7 ms·

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." This is w

by refurb 3y ago

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." This is why it's funny to see people view the war in Ukraine as a "good guy vs bad guy". The geopolitics are incredibly complicated and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see.

MichaelMoser123 3y ago
the war in Ukraine is not funny at all, it has all the potential to turn into WW3.
dralley 3y ago
The problem with that view of geopolitics is that not all leaders or states (and in the case of dictatorships these are the same) are rational about their interests. Sometimes you're dealing with a Hitler, and you cannot deal with those in terms of "interests", and the interests of the dictator may differ from the interests of the state. Such is the case with Putin. This invasion was not in the interests of the state. It was in his own interests, but he is dictator, so his interests win out.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > This invasion was not in the interests of the state. Well a significant proportion (the majority?) of Russians don’t really agree with that and I bet there would be close to zero opposition to the war had Russia actually managed to win in the first few months. Likewise very few Germans didn’t support Hitler when they defeated France and again there was basically no serious internal opposition until Germany started losing the war.
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    Germany absolutely had a great casus belli against France. France had treated Germany horribly (and invaded Germany first). Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine.
    - wwtrv 3y ago
      > Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine. That's a bizarrely absurd attitude. > and invaded Germany first So if Russia now invaded Poland or the Baltic States and France/US/UK 'attacked' Russia in response that would not be a justifiable thing to do? Because that's exactly what you're saying... > France had treated Germany horribly 1. Yes. But that happened 20 years ago as a response to a German invasion of France (and Belgium but why would anyone care about the people that get caught in between...). And both countries were on a path towards reconciliation after Locarno. This does not make Nazi actions in any way more justifiable... > a great casus belli The world thankfully does not work like a Paradox grand strategy game...
    - reducesuffering 3y ago
      France required Germany to pay for all the destruction that Germany caused by first invading France in WW1. France and Poland knew Germany was a belligerent nation, and in 1921 signed a mutual defense pact. Germany knew this and invaded Poland, knowing France would attempt to defend Poland.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        To be fair the allies also did this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany They maintained the blockade for almost a year after the armistice (just in case..). A hundred thousand died in the famine and a generation of children suffered severe malnutrition. Now maintaining the blockade during the war was understandable but maintaining it after the fighting was over just to get better terms? Well that’s something many people would find hard to forgive.. > France and Poland knew Germany was a belligerent nation, and in 1921 No it had much more to do with the Polish-Soviet war than with Germany. The Soviets were seen (and rightly so) as a much bigger threat to Eastern and Central Europe than Germany in the 20s
lisasays 3y ago
The geopolitics are incredibly complicated Not really - it's quite straightforward, actually and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. Such as?
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> why it's funny to see people view the war Why? I mean you have a point about geopolitics. But it’s still about as stupid as someone saying the exact same words about Poland 1939.. You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression . That should make it pretty straightforward, no? > a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. the overall goals and interests of all sides seem to be pretty transparent to be fair
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression ." Yes, one that was raised by the KGB, and his work possible consisting of coordinating left wing terrorists in the west. "That should make it pretty straightforward, no?" Sadly no. Because his character and the general political ideas and red lines of the russian establishment were known. Ukraine was russias sphere of interest/domain. So the west going into ukraine, helping with the coup and promising them EU and NATO, while knowing that russia can never accept it - was a clear path to war from the beginning. Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? Doubtful. One of the unwritten laws. The geopolitical realities are, that it was known that going into ukraine would likely lead to some war. Which is why most of the world considers this war a proxy war between Nato russia. And it partly is. But yes, it is also a war for independence of a small nation against an evil empire. But the empires in the west seldom care about the actual people on the grounds. They care for their interests. And currently ukraines and Natos interests are mostly aligned, which is why they get support. If china suddenly becomes a bigger problem and now there would be a need to play Putin against them - then Ukraine would be on their own very quickly. It is already starting now, with the west medias more and more implying that it was indeed Ukraine that blow up north stream. Whether they did it, or not: this is a way of showing them, they can change the narrative in the west quite quickly. War is dirty. And also Ukraine has lots of dirt on their hands now. Showing some of that dirt will make the public change opinion. This is geopolitics in action.
  - redmorphium 3y ago
    > Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? Doubtful. One of the unwritten laws. Exactly. The Ukraine situation would be tantamount to Canada or Mexico entering into a military alliance with Iran -- not acceptable and a direct cause of war.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> This is why it's funny to see people view the war in Ukraine as a "good guy vs bad guy". The geopolitics are incredibly complicated and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. This war is as clear as WW2 if you don’t see that then I don’t know what to say, it’s plain as day to most people.
- mantas 3y ago
  Talking about WW2, a lot of people still think Soviets were the good guys. Forgetting how nazis and soviets split eastern europe. And later soviets forgot to leave.
  - KptMarchewa 3y ago
    And that's clear to everyone nowadays. You really see anyone disputing that?
    - cbHXBY1D 3y ago
      I will dispute that. Double genocide theory is a debunked right wing nationalist myth, sorry. [1] I'm not saying they were saints but they were on the same moral plane of the Allies, wishing to set up buffer states instead of absorbing them fully into the USSR. Political repression was a real issue in the eastern bloc countries but it's no where near as bad as what the US, France, or UK did in the post war period with their colonies, segregation, bombings, or coups. [1] https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
      - mantas 3y ago
        Soviets did absorb plenty of buffer countries fully into USSR. Along with massacring a lot of people and/or sending them to gulags. You’re thinking about USSR of 1980s when political repression and some hair cutting was the main issue. But USSR up to mid 1950s was a tad more evil to say the least. And „debunking double genocide theory“ is fighting a strawman. Let’s talk how USSR started WW2 along with Nazis. Let’s talk Katyn or Rainiai. Let’s talk gulags. Stalin’s purges. Early USSR social reforms and consequences.

