was the one who tried to get Russia’s neighbors to all join. Pew polls and others have shown that a solid majority of Ukrainians did NOT want to join NATO. How is habing Yuschenko do it anyway, any different than Yanukovich agreeing to cheap Russian gas and loans? If that makes Yanukovich a stooge of Russia then Yuschenko was a stooge of NATO. When NATO pushed Russia’s neighbors to join, their populations didn’t want it. Russia wanted to join and NATO rejected them. Why? NATO has nuclear sharing agreements, and situates their armies next to the Russian border and buzzes their airspace regularly. Why? Boris Yeltsin opposed NATO expansion, he did everything USA wanted (including “shock therapy”) to the point where his own parliament tried to oust him and USA propped him up. But no matter how much he protested NATO’s expansion, USA told him to go pound sand. This isn’t a Putin thing. Furthermore don’t forget that NATO isn’t a “purely defensive alliance”. They bombed Serbia without UN approval, and declared Kosovo independent (that set a precedent for what Russia did in, say the Russo-Geogia war, and now in Ukraine). They also invaded Libya and left it as a failed state with millions of people living under warlords, including terrorists from ISIS and Boko Haram. Why do you not even care? No this organization isn’t “purely defensive”. No “great power” country, not USA nor China nor Russia, would allow itself to be gradually surrounded with bases and missiles from a hostile military alliance. USA sponsored the Bay of Pigs invasion, and Cuba was perfectly rational to ask USSR to install missiles on Cuba. And Kennedy violated international law by blockading Cuba during the missile crisis. But I totally support what he did, because USA couldn’t have nukes so close to Florida. (Nevermind that USA did the same thing secretly in Turkey, before the Soviets). Rather than engaging in more hypocrisy, they both deescalated and solved things with mutual respect. That’s how it should be now, too. Where I agree with you is that every country’s public should hold their leaders accountable, rather than blaming the public of the other country.
brightlancer 4y ago
> Negotiation is unlikely to change this analysis if the rotting corpses of its own dead isn't sufficiently persuasive. So the only solution you leave us with is open war with a nuclear power. > There is no communique that could have resolved this because Russia believed that it would quickly roll into Kiev and end it. There is a common strain of thought that WWII was a "just war" and that nothing could have prevented war with Nazi Germany. This is correct if one starts history in 1938, or even 1933, but ignores the fifteen years between 1933 and the end of World War I, and still the years of WWI and the decades prior. You are wrong in the same way that folks err that WWII was unavoidable. History exists and we didn't arrive at this moment simply because of the evil of one man. If we want to avoid an open war with a nuclear power, we have to be willing to negotiate. Putin is rational and has negotiated in the past. How many corpses do you want?
- EGreg 4y ago
  I am not sure what Russian presidents (not just Putin) could have done to stop NATO expansion. They have complained, they have offered to join NATO, they were rebuffed. But Russia's neighbors were PUSHED to join, even if their own citizens didn't want to. Why? Here is a chronology since the 90s: Boris Yeltsin officially complained and ask NATO not to expand. What was wrong with Boris Yeltsin? https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/yeltsin-opposes-expansion-of-nato-in-eastern-europe.html https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/yeltsin-opposes-exp... https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021... He was literally on the cover of Time magazine with an American flag, after USA meddled in Russian elections to prop up the guy who implemented privatization, "shock therapy", and continued to do it even when the Parliament made a vote of no confidence, during the Russian constitutional crisis he actually fired at the Parliament and arrested the Parliament (same as the Peru guy who was ousted recently): https://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html https://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.htm... Boris Yeltsin did everything USA wanted to be done to Russia and even so, his complaints about NATO expansion fell on deaf ears. Then NATO bombed Yugoslavia, showing it's not just a "defensive alliance": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia and then Yugoslavia fell apart and Kosovo declared independence unilaterally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent) Putin wanted to join NATO since 2001: the answer was no. Why? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-is-right-russia-belongs-in-nato/377557/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-i... In 2008, George W Bush pushed for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, but not Russia. Never Russia. Why? A solid majority of Ukrainians didn't want to join NATO, but that didn't stop NATO from constantly trying, and even working with Yuschenko to start the process. I thought NATO was "only if you want to join": https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n... Then Yanukovich came in and stopped the NATO membership process (stopping is what polls showed matched what the majority wanted). So NATO then helped Ukraine destroy their own defensive weapon stockpiles, and then offered themselves as the solution... here is their own site admitting it: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_79035.htm?selectedLocale=en https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_79035.htm?selectedLo... This isn't just "Putin's war", either. Whether it's Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev or any other Russian president, the USA told them "sorry, but NATO is expanding"... and we're adding all your neighbors, whether you (and their citizens) want to, or not. It's not just Ukraine. Obama was pushed to intervene in SYRIA, because "Putin is challenging your leadership" by bombing ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GaMf1luwKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GaMf1luwKg Hillary Clinton gained notoriety for pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria... because Putin. And her pushing for this goes back to 2012... so it's not just Ukraine: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinto...
riskcomplex 4y ago
Outright dismissal of two deadly coups that removed democratically elected presidents in Ukraine and ignoring THOUSANDS of Ukranians killed in Donbas at the hands of Ukrainian government prior to the invasion, tells us everything we need to know about your objectivity here.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  The Russians armed separatists and criminals to oppose the democratically elected government of Ukraine installed in 2019 via election not via the conflict in 2014. Ukraine's lawful resistance to criminals attempting to set up their own fiefdom on Ukrainian lands with Russian guns is thin justification for the subsequent invasion. To put it blandly it doesn't matter whether you think Bush win over Gore was legitimate. Biden was legitimately elected and Washington state has no right to form its own nation. If the Canadians funneled tanks, guns, and soldiers to such folks we would certainly shoot people to stop such a takeover. Such shootings wouldn't provide legitimate cause for the forces of flannel to make a fast break for DC to overturn our entire government.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    This is why I am a libertarian. Regular people don’t want to kill each other, but these memes cause their governments to perpetuate violence. Literally everything about these concepts and games is not worth harming millions of people. And if you were in the war zone, you’d want an end to the stupid conflict. But people who aren’t, seem to think nothing of bringing violence and volunteering other people to die for some geopolitical concept justigied by some allegory where countries are anthropomorphosized. Just to illustrate: when Ukraine and Russia were part of one federation, the same exact piece of land, Crimea changed hands from Russia to Ukraine. But back then they weren’t independent countries and it wasn’t a “matter of territorial integrity”, but just an administrative change involving road signs and local flags etc. so no one killed each other over it. Today, lots of people would support Ukraine and her allies introducing violence to Crimea, a region that has none, in order to “retake” it. I find this obscene. Humans just want to live peace and security, go to work, date, love, etc. When push comes to shove, this or that flag isn’t such a big deal to regular humans, and historically they have changed a lot so why kill for it? But the current international system is based on Countries with borders that are supposed to be eternal. For this principle, people now are ready to support killing in a never ending war because “what if someone broke into your house and stole…” Kosovo set a precedent. I would of course like to see Catalonia, Kurdistan get at least some more autonomy after their referendums. I’d like tk see Hong Kong get it too, and HN was sympathetic to those guys because we see just how different China was to HK after 100 years of being a British protectorate. Well, autonomy isn’t very bad for the host country and the Minsk II agreements gave Ukraine sovereignty and control over all its borders. Why not just accept this diplomatic solution? Ukraine did, but now we learn that both Ukrainian presidents “never intended” to fulfil it. Why? It is maddening to me. The people of Ukraine suffer because of the political class, and I include Putin in that.

