5 ms·

Where is the 'war fervor' of the Left? What does helping Ukraine defend themselves have to do with 'war fervor'? Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 and Obama/Trump

by jasmer 3y ago

Where is the 'war fervor' of the Left? What does helping Ukraine defend themselves have to do with 'war fervor'? Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 and Obama/Trump reaction was to ignore it - which directly resulted in a much bigger war. The US Military Industrial Complex is why there are no wars against rich allied states. If Ukraine were part of the system and had a well managed, functional military - Putin could not have invaded, in fact he never would have tried.

all2 3y ago
This is incomplete. Ukraine was supposed to be a buffer between NATO and Russia. As soon as Western folks started talking about getting cozy with Ukraine, Putin saw the eventuality where US/joint bases would be on his border and he didn't want that. He would rather start a war with Ukraine than go toe-to-toe with the US and NATO.
- epgui 3y ago
  Other people making friends is not really a good reason to start killing them, either way. I know it’s not what you’re saying exactly, but it’s what Putin’s actions boil down to.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- watwut 3y ago
  Russia has borders with NATO and had them for years. The buffer theory makes zero sense, considering Ukraine was not even trying to get to NATO and there is pretty long border between Russia and NATO anyway. NATO basis were next to Russia for decades. Plus, one does not need to commit genocide to achieve safety. Anand Putin just happen to be committing genocide.
- jnwatson 3y ago
  NATO was already on his border.
  - mythrwy 3y ago
    The route that Russia has been invaded through during WWII and Napoleon runs right through the plains of Ukraine. Putin's older brother died during the siege of Stalingrad as an infant. These memories are not that long ago. They obviously care much less about Finland on their borders. But really, it's more about the money, the people and the control over trade routes and resources in my estimation and less about security.
    - jasmer 3y ago
      It's basic raw Imperialism. The Soviets were just the Russian Empire under another name, absolutely all of Putin's actions aka saying Ukrainians don't exist, calling them 'little Russians', the tactic of treating them as vassals, of viewing this as a conflict with the US and not Ukraine, his ultra nationalist rhetoric, his posturing as the saviour of the Slavs - it's actually kind of straight forward in those terms. It's astonishing that in the West, so many people see short term things like money or resources, that is often the reality of it, and Crimea does have offshore Oil, but in 50 years he won't be remembered for that - he will be 'Putin the Great' for re-conquoring lost territories and uniting the Russian people and their Empire. Even if there is a stalemate now - it means over a 10 year period he took Crimea and a huge swath of land - that is a big win. It won't feel like a win for a few years, but in the long run of history it'll be viewed as a victory - an expansion of the empire. For the same reason Westerners talk about China wanting to invade Taiwan for TSMC? Gosh no - they view Taiwan as 'China' - and all the states around them as 'natural vassals to their greater power' - and that's that, they are the 'Middle Kingdom Centre of the World' and Xi is on that mission. Those guys are using 19th century geopolitics and ethnography, taking very long term view of things. A victory for Ukraine is important to maintain some very basic and essential things we have come to expect in the world - not fancy ideals - just basic freedoms, democracy, rule of law etc.. The military industrial complex will take a pound of flesh unless we manage them effectively, but they are not driving this war, not even from the Russian side where most of the money is pilfered anyhow.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Any ideology that doesn't allow Ukraine to make their own destiny is unacceptable. Ukraine told Russia it wouldn't join NATO, tried to set itself up to join the EU instead, and got invaded anyway, back in 2014.
  - antod 3y ago
    > Any ideology that doesn't allow Ukraine to make their own destiny is unacceptable. Thank you for stating that. I hate when smaller countries are just talked about as pawns in a chess game between larger powers with no self determination, or should just take one for the team to prevent rocking the boat. If Russia doesn't like its smaller neighbours wanting to join NATO, it should've treated them a lot better.
- int_19h 3y ago
  I remember all the whining about "NATO bases on our borders!!!" on Russian news back in 1999 when Poland joined. And then again in 2004 when the Baltics joined. It was all the same stuff then as it is now - about how they were just prepping the beachhead for those tank columns that would eventually drive towards Moscow, how NATO nukes would be stationed there allowing for a surprise decapitation strike etc. None of which came to pass in the years since, unsurprisingly. In any case, what does "supposed to be a buffer" even mean? Supposed by whom? Ukraine certainly didn't sign up for that.
mistermann 3y ago
> What does helping Ukraine defend themselves have to do with 'war fervor'? For me: the manner in which it is done (the rhetoric in media, etc).