by refurb 3y ago

MichaelMoser123 3y ago

the war in Ukraine is not funny at all, it has all the potential to turn into WW3.

dralley 3y ago

The problem with that view of geopolitics is that not all leaders or states (and in the case of dictatorships these are the same) are rational about their interests. Sometimes you're dealing with a Hitler, and you cannot deal with those in terms of "interests", and the interests of the dictator may differ from the interests of the state. Such is the case with Putin. This invasion was not in the interests of the state. It was in his own interests, but he is dictator, so his interests win out.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
> This invasion was not in the interests of the state. Well a significant proportion (the majority?) of Russians don’t really agree with that and I bet there would be close to zero opposition to the war had Russia actually managed to win in the first few months. Likewise very few Germans didn’t support Hitler when they defeated France and again there was basically no serious internal opposition until Germany started losing the war.
- peterfirefly 3y ago
  Germany absolutely had a great casus belli against France. France had treated Germany horribly (and invaded Germany first). Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine.
  - wwtrv 3y ago
    > Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine. That's a bizarrely absurd attitude. > and invaded Germany first So if Russia now invaded Poland or the Baltic States and France/US/UK 'attacked' Russia in response that would not be a justifiable thing to do? Because that's exactly what you're saying... > France had treated Germany horribly 1. Yes. But that happened 20 years ago as a response to a German invasion of France (and Belgium but why would anyone care about the people that get caught in between...). And both countries were on a path towards reconciliation after Locarno. This does not make Nazi actions in any way more justifiable... > a great casus belli The world thankfully does not work like a Paradox grand strategy game...
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    France required Germany to pay for all the destruction that Germany caused by first invading France in WW1. France and Poland knew Germany was a belligerent nation, and in 1921 signed a mutual defense pact. Germany knew this and invaded Poland, knowing France would attempt to defend Poland.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      To be fair the allies also did this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany They maintained the blockade for almost a year after the armistice (just in case..). A hundred thousand died in the famine and a generation of children suffered severe malnutrition. Now maintaining the blockade during the war was understandable but maintaining it after the fighting was over just to get better terms? Well that’s something many people would find hard to forgive.. > France and Poland knew Germany was a belligerent nation, and in 1921 No it had much more to do with the Polish-Soviet war than with Germany. The Soviets were seen (and rightly so) as a much bigger threat to Eastern and Central Europe than Germany in the 20s

