4 ms·

I will explain my reasoning behind "Is [the war] completely [Russia's] fault and totally unprovoked? Probably not." On the 21st of March 2014, the European Uni

I will explain my reasoning behind "Is [the war] completely [Russia's] fault and totally unprovoked? Probably not." On the 21st of March 2014, the European Union signed an association treaty with Ukraine. This treaty was seen by many as a first step for Ukraine to join the EU. Note that the treaty itself doesn't mention this, nor does it actually do this. It is a clear indication of the preference of Ukraine to 'belong' to the EU, and break away from under the former USSR's blanket though. Russia clearly stated that it was very much opposed to the treaty, and the concept of Ukraine joining (even just in spirit) with the EU. This objection goes back to negotiations between the UN and the then-newly-formed Russian state directly after the cold war ended. Russia wanted a buffer between its border and that of the UN. The position of Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus were deemed to be part of that buffer, and UN agreed to this demand (verbally, not in writing, a crucial detail). Russia has since repeatedly noted that it was very unhappy with the position of Ukraine, and the fact that the government switch in the Maidan revolution was endorsed by EU representatives. It perceives the association of the Ukraine with the EU as a breech of its demands of a buffer zone between it and the UN. It has clearly articulated this in repeated sessions at meetings and slowly escalated the rhetorics in those speeches/meetings. It is never another country's fault when you attack it, but you cannot claim it is unprovoked; Russia's claims regarding the buffer states have been clear since the end of the cold war, and their demands were well known to both the UN and the EU. They poured oil on a simmering fire, and now the house is on fire...

_kbh_ 4y ago
> It is never another country's fault when you attack it, but you cannot claim it is unprovoked; Russia's claims regarding the buffer states have been clear since the end of the cold war, and their demands were well known to both the UN and the EU. They poured oil on a simmering fire, and now the house is on fire... These countries are not "buffer" states for Russia to toy with, they are countries that have every right to join whatever alliances they want. And you must see how unsurprising it is that they all want to join NATO when Russia views them not as their own countries but as buffer regions for Russia.
kriops 4y ago
I thank you for taking the time to explain your statement. My rebuttal to your devil's advocate points in support of the Russian position: Ukraine is a soverign nation. Furthermore, every inhabitant of Ukraine have basic human rights. Of course, neither of those points matter to someone whose ethical system boils down to realpolitk. Some well-known corollaries include: - Might makes right. - Rules for thee, but not for me. - A ruler should prioritize the preservation of power and stability over morality. - Justice is simply the advantage of the stronger. If the defence of a pruported Russian casus belli is that they are inconsistent with any consistent notion of rights, then it is self-defeating. And if the defence is Russia arbitrarily getting provoked, then there is not a rational argument to be had. Anyways, I digress. As a soverign nation, Ukraine has the right to enter into any agreement they wish - with the obvious caveat that they may not compromise the soverignty of another nation or the human rights of their inhabitants. Trade agreements and defensive alliances are trivially within the bounds of such constraints. As a soverign nation, Ukraine is not the property of Russia, so Russia has no business deciding its fate. In summary, I acknowledge your position is similar to Bill Burr's bit on domestic violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ, but like him I don't think "a reason" entails a marginally or otherwise valid justification.

_kbh_ 4y ago

> It is never another country's fault when you attack it, but you cannot claim it is unprovoked; Russia's claims regarding the buffer states have been clear since the end of the cold war, and their demands were well known to both the UN and the EU. They poured oil on a simmering fire, and now the house is on fire... These countries are not "buffer" states for Russia to toy with, they are countries that have every right to join whatever alliances they want. And you must see how unsurprising it is that they all want to join NATO when Russia views them not as their own countries but as buffer regions for Russia.

kriops 4y ago

I thank you for taking the time to explain your statement. My rebuttal to your devil's advocate points in support of the Russian position: Ukraine is a soverign nation. Furthermore, every inhabitant of Ukraine have basic human rights. Of course, neither of those points matter to someone whose ethical system boils down to realpolitk. Some well-known corollaries include: - Might makes right. - Rules for thee, but not for me. - A ruler should prioritize the preservation of power and stability over morality. - Justice is simply the advantage of the stronger. If the defence of a pruported Russian casus belli is that they are inconsistent with any consistent notion of rights, then it is self-defeating. And if the defence is Russia arbitrarily getting provoked, then there is not a rational argument to be had. Anyways, I digress. As a soverign nation, Ukraine has the right to enter into any agreement they wish - with the obvious caveat that they may not compromise the soverignty of another nation or the human rights of their inhabitants. Trade agreements and defensive alliances are trivially within the bounds of such constraints. As a soverign nation, Ukraine is not the property of Russia, so Russia has no business deciding its fate. In summary, I acknowledge your position is similar to Bill Burr's bit on domestic violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ, but like him I don't think "a reason" entails a marginally or otherwise valid justification.