3 ms·

Maybe, maybe not. Crushing Russian forces helps sell weapons and also helps take down an adversary while having Ukraine fight the war. The incentives behind blo

Maybe, maybe not. Crushing Russian forces helps sell weapons and also helps take down an adversary while having Ukraine fight the war. The incentives behind blowing up the pipeline also appear to align with the US cause. I would take the media's reporting on this with a large grain of salt.

phatfish 4y ago
> "while having Ukraine fight the war" Interesting turn of phrase, and one used heavily in Russian propaganda to remove any agency from the Ukrainian people. If the Ukrainian government had listened to their western allies Zelensky would have been on an evacuation flight shortly after the first missile hit. I'm quite sure they are not "having to fight" against Russia for anyone except themselves, and to ensure the continued existence of their country.
- silentsea90 4y ago
  I don't mean that the US instigated the war or that Ukraine is somehow a puppet, but it is convenient for the US to not have to fight it and let Ukraine use US's weaponry, drones etc to fight this war. I am not Russian or a sympathizer, but also not blind to US incentives to sell weaponry in Europe, and hurt an adversary in Russia. It is true that everybody underestimated Ukraine.
lmm 4y ago
The US is in the fortunate position where doing the right thing serves their geopolitical goals. That does happen sometimes. All the more reason to supply Ukraine with a lot of weapons quickly.
- silentsea90 4y ago
  I agree but my devil's advocate response = I suspect that without enough incentive for a peaceful resolution, the more right thing (=seeking peace) falls out of favor. I know we've been told that Putin doesn't want to negotiate but I find it naive to take that message at face value, similar to how the US claims Russia blew up the pipeline while the US is the biggest beneficiary. Without going tinfoil hat, there is enough precedent for US lies (WMDs in Iraq, Libya etc) that I would question the messaging even though I agree Putin sucks.
  - lmm 4y ago
    Pursing peace at any cost is not the right thing. If the US has more incentive to encourage Ukraine to defend vigorously rather than paying Danegeld, well, that's no bad thing for the long term stability of the world as a whole. The only case I'd worry about the kind of thing you're suggesting is if the US were pushing Ukraine to counteratack hard into Russian territory and turn down an offer of a return to pre-2014 borders, and that seems unlikely so far - if anything so far it seems to be the US holding Ukraine back.
    - silentsea90 4y ago
      Maybe. Russia's population is falling and Putin is getting older to the extent that such a war may not have happened 5-10 years from now. I am more worried about escalation, nukes, forever wars etc. Ukraine fighting for pre 2014 borders is one case that triggers this, among many others I bet you the rebuilding phase will also involve American cos.
      - lmm 4y ago
        > Maybe. Russia's population is falling and Putin is getting older to the extent that such a war may not have happened 5-10 years from now. We've been trying the "wait them out" strategy with North Korea and it's gone very badly IMO. At some point it's better to grasp the nettle, especially when you're lucky enough to get as clear-cut a conflict as this. There will probably never be a better time to draw the line and hold it. > I am more worried about escalation, nukes, forever wars etc. Ukraine fighting for pre 2014 borders is one case that triggers this, among many others Accepting peace on anything less than a return to pre-2014 borders would doom the world in the long term. It would set a clear precedent that anyone with nuclear weapons can take what they want with no downsides, and there's no coming back from that. > I bet you the rebuilding phase will also involve American cos. It probably will, and there will probably be corruption and looting and backhanders. It's going to suck, but there's no scenario in which the next ten or twenty years of being Ukraine doesn't suck. Kicking out Russia quickly and getting on with the rebuilding, ideally with international support for all the waste that that will involve, is the least-bad future.

phatfish 4y ago

> "while having Ukraine fight the war" Interesting turn of phrase, and one used heavily in Russian propaganda to remove any agency from the Ukrainian people. If the Ukrainian government had listened to their western allies Zelensky would have been on an evacuation flight shortly after the first missile hit. I'm quite sure they are not "having to fight" against Russia for anyone except themselves, and to ensure the continued existence of their country.

silentsea90 4y ago
I don't mean that the US instigated the war or that Ukraine is somehow a puppet, but it is convenient for the US to not have to fight it and let Ukraine use US's weaponry, drones etc to fight this war. I am not Russian or a sympathizer, but also not blind to US incentives to sell weaponry in Europe, and hurt an adversary in Russia. It is true that everybody underestimated Ukraine.

lmm 4y ago

The US is in the fortunate position where doing the right thing serves their geopolitical goals. That does happen sometimes. All the more reason to supply Ukraine with a lot of weapons quickly.

silentsea90 4y ago
I agree but my devil's advocate response = I suspect that without enough incentive for a peaceful resolution, the more right thing (=seeking peace) falls out of favor. I know we've been told that Putin doesn't want to negotiate but I find it naive to take that message at face value, similar to how the US claims Russia blew up the pipeline while the US is the biggest beneficiary. Without going tinfoil hat, there is enough precedent for US lies (WMDs in Iraq, Libya etc) that I would question the messaging even though I agree Putin sucks.
- lmm 4y ago
  Pursing peace at any cost is not the right thing. If the US has more incentive to encourage Ukraine to defend vigorously rather than paying Danegeld, well, that's no bad thing for the long term stability of the world as a whole. The only case I'd worry about the kind of thing you're suggesting is if the US were pushing Ukraine to counteratack hard into Russian territory and turn down an offer of a return to pre-2014 borders, and that seems unlikely so far - if anything so far it seems to be the US holding Ukraine back.
  - silentsea90 4y ago
    Maybe. Russia's population is falling and Putin is getting older to the extent that such a war may not have happened 5-10 years from now. I am more worried about escalation, nukes, forever wars etc. Ukraine fighting for pre 2014 borders is one case that triggers this, among many others I bet you the rebuilding phase will also involve American cos.
    - lmm 4y ago
      > Maybe. Russia's population is falling and Putin is getting older to the extent that such a war may not have happened 5-10 years from now. We've been trying the "wait them out" strategy with North Korea and it's gone very badly IMO. At some point it's better to grasp the nettle, especially when you're lucky enough to get as clear-cut a conflict as this. There will probably never be a better time to draw the line and hold it. > I am more worried about escalation, nukes, forever wars etc. Ukraine fighting for pre 2014 borders is one case that triggers this, among many others Accepting peace on anything less than a return to pre-2014 borders would doom the world in the long term. It would set a clear precedent that anyone with nuclear weapons can take what they want with no downsides, and there's no coming back from that. > I bet you the rebuilding phase will also involve American cos. It probably will, and there will probably be corruption and looting and backhanders. It's going to suck, but there's no scenario in which the next ten or twenty years of being Ukraine doesn't suck. Kicking out Russia quickly and getting on with the rebuilding, ideally with international support for all the waste that that will involve, is the least-bad future.