6 ms·

The fact that there's a major land war in Ukraine, which the US did not start and had no power to prevent, has come at a huge cost. This is true. Given that Ukr

by simonh 4y ago

The fact that there's a major land war in Ukraine, which the US did not start and had no power to prevent, has come at a huge cost. This is true. Given that Ukraine patently was not just going to roll over, and even if the US hadn't supported them, much of Europe absolutely would. I think it's petty plain the war would still be raging fiercely anyway. Most likely Russia would be on the skirts of or in Kyiv and Odessa by now, with a horrible bloody partisan conflict reminiscent of Vietnam or Afghanistan, or a massively scaled up version of the Chechnya war raging throughout the country. Do you relish the prospect of Russian troops on the borders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania? I don't. Meanwhile US relations with Europe would be at the lowest level since WW2, it would be seen as an utter abandonment and betrayal of our shared values, including US treaty guarantees on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. America's allies across the world would know for a fact the US could not be relied upon to support them. Russia would know this. Taiwan would know this. China and North Korea would know this. They would also realise that this situation might only last as long as the current administration. There are some in the world that would see this as a golden opportunity.

5040 4y ago
[flagged]
- mcphage 4y ago
  > two of the more plausible candidates for the beginning of this whole thing are [...] the American invasion of Serbia Are we talking about 1999?
  - Iwan-Zotow 4y ago
    yes, 1999
  - 5040 4y ago
    Yeah. Those initial airstrikes really freaked Russia out. Relations were never the same after them. NATO's first military attack really shook them.
    - mcphage 4y ago
      > Relations were never the same after them. There have been... a lot of momentous geopolitical events since 1999.
    - simonh 4y ago
      They were shaken so much they decided to bomb and shell the living crap out over every square inch of Chechnya to get it out of their system. I'm sure blowing up some of their own apartment buildings that September helped them de-stress. I'm sorry, but the Russian government isn't a bunch of children. They're not that easily rattled. That was long after the whole mess in Bosnia, so it's not like we hadn't seen a horrible bloody genocidal conflict that the US and European countries intervened in before.
- simonh 4y ago
  NATO never made any formal commitment not to expand eastward, and Russian presidents from Yeltsin onwards were completely relaxed about eastern European countries choosing freely to join NATO. Gorbachev is on record saying he was never even aware any such statements had been given. In May 2002 Vladimir Putin said Ukraine was entitled to decide on its own whether to join NATO and that he did not see such a decision as one that would “cloud” Russian-Ukrainian relations. I think it's highly loaded to phrase this as NATO expansion. It sounds like NATO somehow coerced these countries into joining, or annexed them somehow. These countries came beating on NATO's door desperate to be let in. The instigating trigger for Putin's 2014 annexation of Crimea wasn't anything anyone in NATO said or did, it was the newly elected Ukrainian government's signalling that they wanted to join NATO.
  - 5040 4y ago
    >I think it's highly loaded to phrase this as NATO expansion. It sounds like NATO somehow coerced these countries into joining, or annexed them somehow. That's not where I would put the emphasis. Though there was some courting, the anti-Russian sentiment in these countries was genuine. Russia shares its borders with 14 other nations. What happened is that, one by one, many of these joined, or became partner to, an alliance which views Russia as something to be contained. Russian leaders may not have been worried at first, but that changed later.
    - simonh 4y ago
      >views Russia as something to be contained. Contained within it's borders. You mean like constrained from territorial expansion and annexation of neighbouring territory? Yes. Just as all the European countries are contained within their borders. Being constrained within your borders should be the default for everyone. The fact that Moscow has a president that doesn't think that way is exactly the problem NATO was created to deal with. I'm a realist, I know there are cases when military interventions are necessary. Preventing genocide in Kosovo, kicking the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. There can be messy situations where the right course of action isn't clear, but Ukraine is not one of those. Flat out annexing large swathes of neighbouring countries is precisely the problem NATO was created to counter. It turns out for very, very good reason.
- racnid 4y ago
  [flagged]
user3939382 4y ago
[flagged]
- st4lz 4y ago
  Well, the victory in Ukraine is low cost high profit business for the US. There is unprecedented growth of oil and natural gas sales to Europe, which completely displaced Russia as the biggest supplier. The arms contracts are rising heavily, making at least half of the world's armies interested in replacing old equipment. Prices are rising as well as profits. Secondly, securing Ukraine would add up to the capitalistic market huge amounts of resources like grains and metals. This is a huge area of future investments that would provide gains for capital markets for years. Not to mention educated, hard-working populace. There is also a matter of prestige. It is hard not to see the military advantage that western weapons have over the soviet ones. The risk of any other conflict is lower elsewhere. Still, the US is considered a worthy ally, whose guarantees are reliable. Those are the advantages. Costs? Old military equipment that should be replaced anyway. Some money as well, but hey, banks are being given free cash as well. No boots on the ground, NATO expansion, many of the help come from allies. You can't make it cheaper. And above all, morally you are still on the right side. Incredible.
  - simonh 4y ago
    In wars factories making guns make money selling guns. You could as well say Iran or Turku engineered the conflict to sell drones. Maybe the North Korean 152mm shell manufacturers are behind it all. Raytheon didn’t invade Ukraine. Boeing didn’t invade Ukraine. There’s one country with one leader that invaded Ukraine, and that is where the sole responsibility lies for that decision. He did so solely and specifically in response to the expressed democratic wishes of the Ukrainian people. That is what this war is about. You know it, I know it, the rest is just distraction.
- simonh 4y ago
  >we just backed a coup to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government in 2014 You have been misinformed. The sovereign institution in Ukraine is the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament, which overwhelmingly approved an association agreement with the European Union. Yanukovych refused to sign it, and after extensive popular protests in favour of the association agreement, on 22 February 2010 the parliament voted overwhelmingly to remove Yanukovych from office. Crucially he then issued an official statement of resignation. The constitutional situation is messy, for sure, but the guy resigned. He didn't have to do that, but he did. The fact he went crying to mommy in Moscow and then tried to un-resign himself is rather sad, but doesn't change the facts. >The reality is, the military industrial complex, which is in complete control of foreign policy, has been pushing for this for years So the military industrial complex in the USA have been pushing for Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. I'm not sure I understand how that works. Could you explain?
rayiner 4y ago
Lots of countries aren’t being affected by the land war, but are being affected by the US/EU sanctions on Russia. For example it’s exacerbating a major foreign currency shortage in Bangladesh: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/02/bangladesh-foreign-minister-ukraine-war-fallout.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/02/bangladesh-foreign-minister-... > Meanwhile US relations with Europe would be at the lowest level since WW2, it would be seen as an utter abandonment and betrayal of our shared values, including US treaty guarantees on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine If you’re referring to the Budapest agreement, it’s not a treaty. And other countries should educate themselves and understand that unilateral commitments by the President that aren’t ratified by Congress aren’t worth anything.
- simonh 4y ago
  > Lots of countries aren’t being affected by the land war, but are being affected by the US/EU sanctions on Russia. That is being affected by the land war. As soon as the first tank went over the line into Ukraine there were going to be harmful global consequences whatever any other country did. As for presidential commitments. Taiwans existential security is based entirely on verbal presidential commitments going back to George W.

