6 ms·

If you are a warlike people with a history of violence against your neighbors you don't have any right to demand that your neighbors don't join in a defensive a

If you are a warlike people with a history of violence against your neighbors you don't have any right to demand that your neighbors don't join in a defensive alliance for protection against you nor right to join such an alliance. Why would an alliance that virtually exists for defense against Russia give Russia a vote on whether said alliance should react to an attack by Russia. If Russia wasn't so inclined to invade its neighbors lands, rape their women, and murder their children it wouldn't matter who joined NATO. Nothing about the mere existence of NATO obligates them to commit atrocities. They are murdering their neighbors now because it would be harder to do after they join NATO which is literally what Putin said in more polite terms. He said they must take it now lest they have to fight all of NATO for it tomorrow. Left by the wayside is admitting that they lost the right to it in the 90s and will never regain their former empire. You can stop apologizing for a monster any time.

EGreg 4y ago
You are a statist who seems to justify war and killing by anthropomorphosizing countries and speaking about entire populations of civilians as “warlike”. You can stop apologizing for governments and war machines anytime. My side is the regular people, regardless of their nationality — the vast vast majority do not want to kill each other. They are conscripted by their governments to fight, while the politicians and media speak about how “we” must, but neither they or their families actually experience the conditions they send others to. And sitting 3000 miles away it’s even easier to find justifications for a war to continue. You have no skin in the game, after all — but most armchair patriots would have a very different attitude about peace agreements if the war was in your city and putting your family in danger. But let’s apply your own statist logic. The USA has been quite warlike, ever since the colonists fought the natives for land. The entire western third of the USA is former Mexico, which they simply won in a war of aggression. USA even tried to invade Canada but was rebuffed. USA has already taken all the land from ocean to ocean and subdued all its neighbors, so now it goes around the world in order to “lead” in every conflict. It spends more on its armed forces than the next 20 countries combined. It has 800 military bases around the world while the rest of the world combined has 30. Just in the last 25 years, the USA has destroyed more countries than Russia by far (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc) and if we go further back, USA used chemical weapons and bombs indiscriminately in multiple countries in south asia etc etc etc. And NATO is not a “purely defensive” alliance since it bombed Yugoslavia without UN authorization and declared Kosovo independent (much like Russia has done with breakaway republics), invaded Libya and left it a failed state etc. But now let’s take an exact analogue. So USA sponsored the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba (a neighbor) which failed. Cuba asked USSR for protection and help. USA according to you had no right to interfere, when USSR put missiles on Cuba. And yet, Kennedy wouldn’t allow it. He blockaded Cuba and threatened violence and war unless this was undone. I actually support Kennedy in doing that to protect his country from USSR putting nukes in a neighboring country. (Nevermind that USA had secretly already done the same in Turkey against USSR, which they declassified later.) The point is that although Kennedy technically violated international law, the important part is that USSR and USA acted like grownups and deescalated, and even began cooperating and cutting nuclear stockpiles together. That’s what dialogue and respect looks like. It’s possible. Instead, you’re justifying escalating war and killing based on the most childish argument: “but he started it!” This isn’t how conflict resolution should be done by human adults, let alone adults responsible for the fate of entire populations!
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  You can critique the US, their history, their actions all you like none of that is of any relevance to the present conflict we are discussing. Its chaff you use to hide the fact that your core argument is so bad. Nothing but mindless aggression and acquisitiveness has provoked this war. There is only one side that has unilaterally begun this conflict and there is only one party that can end it by going home. That is the only thing to talk about–when Russia is going home—and nothing whatsoever to say on it. Appeasement can't possibly work because a rational actor would then conclude that they can buy back their former empire with blood and negotiate their way out of the very temporary pain of sanctions. It would inevitably lead to war, death, and pain. For someone who proposes it seems to be a student of history, you are uniquely bad at following a simple line of logic or staying on track.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    “I am not interested in a forest of time-wasting links to mainstream sources” “Nothing but what I say has provoked this war. Period.” “There is only one side that has unilaterally done everything bad. End of story.” “Only one party can end this. Stop talking about what we can do. This is completely up to Putin.” “If you disagree with me then you are spewing Putin propaganda. How much are they paying you?” “Russia is 100% at fault, and it must be 100% defeated to show the world that no one can arm rebels or invade countries or occupy them or bomb people” “Ok well we may have done that but that was a really long time ago.. and anyway we didn’t try to ANNEX those countries! Look, no one is perfect and we make slight mistakes. But two wrongs don’t make a right”. “Stop talking about what our country did. NATO had no role in this. Stop using historical facts. What you say has no relevance” “Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is completely unjustified and unprovoked! I mean.. unprovoked and unjustified. That’s what I independently personally think and you should agree — end of story!” “That is the only thing to talk about.” “And nothing whatsoever to say on it except what I said. Period.” “End of story.“ “Did I mention period?” I think it is clear this style of arguing is a bit different than most intellectually honest discourse on HN. Can’t quite put my finger on what the differences are … maybe someone can help me out here?

