4 ms·

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

by 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.

by EGreg 4y ago

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.