EGreg 4y ago

Sure this could have been prevented, and resolved, in many different ways. 1. The most straightforward way would be for Russia and Ukraine to have implemented the Minsk II Agreements at any time since 2015, when they were introduced. Minsk II says as soon as the Donbas region gets some autonomy and votes for their own representatives, Ukraine would get control over the entire borders of its country, everyone would get amnesty, lay down their arms, and unicorns would frolic around. But for some reason this was considered "bad" and the election kept being postponed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Evaluation_and_abandonment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#Evaluation_an... As a libertarian, I blame the politicians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4Jmnw3xQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4Jmnw3xQg 2. An easy way that the USA could unilaterally prevent this escalation is simply to say that Ukraine would not join NATO. Tulsi Gabbard for instance literally said this in the first days of the war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 Until 2009, most of Ukraine was against joining NATO: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10444 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/10444 But George W Bush, besides invading Iraq, also for some reason insisted, demanded that Ukraine and Georgia join NATO anyway: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush/bush-vows-to-press-for-ukraine-georgia-in-nato-idUSL0141706220080401 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush/bush-vo... The following presidents could have simply rolled this back. Not even other NATO countries really wanted what George W Bush was pushing, but it turned into an escalation. And literally every responsible person was warning about this for decades: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w... https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o... The problem is these people were just ignored by the decision makers in power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KqE7UTptgGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KqE7UTptgGg I wouldn't say it's "unprovoked". It was not provoked by Ukraine, but certainly by NATO's expansion. A lot of people around the world feel this way, including leaders of billions of people (China, India, the catholic Pope, etc.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEbVBi1f0e8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEbVBi1f0e8 and the people themselves India: https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsible-for-ukraine-war-than-russia-survey https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsib... China: https://uscnpm.org/2022/04/19/chinese-public-opinion-war-in-ukraine/ https://uscnpm.org/2022/04/19/chinese-public-opinion-war-in-... 3. To be 100% clear, the CIVILIANS of any country are not to blame for any of this. The people of Ukraine are victims in this, just like Iraqis were victims of US invasion and occupation. But I can still blame Saddam Hussein for ousting inspectors and giving the US an excuse to invade. If you think the Russian invasion was "unprovoked", then the invasion on Iraq was even more unprovoked. But both are far more provoked than, say, the US bombing of Laos to the stone age, more than any country has ever been bombed in history. Totally unprovoked "special military operation", completely. There have to be ways to stop this. And it's called respect for human life and having public discussions with leaders instead of bombing their population. Just my 2 cents.