EGreg 4y ago

You are a statist who seems to justify war and killing by anthropomorphosizing countries and speaking about entire populations of civilians as “warlike”. You can stop apologizing for governments and war machines anytime. My side is the regular people, regardless of their nationality — the vast vast majority do not want to kill each other. They are conscripted by their governments to fight, while the politicians and media speak about how “we” must, but neither they or their families actually experience the conditions they send others to. And sitting 3000 miles away it’s even easier to find justifications for a war to continue. You have no skin in the game, after all — but most armchair patriots would have a very different attitude about peace agreements if the war was in your city and putting your family in danger. But let’s apply your own statist logic. The USA has been quite warlike, ever since the colonists fought the natives for land. The entire western third of the USA is former Mexico, which they simply won in a war of aggression. USA even tried to invade Canada but was rebuffed. USA has already taken all the land from ocean to ocean and subdued all its neighbors, so now it goes around the world in order to “lead” in every conflict. It spends more on its armed forces than the next 20 countries combined. It has 800 military bases around the world while the rest of the world combined has 30. Just in the last 25 years, the USA has destroyed more countries than Russia by far (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc) and if we go further back, USA used chemical weapons and bombs indiscriminately in multiple countries in south asia etc etc etc. And NATO is not a “purely defensive” alliance since it bombed Yugoslavia without UN authorization and declared Kosovo independent (much like Russia has done with breakaway republics), invaded Libya and left it a failed state etc. But now let’s take an exact analogue. So USA sponsored the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba (a neighbor) which failed. Cuba asked USSR for protection and help. USA according to you had no right to interfere, when USSR put missiles on Cuba. And yet, Kennedy wouldn’t allow it. He blockaded Cuba and threatened violence and war unless this was undone. I actually support Kennedy in doing that to protect his country from USSR putting nukes in a neighboring country. (Nevermind that USA had secretly already done the same in Turkey against USSR, which they declassified later.) The point is that although Kennedy technically violated international law, the important part is that USSR and USA acted like grownups and deescalated, and even began cooperating and cutting nuclear stockpiles together. That’s what dialogue and respect looks like. It’s possible. Instead, you’re justifying escalating war and killing based on the most childish argument: “but he started it!” This isn’t how conflict resolution should be done by human adults, let alone adults responsible for the fate of entire populations!

michaelmrose 4y ago
You can critique the US, their history, their actions all you like none of that is of any relevance to the present conflict we are discussing. Its chaff you use to hide the fact that your core argument is so bad. Nothing but mindless aggression and acquisitiveness has provoked this war. There is only one side that has unilaterally begun this conflict and there is only one party that can end it by going home. That is the only thing to talk about–when Russia is going home—and nothing whatsoever to say on it. Appeasement can't possibly work because a rational actor would then conclude that they can buy back their former empire with blood and negotiate their way out of the very temporary pain of sanctions. It would inevitably lead to war, death, and pain. For someone who proposes it seems to be a student of history, you are uniquely bad at following a simple line of logic or staying on track.
- EGreg 4y ago
  “I am not interested in a forest of time-wasting links to mainstream sources” “Nothing but what I say has provoked this war. Period.” “There is only one side that has unilaterally done everything bad. End of story.” “Only one party can end this. Stop talking about what we can do. This is completely up to Putin.” “If you disagree with me then you are spewing Putin propaganda. How much are they paying you?” “Russia is 100% at fault, and it must be 100% defeated to show the world that no one can arm rebels or invade countries or occupy them or bomb people” “Ok well we may have done that but that was a really long time ago.. and anyway we didn’t try to ANNEX those countries! Look, no one is perfect and we make slight mistakes. But two wrongs don’t make a right”. “Stop talking about what our country did. NATO had no role in this. Stop using historical facts. What you say has no relevance” “Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is completely unjustified and unprovoked! I mean.. unprovoked and unjustified. That’s what I independently personally think and you should agree — end of story!” “That is the only thing to talk about.” “And nothing whatsoever to say on it except what I said. Period.” “End of story.“ “Did I mention period?” I think it is clear this style of arguing is a bit different than most intellectually honest discourse on HN. Can’t quite put my finger on what the differences are … maybe someone can help me out here?