by simonh 4y ago

5040 4y ago

[flagged]

mcphage 4y ago
> two of the more plausible candidates for the beginning of this whole thing are [...] the American invasion of Serbia Are we talking about 1999?
- Iwan-Zotow 4y ago
  yes, 1999
- 5040 4y ago
  Yeah. Those initial airstrikes really freaked Russia out. Relations were never the same after them. NATO's first military attack really shook them.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    > Relations were never the same after them. There have been... a lot of momentous geopolitical events since 1999.
  - simonh 4y ago
    They were shaken so much they decided to bomb and shell the living crap out over every square inch of Chechnya to get it out of their system. I'm sure blowing up some of their own apartment buildings that September helped them de-stress. I'm sorry, but the Russian government isn't a bunch of children. They're not that easily rattled. That was long after the whole mess in Bosnia, so it's not like we hadn't seen a horrible bloody genocidal conflict that the US and European countries intervened in before.
simonh 4y ago
NATO never made any formal commitment not to expand eastward, and Russian presidents from Yeltsin onwards were completely relaxed about eastern European countries choosing freely to join NATO. Gorbachev is on record saying he was never even aware any such statements had been given. In May 2002 Vladimir Putin said Ukraine was entitled to decide on its own whether to join NATO and that he did not see such a decision as one that would “cloud” Russian-Ukrainian relations. I think it's highly loaded to phrase this as NATO expansion. It sounds like NATO somehow coerced these countries into joining, or annexed them somehow. These countries came beating on NATO's door desperate to be let in. The instigating trigger for Putin's 2014 annexation of Crimea wasn't anything anyone in NATO said or did, it was the newly elected Ukrainian government's signalling that they wanted to join NATO.
- 5040 4y ago
  >I think it's highly loaded to phrase this as NATO expansion. It sounds like NATO somehow coerced these countries into joining, or annexed them somehow. That's not where I would put the emphasis. Though there was some courting, the anti-Russian sentiment in these countries was genuine. Russia shares its borders with 14 other nations. What happened is that, one by one, many of these joined, or became partner to, an alliance which views Russia as something to be contained. Russian leaders may not have been worried at first, but that changed later.
  - simonh 4y ago
    >views Russia as something to be contained. Contained within it's borders. You mean like constrained from territorial expansion and annexation of neighbouring territory? Yes. Just as all the European countries are contained within their borders. Being constrained within your borders should be the default for everyone. The fact that Moscow has a president that doesn't think that way is exactly the problem NATO was created to deal with. I'm a realist, I know there are cases when military interventions are necessary. Preventing genocide in Kosovo, kicking the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. There can be messy situations where the right course of action isn't clear, but Ukraine is not one of those. Flat out annexing large swathes of neighbouring countries is precisely the problem NATO was created to counter. It turns out for very, very good reason.
racnid 4y ago
[flagged]

