9 ms·

> 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 wor

> 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
    > 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. How is it any different to Finland joining NATO? (which they just did).
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      The difference is the shared history and language. (also true for border regions with finnland, but way less overall as finnish is a different language family) Russian nationalism consideres Kiev the root of the russian culture (but they might change that narrative soon). Also, they are really not happy about it.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > The difference is the shared history and language. I don't think a language matters with a war with NATO. > Also, they are really not happy about it. Yet there is no war, shows you that NATO really works as a deterrence to Russia and that it had nothing to do with Ukraine being close to Russia and in NATO.
      - RealityVoid 3y ago
        Yes but then this very statement directly contradicts the "realpolitik" as pect so loudly touted earlier. It's not about pragmatism, it's a sort of nationalistic fervor!
      - qwytw 3y ago
        > Also, they are really not happy about it. I think they are just inherently unhappy and miserable because they are Russians living in Russia.
- HellDunkel 3y ago
  I tried to figure out if this reasoning is plausible by reading a few history books on the subject predating 2021- just to be sure i would not be sucked into group think. Turns out ALL historians tend to disagree heavily (Kappeler, Applebaum, Plokhy.. Checked on their national background too) Problem with these self proclaimed realists you are referring to is they dont have any solutions, never had (see 1993), have been wrong in the past, continue to be so… most reasonable among them is Kissinger, and even he is very much on the moderate side. It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Historians disagree on what exactly? That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? "It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson" And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.
    - chrysler 3y ago
      >> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine. Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23/these-maps-show-how-russia-has-europe-spooked/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23...
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know. And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was something like "fuck the EU". I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer living by western standards (and I was born in the east). So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine wants to go pro west. If I would not have little children I seriously would have considered going to the war as a volunteer. So much for context of "people like me" But that doesn't change one thing how the US plays this geopolitics game. Or our governments, sure. They are not better, just weaker.
- RealityVoid 3y ago
  Russian security interests lie: https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the_russian_security_concerns_lie/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the... I feel people bringing realpolitik into this fail to see the not-so-real politik of what happens when national sentiment is misaligned with their interest. It's all a sham anyway, as if smaller countries are not worthy of self determination and are just at the whims of great powers. And a nauseous point of view. And it's a moot point as well, considering that Russia is no longer a great power. Russia can barely keep itself together at the moment.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "Russia can barely keep itself together at the moment." Which is the reason why they started the war in the first place. They feel cornered. And a smarter politics by the west, would not have pushed them so much. But I am all for self determination of even the smallest states. But I do not really see this as the goal or applied politics of the US, nor EU, nor obviously russia. It can happen as a side product, like when the kurds were supported, when it fit the greater game and dropped when that changed. And now Ukraine is important and get supported and tomorrow that can change again. The determining factors are likely not idealism.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > They feel cornered They put themselves in that corner. > And a smarter politics by the west, Like allowing Russia to take half of eastern Europe. If anything Europe was way to soft with Russia, they should started moving away from their over reliance on Russian gas in the early 2000s.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        "Like allowing Russia to take half of eastern Europe." They already had it. And they gave up on it voluntarily. But they think they made a bad deal as it was simply considered a sign of weakness by certain hawks. So now they try the hard way again. (obviously oversimplification, but the topic is full of it anyway)
- qwytw 3y ago
  So you believe that the Ukrainian people are fundamentally incapable of making their own decisions. Clearly it was a very divided country with multiple swings back and forth without the assistance of NATO/EU/US. How was 2014 that different from 2004? > Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? US and China are global superpowers. Without the nukes Russia is a regional power at best. > But the empires What empires? Why do you think US cares about Ukraine that much, prior to 2014 it was a sideshow at best. They'd prefer to focus on the Pacific/China but Russia doesen't let them. > If china suddenly becomes a bigger problem and now there would be a need to play Putin against them How does that make any sense? Why would Russia side with US/EU if China hypothetically invaded Taiwan? Makes no sense... > implying that it was indeed Ukraine that blow up north stream Where do you get these things? > they can change the narrative in the west quite quickly Who is "they"? The illuminati? Lizard people?
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "But yes, it is also a war for independence of a small nation against an evil empire. " This is what I wrote. So I do not see, how you come to that conclusion: "So you believe that the Ukrainian people are fundamentally incapable of making their own decisions. "
refurb 3y ago
That should make it pretty straightforward, no? It's a simplistic viewpoint that misses a lot of factors. You can't really understand the conflict, where it might go and how it might end if you don't under the history of the region, what drives each state, and what their aims are. It's like saying "iPhone sells well because it's a better phone". That's true, but tells you nothing.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > It's a simplistic viewpoint that misses a lot of factors. Sure let’s say so, please enlighten us… > where it might go and how it might You’re implying that Russia was planning to be in this position it ended up in all along. That didn’t massively miscalculate it’s ability to quickly defeat Ukraine with a decapitating strike? > end if you don't under the history of the region I do. > It's like saying "iPhone sells well because it's a better phone". That's true, but tells you nothing. Fantastic analogy. Really makes you think..