lisasays 3y ago

The geopolitics are incredibly complicated Not really - it's quite straightforward, actually and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. Such as?

ffgjgf1 3y ago

> why it's funny to see people view the war Why? I mean you have a point about geopolitics. But it’s still about as stupid as someone saying the exact same words about Poland 1939.. You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression . That should make it pretty straightforward, no? > a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. the overall goals and interests of all sides seem to be pretty transparent to be fair

hutzlibu 3y ago
"You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression ." Yes, one that was raised by the KGB, and his work possible consisting of coordinating left wing terrorists in the west. "That should make it pretty straightforward, no?" Sadly no. Because his character and the general political ideas and red lines of the russian establishment were known. Ukraine was russias sphere of interest/domain. So the west going into ukraine, helping with the coup and promising them EU and NATO, while knowing that russia can never accept it - was a clear path to war from the beginning. Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? Doubtful. One of the unwritten laws. The geopolitical realities are, that it was known that going into ukraine would likely lead to some war. Which is why most of the world considers this war a proxy war between Nato russia. And it partly is. But yes, it is also a war for independence of a small nation against an evil empire. But the empires in the west seldom care about the actual people on the grounds. They care for their interests. And currently ukraines and Natos interests are mostly aligned, which is why they get support. If china suddenly becomes a bigger problem and now there would be a need to play Putin against them - then Ukraine would be on their own very quickly. It is already starting now, with the west medias more and more implying that it was indeed Ukraine that blow up north stream. Whether they did it, or not: this is a way of showing them, they can change the narrative in the west quite quickly. War is dirty. And also Ukraine has lots of dirt on their hands now. Showing some of that dirt will make the public change opinion. This is geopolitics in action.
- redmorphium 3y ago
  > Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? Doubtful. One of the unwritten laws. Exactly. The Ukraine situation would be tantamount to Canada or Mexico entering into a military alliance with Iran -- not acceptable and a direct cause of war.

_kbh_ 3y ago

> This is why it's funny to see people view the war in Ukraine as a "good guy vs bad guy". The geopolitics are incredibly complicated and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. This war is as clear as WW2 if you don’t see that then I don’t know what to say, it’s plain as day to most people.

mantas 3y ago
Talking about WW2, a lot of people still think Soviets were the good guys. Forgetting how nazis and soviets split eastern europe. And later soviets forgot to leave.
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  And that's clear to everyone nowadays. You really see anyone disputing that?
  - cbHXBY1D 3y ago
    I will dispute that. Double genocide theory is a debunked right wing nationalist myth, sorry. [1] I'm not saying they were saints but they were on the same moral plane of the Allies, wishing to set up buffer states instead of absorbing them fully into the USSR. Political repression was a real issue in the eastern bloc countries but it's no where near as bad as what the US, France, or UK did in the post war period with their colonies, segregation, bombings, or coups. [1] https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
    - mantas 3y ago
      Soviets did absorb plenty of buffer countries fully into USSR. Along with massacring a lot of people and/or sending them to gulags. You’re thinking about USSR of 1980s when political repression and some hair cutting was the main issue. But USSR up to mid 1950s was a tad more evil to say the least. And „debunking double genocide theory“ is fighting a strawman. Let’s talk how USSR started WW2 along with Nazis. Let’s talk Katyn or Rainiai. Let’s talk gulags. Stalin’s purges. Early USSR social reforms and consequences.