user3939382 4y ago

[flagged]

st4lz 4y ago
Well, the victory in Ukraine is low cost high profit business for the US. There is unprecedented growth of oil and natural gas sales to Europe, which completely displaced Russia as the biggest supplier. The arms contracts are rising heavily, making at least half of the world's armies interested in replacing old equipment. Prices are rising as well as profits. Secondly, securing Ukraine would add up to the capitalistic market huge amounts of resources like grains and metals. This is a huge area of future investments that would provide gains for capital markets for years. Not to mention educated, hard-working populace. There is also a matter of prestige. It is hard not to see the military advantage that western weapons have over the soviet ones. The risk of any other conflict is lower elsewhere. Still, the US is considered a worthy ally, whose guarantees are reliable. Those are the advantages. Costs? Old military equipment that should be replaced anyway. Some money as well, but hey, banks are being given free cash as well. No boots on the ground, NATO expansion, many of the help come from allies. You can't make it cheaper. And above all, morally you are still on the right side. Incredible.
- simonh 4y ago
  In wars factories making guns make money selling guns. You could as well say Iran or Turku engineered the conflict to sell drones. Maybe the North Korean 152mm shell manufacturers are behind it all. Raytheon didn’t invade Ukraine. Boeing didn’t invade Ukraine. There’s one country with one leader that invaded Ukraine, and that is where the sole responsibility lies for that decision. He did so solely and specifically in response to the expressed democratic wishes of the Ukrainian people. That is what this war is about. You know it, I know it, the rest is just distraction.
simonh 4y ago
>we just backed a coup to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government in 2014 You have been misinformed. The sovereign institution in Ukraine is the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament, which overwhelmingly approved an association agreement with the European Union. Yanukovych refused to sign it, and after extensive popular protests in favour of the association agreement, on 22 February 2010 the parliament voted overwhelmingly to remove Yanukovych from office. Crucially he then issued an official statement of resignation. The constitutional situation is messy, for sure, but the guy resigned. He didn't have to do that, but he did. The fact he went crying to mommy in Moscow and then tried to un-resign himself is rather sad, but doesn't change the facts. >The reality is, the military industrial complex, which is in complete control of foreign policy, has been pushing for this for years So the military industrial complex in the USA have been pushing for Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. I'm not sure I understand how that works. Could you explain?

rayiner 4y ago

Lots of countries aren’t being affected by the land war, but are being affected by the US/EU sanctions on Russia. For example it’s exacerbating a major foreign currency shortage in Bangladesh: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/02/bangladesh-foreign-minister-ukraine-war-fallout.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/02/bangladesh-foreign-minister-... > Meanwhile US relations with Europe would be at the lowest level since WW2, it would be seen as an utter abandonment and betrayal of our shared values, including US treaty guarantees on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine If you’re referring to the Budapest agreement, it’s not a treaty. And other countries should educate themselves and understand that unilateral commitments by the President that aren’t ratified by Congress aren’t worth anything.

simonh 4y ago
> Lots of countries aren’t being affected by the land war, but are being affected by the US/EU sanctions on Russia. That is being affected by the land war. As soon as the first tank went over the line into Ukraine there were going to be harmful global consequences whatever any other country did. As for presidential commitments. Taiwans existential security is based entirely on verbal presidential commitments going back to George W.