ROTMetro 4y ago
As the old 'Ukraine just has to have no agency for there to be peace'. Remember the Minsk II Agreements were based on the predicate that the 'little green men' WEREN'T Russian soldiers. Which even Russia now admits was a lie. How could a framework based on a lie about one side's aggression work to.... prevent future aggression by that lying side?
- EGreg 4y ago
  Wait, what? I think you have a lot confused. Ukraine implementing the Minsk II agreements is exercising its agency. It's a country, that's party to an agreement. And implementing a peace agreement is a great way to exercise your agency. In fact, Ukraine's position (and I guess yours, tacitly) is that Donetsk and Luhansk should have no agency, for there to be "peace". Just like Hong Kong, Catalonia, and many others. I mean, as far back as 2014 Ukraine's army were using cluster munitions in Donbas, the same munitions that were used in Bucha...: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-c...
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    Laws define the limits on the agency of particular subsets of nations. Its perfectly boringly normal for a subset of a nation to have zero unilateral agency insofar as to their membership in large groups. London can't choose to be part of France nor the nation of London not even everyone agreed on the matter. Less do they have the right to murder their neighbors to effect such a change.
    - EGreg 4y ago
      Well, you were the one who brought up that someone has to have "no agency" for there to be peace, as being obscene. Then you agreed that, actually, subsets of nations should have "no agency". So for example if Crimea voted in 1991 overwhelmingly (over 95%) to become independent of Ukraine and that vote was not implemented, but a few months later voted 54% to become part of Ukraine, then Crimea should have no agency ever again. So if in 2014 they vote again overwhelmingly to become independent of Ukraine, it's just too bad. The OSCE shouldn't even observe the vote, because that would give it legitimacy as "what the people who live there want". And we can't have that, so therefore let's just claim that it was a disputed vote because of "little green men" somewhere, and that way we don't have to deal with what they want. We can just claim that they secretly all wanted to be part of Ukraine, and everyone changed their minds from 1991 and just overwhelmingly voted against that because they were afraid of what the little green men would do when they learned how they anonymously voted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer... Same with Hong Kong. Catalonia. Basque people. Kurds. And so on. What the people want doesn't matter, that way there can be peace. So you already seem to agree with the principle that for there to be peace, we have to shut some people up. (Separatists, nationalists, etc.) I happen to strongly disagree with that principle, but I also don't want violent revolutions. I would want for the UN to somehow allow more self-determination and autonomy, like they did for Kosovo. I know it's a pipe dream since UN is composed of countries, so none of its members want to allow too much secession or autonomy, they looove to maintain power and control within their borders. But if you look at what they do to secessionists, including indeed the Holodomor in Ukraine, I think harming your own people is far more obscene. But do you agree at least that Ukraine should have a responsibility to its citizens, not to bomb them? Maybe you can agree that the Minsk II agreements to grant them some degree of autonomy WITHIN UKRAINE were more than reasonable, and that everything happening now is far, far worse for everyone than if Ukraine's government simply implemented the Minsk agreements? If yes, then we have a point of strong agreement.