by jasmer 3y ago

all2 3y ago

This is incomplete. Ukraine was supposed to be a buffer between NATO and Russia. As soon as Western folks started talking about getting cozy with Ukraine, Putin saw the eventuality where US/joint bases would be on his border and he didn't want that. He would rather start a war with Ukraine than go toe-to-toe with the US and NATO.

epgui 3y ago
Other people making friends is not really a good reason to start killing them, either way. I know it’s not what you’re saying exactly, but it’s what Putin’s actions boil down to.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
watwut 3y ago
Russia has borders with NATO and had them for years. The buffer theory makes zero sense, considering Ukraine was not even trying to get to NATO and there is pretty long border between Russia and NATO anyway. NATO basis were next to Russia for decades. Plus, one does not need to commit genocide to achieve safety. Anand Putin just happen to be committing genocide.
jnwatson 3y ago
NATO was already on his border.
- mythrwy 3y ago
  The route that Russia has been invaded through during WWII and Napoleon runs right through the plains of Ukraine. Putin's older brother died during the siege of Stalingrad as an infant. These memories are not that long ago. They obviously care much less about Finland on their borders. But really, it's more about the money, the people and the control over trade routes and resources in my estimation and less about security.
  - jasmer 3y ago
    It's basic raw Imperialism. The Soviets were just the Russian Empire under another name, absolutely all of Putin's actions aka saying Ukrainians don't exist, calling them 'little Russians', the tactic of treating them as vassals, of viewing this as a conflict with the US and not Ukraine, his ultra nationalist rhetoric, his posturing as the saviour of the Slavs - it's actually kind of straight forward in those terms. It's astonishing that in the West, so many people see short term things like money or resources, that is often the reality of it, and Crimea does have offshore Oil, but in 50 years he won't be remembered for that - he will be 'Putin the Great' for re-conquoring lost territories and uniting the Russian people and their Empire. Even if there is a stalemate now - it means over a 10 year period he took Crimea and a huge swath of land - that is a big win. It won't feel like a win for a few years, but in the long run of history it'll be viewed as a victory - an expansion of the empire. For the same reason Westerners talk about China wanting to invade Taiwan for TSMC? Gosh no - they view Taiwan as 'China' - and all the states around them as 'natural vassals to their greater power' - and that's that, they are the 'Middle Kingdom Centre of the World' and Xi is on that mission. Those guys are using 19th century geopolitics and ethnography, taking very long term view of things. A victory for Ukraine is important to maintain some very basic and essential things we have come to expect in the world - not fancy ideals - just basic freedoms, democracy, rule of law etc.. The military industrial complex will take a pound of flesh unless we manage them effectively, but they are not driving this war, not even from the Russian side where most of the money is pilfered anyhow.
mrguyorama 3y ago
Any ideology that doesn't allow Ukraine to make their own destiny is unacceptable. Ukraine told Russia it wouldn't join NATO, tried to set itself up to join the EU instead, and got invaded anyway, back in 2014.
- antod 3y ago
  > Any ideology that doesn't allow Ukraine to make their own destiny is unacceptable. Thank you for stating that. I hate when smaller countries are just talked about as pawns in a chess game between larger powers with no self determination, or should just take one for the team to prevent rocking the boat. If Russia doesn't like its smaller neighbours wanting to join NATO, it should've treated them a lot better.
int_19h 3y ago
I remember all the whining about "NATO bases on our borders!!!" on Russian news back in 1999 when Poland joined. And then again in 2004 when the Baltics joined. It was all the same stuff then as it is now - about how they were just prepping the beachhead for those tank columns that would eventually drive towards Moscow, how NATO nukes would be stationed there allowing for a surprise decapitation strike etc. None of which came to pass in the years since, unsurprisingly. In any case, what does "supposed to be a buffer" even mean? Supposed by whom? Ukraine certainly didn't sign up for that.

mistermann 3y ago

> What does helping Ukraine defend themselves have to do with 'war fervor'? For me: the manner in which it is done (the rhetoric in media, etc).