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
  > 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. How is it any different to Finland joining NATO? (which they just did).
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    The difference is the shared history and language. (also true for border regions with finnland, but way less overall as finnish is a different language family) Russian nationalism consideres Kiev the root of the russian culture (but they might change that narrative soon). Also, they are really not happy about it.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > The difference is the shared history and language. I don't think a language matters with a war with NATO. > Also, they are really not happy about it. Yet there is no war, shows you that NATO really works as a deterrence to Russia and that it had nothing to do with Ukraine being close to Russia and in NATO.
    - RealityVoid 3y ago
      Yes but then this very statement directly contradicts the "realpolitik" as pect so loudly touted earlier. It's not about pragmatism, it's a sort of nationalistic fervor!
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > Also, they are really not happy about it. I think they are just inherently unhappy and miserable because they are Russians living in Russia.
HellDunkel 3y ago
I tried to figure out if this reasoning is plausible by reading a few history books on the subject predating 2021- just to be sure i would not be sucked into group think. Turns out ALL historians tend to disagree heavily (Kappeler, Applebaum, Plokhy.. Checked on their national background too) Problem with these self proclaimed realists you are referring to is they dont have any solutions, never had (see 1993), have been wrong in the past, continue to be so… most reasonable among them is Kissinger, and even he is very much on the moderate side. It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Historians disagree on what exactly? That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? "It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson" And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.
  - chrysler 3y ago
    >> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine. Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23/these-maps-show-how-russia-has-europe-spooked/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23...
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      I happen to live in europe, so I am quite aware of our situation. But europe is not the US, as far as I know. And the US diplomatic stance towards EU inofficially was something like "fuck the EU". I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step. Which is in general very fine by me, as I do prefer living by western standards (and I was born in the east). So I certainly would not stand in the way, if Ukraine wants to go pro west. If I would not have little children I seriously would have considered going to the war as a volunteer. So much for context of "people like me" But that doesn't change one thing how the US plays this geopolitics game. Or our governments, sure. They are not better, just weaker.
RealityVoid 3y ago
Russian security interests lie: https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the_russian_security_concerns_lie/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the... I feel people bringing realpolitik into this fail to see the not-so-real politik of what happens when national sentiment is misaligned with their interest. It's all a sham anyway, as if smaller countries are not worthy of self determination and are just at the whims of great powers. And a nauseous point of view. And it's a moot point as well, considering that Russia is no longer a great power. Russia can barely keep itself together at the moment.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "Russia can barely keep itself together at the moment." Which is the reason why they started the war in the first place. They feel cornered. And a smarter politics by the west, would not have pushed them so much. But I am all for self determination of even the smallest states. But I do not really see this as the goal or applied politics of the US, nor EU, nor obviously russia. It can happen as a side product, like when the kurds were supported, when it fit the greater game and dropped when that changed. And now Ukraine is important and get supported and tomorrow that can change again. The determining factors are likely not idealism.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > They feel cornered They put themselves in that corner. > And a smarter politics by the west, Like allowing Russia to take half of eastern Europe. If anything Europe was way to soft with Russia, they should started moving away from their over reliance on Russian gas in the early 2000s.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "Like allowing Russia to take half of eastern Europe." They already had it. And they gave up on it voluntarily. But they think they made a bad deal as it was simply considered a sign of weakness by certain hawks. So now they try the hard way again. (obviously oversimplification, but the topic is full of it anyway)
qwytw 3y ago
So you believe that the Ukrainian people are fundamentally incapable of making their own decisions. Clearly it was a very divided country with multiple swings back and forth without the assistance of NATO/EU/US. How was 2014 that different from 2004? > Would the US tolerate mexico become a china military ally? US and China are global superpowers. Without the nukes Russia is a regional power at best. > But the empires What empires? Why do you think US cares about Ukraine that much, prior to 2014 it was a sideshow at best. They'd prefer to focus on the Pacific/China but Russia doesen't let them. > If china suddenly becomes a bigger problem and now there would be a need to play Putin against them How does that make any sense? Why would Russia side with US/EU if China hypothetically invaded Taiwan? Makes no sense... > implying that it was indeed Ukraine that blow up north stream Where do you get these things? > they can change the narrative in the west quite quickly Who is "they"? The illuminati? Lizard people?
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "But yes, it is also a war for independence of a small nation against an evil empire. " This is what I wrote. So I do not see, how you come to that conclusion: "So you believe that the Ukrainian people are fundamentally incapable of making their own decisions. "

refurb 3y ago

That should make it pretty straightforward, no? It's a simplistic viewpoint that misses a lot of factors. You can't really understand the conflict, where it might go and how it might end if you don't under the history of the region, what drives each state, and what their aims are. It's like saying "iPhone sells well because it's a better phone". That's true, but tells you nothing.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
> It's a simplistic viewpoint that misses a lot of factors. Sure let’s say so, please enlighten us… > where it might go and how it might You’re implying that Russia was planning to be in this position it ended up in all along. That didn’t massively miscalculate it’s ability to quickly defeat Ukraine with a decapitating strike? > end if you don't under the history of the region I do. > It's like saying "iPhone sells well because it's a better phone". That's true, but tells you nothing. Fantastic analogy. Really makes you think..