imjustforyou 4y ago

I would highly suggest you watch this informative lecture from an IR professor examining the causes of the current crisis in Ukraine (a lecture, mind you, given nearly a decade ago that accurately projected forward to now, perhaps the one mistake being that the lecturer did not expect Putin to attempt a full-scale invasion of Ukraine). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 The tl;dw: the West has pursued a policy since the end of the Cold War to march NATO and the EU to Russia's doorstep. Each time tangible actions or declarations have occurred, Russia has clearly expressed that it views this as an existential threat and that it will not tolerate NATO or the EU on its doorstep. We have ignored these warnings and continued this policy. Ultimately, it is not clear we have any good reason to be doing this for our own strategic interests, especially paired with the rise of China.

selectodude 4y ago
And I'd highly suggest that you read Mearsheimer's more recent interview with The New Yorker where he reminds us that he's a complete fraud that shouldn't be spoken about anymore. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/john-mearsheimer-on-putins-ambitions-after-nine-months-of-war https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/john-mearsheimer-on-p...
michaelmrose 4y ago
Nothing about Russia's neighbors forming a defensive alliance is an attack or justifies a war of aggression. Russia was never endangered by such. Nuclear weapons in and of themselves represent sufficient check on any ambitions. The only way for Russians to end up in piles of blood and meat was to march their own people to their deaths in foreign lands where they could safely be slaughtered without provoking Armageddon. If the Russian people ought to be afraid of anyone they ought to fear their leaders.
- EGreg 4y ago
  NATO was the one who tried to get Russia’s neighbors to all join. Pew polls and others have shown that a solid majority of Ukrainians did NOT want to join NATO. How is habing Yuschenko do it anyway, any different than Yanukovich agreeing to cheap Russian gas and loans? If that makes Yanukovich a stooge of Russia then Yuschenko was a stooge of NATO. When NATO pushed Russia’s neighbors to join, their populations didn’t want it. Russia wanted to join and NATO rejected them. Why? NATO has nuclear sharing agreements, and situates their armies next to the Russian border and buzzes their airspace regularly. Why? Boris Yeltsin opposed NATO expansion, he did everything USA wanted (including “shock therapy”) to the point where his own parliament tried to oust him and USA propped him up. But no matter how much he protested NATO’s expansion, USA told him to go pound sand. This isn’t a Putin thing. Furthermore don’t forget that NATO isn’t a “purely defensive alliance”. They bombed Serbia without UN approval, and declared Kosovo independent (that set a precedent for what Russia did in, say the Russo-Geogia war, and now in Ukraine). They also invaded Libya and left it as a failed state with millions of people living under warlords, including terrorists from ISIS and Boko Haram. Why do you not even care? No this organization isn’t “purely defensive”. No “great power” country, not USA nor China nor Russia, would allow itself to be gradually surrounded with bases and missiles from a hostile military alliance. USA sponsored the Bay of Pigs invasion, and Cuba was perfectly rational to ask USSR to install missiles on Cuba. And Kennedy violated international law by blockading Cuba during the missile crisis. But I totally support what he did, because USA couldn’t have nukes so close to Florida. (Nevermind that USA did the same thing secretly in Turkey, before the Soviets). Rather than engaging in more hypocrisy, they both deescalated and solved things with mutual respect. That’s how it should be now, too. Where I agree with you is that every country’s public should hold their leaders accountable, rather than blaming the public of the other country.

brightlancer 4y ago

> Negotiation is unlikely to change this analysis if the rotting corpses of its own dead isn't sufficiently persuasive. So the only solution you leave us with is open war with a nuclear power. > There is no communique that could have resolved this because Russia believed that it would quickly roll into Kiev and end it. There is a common strain of thought that WWII was a "just war" and that nothing could have prevented war with Nazi Germany. This is correct if one starts history in 1938, or even 1933, but ignores the fifteen years between 1933 and the end of World War I, and still the years of WWI and the decades prior. You are wrong in the same way that folks err that WWII was unavoidable. History exists and we didn't arrive at this moment simply because of the evil of one man. If we want to avoid an open war with a nuclear power, we have to be willing to negotiate. Putin is rational and has negotiated in the past. How many corpses do you want?

EGreg 4y ago
I am not sure what Russian presidents (not just Putin) could have done to stop NATO expansion. They have complained, they have offered to join NATO, they were rebuffed. But Russia's neighbors were PUSHED to join, even if their own citizens didn't want to. Why? Here is a chronology since the 90s: Boris Yeltsin officially complained and ask NATO not to expand. What was wrong with Boris Yeltsin? https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/yeltsin-opposes-expansion-of-nato-in-eastern-europe.html https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/yeltsin-opposes-exp... https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021... He was literally on the cover of Time magazine with an American flag, after USA meddled in Russian elections to prop up the guy who implemented privatization, "shock therapy", and continued to do it even when the Parliament made a vote of no confidence, during the Russian constitutional crisis he actually fired at the Parliament and arrested the Parliament (same as the Peru guy who was ousted recently): https://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html https://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.htm... Boris Yeltsin did everything USA wanted to be done to Russia and even so, his complaints about NATO expansion fell on deaf ears. Then NATO bombed Yugoslavia, showing it's not just a "defensive alliance": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia and then Yugoslavia fell apart and Kosovo declared independence unilaterally (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent) Putin wanted to join NATO since 2001: the answer was no. Why? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-is-right-russia-belongs-in-nato/377557/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-i... In 2008, George W Bush pushed for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, but not Russia. Never Russia. Why? A solid majority of Ukrainians didn't want to join NATO, but that didn't stop NATO from constantly trying, and even working with Yuschenko to start the process. I thought NATO was "only if you want to join": https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n... Then Yanukovich came in and stopped the NATO membership process (stopping is what polls showed matched what the majority wanted). So NATO then helped Ukraine destroy their own defensive weapon stockpiles, and then offered themselves as the solution... here is their own site admitting it: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_79035.htm?selectedLocale=en https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_79035.htm?selectedLo... This isn't just "Putin's war", either. Whether it's Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev or any other Russian president, the USA told them "sorry, but NATO is expanding"... and we're adding all your neighbors, whether you (and their citizens) want to, or not. It's not just Ukraine. Obama was pushed to intervene in SYRIA, because "Putin is challenging your leadership" by bombing ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GaMf1luwKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GaMf1luwKg Hillary Clinton gained notoriety for pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria... because Putin. And her pushing for this goes back to 2012... so it's not just Ukraine: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinto...

riskcomplex 4y ago

Outright dismissal of two deadly coups that removed democratically elected presidents in Ukraine and ignoring THOUSANDS of Ukranians killed in Donbas at the hands of Ukrainian government prior to the invasion, tells us everything we need to know about your objectivity here.

michaelmrose 4y ago
The Russians armed separatists and criminals to oppose the democratically elected government of Ukraine installed in 2019 via election not via the conflict in 2014. Ukraine's lawful resistance to criminals attempting to set up their own fiefdom on Ukrainian lands with Russian guns is thin justification for the subsequent invasion. To put it blandly it doesn't matter whether you think Bush win over Gore was legitimate. Biden was legitimately elected and Washington state has no right to form its own nation. If the Canadians funneled tanks, guns, and soldiers to such folks we would certainly shoot people to stop such a takeover. Such shootings wouldn't provide legitimate cause for the forces of flannel to make a fast break for DC to overturn our entire government.
- EGreg 4y ago
  This is why I am a libertarian. Regular people don’t want to kill each other, but these memes cause their governments to perpetuate violence. Literally everything about these concepts and games is not worth harming millions of people. And if you were in the war zone, you’d want an end to the stupid conflict. But people who aren’t, seem to think nothing of bringing violence and volunteering other people to die for some geopolitical concept justigied by some allegory where countries are anthropomorphosized. Just to illustrate: when Ukraine and Russia were part of one federation, the same exact piece of land, Crimea changed hands from Russia to Ukraine. But back then they weren’t independent countries and it wasn’t a “matter of territorial integrity”, but just an administrative change involving road signs and local flags etc. so no one killed each other over it. Today, lots of people would support Ukraine and her allies introducing violence to Crimea, a region that has none, in order to “retake” it. I find this obscene. Humans just want to live peace and security, go to work, date, love, etc. When push comes to shove, this or that flag isn’t such a big deal to regular humans, and historically they have changed a lot so why kill for it? But the current international system is based on Countries with borders that are supposed to be eternal. For this principle, people now are ready to support killing in a never ending war because “what if someone broke into your house and stole…” Kosovo set a precedent. I would of course like to see Catalonia, Kurdistan get at least some more autonomy after their referendums. I’d like tk see Hong Kong get it too, and HN was sympathetic to those guys because we see just how different China was to HK after 100 years of being a British protectorate. Well, autonomy isn’t very bad for the host country and the Minsk II agreements gave Ukraine sovereignty and control over all its borders. Why not just accept this diplomatic solution? Ukraine did, but now we learn that both Ukrainian presidents “never intended” to fulfil it. Why? It is maddening to me. The people of Ukraine suffer because of the political class, and I include Putin in that.