5 ms·

Russian security interests lie: https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2mb0c/the_russian_security_concerns_lie/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDe

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
      > They already had it. And they gave up on it voluntarily You can't say they they gave up eastern Europe voluntarily when they didn't have a choice. They could handle a revolution in a single Warsaw pact country not in all of them at the same time and especially not at a time when the internal situation in the USSR itself was quite precarious. > made a bad deal What deal? There was a no deal involving entire Eastern Europe (how could there be?). What they did sign was the Budapest Memorandum which only affected Ukraine, Belarus & Kazakhstan. And they broke every single point of that treaty, except the one prohibiting the usage of nuclear weapons against any of these countries. In contrast the other signatories (US and UK) did not violate a single one.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        First, russia is not a monolithic coherent group. "And they broke every single point of that treaty, except the one prohibiting the usage of nuclear weapons against any of these countries" Second, much later. Third, there were russian troops all over east europe. Lots of them. (I remember) They could have smashed any uprising - but they choose not to. They choose democracy at that time. And it did not pay off for them, which is why they are back to authoritian. But there was a time when they were open for change. In my opinion, the west blew it.
        qwytw 3y ago
        > They could have smashed any uprising - but they choose not to. Doubtful, unless you're talking about the soldiers choosing not to. The coup attempt in 1991 proved that the army in general had no interest in propping up the failing communist regime. Even if they wanted to they failed to defeat Chechnya a couple years later despite it being smaller several than east Europe by several magnitudes. > But there was a time when they were open for change. In my opinion, the west blew it. Well most of Eastern Europe ended up doing just fine despite most of the 90s being a disaster there just like in Russia. So it seems like Russia actually blew it themselves (and well to be fair Ukraine and Belarus too). > First, russia is not a monolithic coherent group. Well I'm sorry but you're the one who keeps saying "they" and that "Russia wanted X" which implies that they are a single monolithic coherent group (then again one might argue whether that's really the case in Russia currently).
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  "I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!" -- Russia Explain what "smarter politics" means in such a context.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    For starters: - not eroding and breaking international law by invading Iraq, setting a precedent cited by Putin - not signing the Den Hague invasion act - not getting involved in various "revolutions" in the east, like Ukraine - not targeting all russian people with sanctions after 2014, but only those in charge You know, in general leading by good example. If we want a international law forbidding countries to invade each other - it only works if the law applies to everyone. This I would consider smart politics.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - whatsu 3y ago
        I don't think it is comparable, the invasion of Iraq was way worse.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > I don't think it is comparable, the invasion of Iraq was way worse. You think the invasion of Iraq was worse than the rape and torture of civilians, including women and children? And the summary execution of all civilians aged 16 and above?. Are you okay? or just unaware of whats going on in Ukraine?.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        Well, my original point was the legal precedent. Invading another country without the need for self defense. (Or were there any indications, that Iraq was about to attack the US at all?) So at no point I said it is the same. But if you want actual official numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War 200 000 dead Iraq civilians vs 9 000 in Ukraine And regarding torture and rape, you might have missed Abu Ghraib and similar institutions? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_priso...

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
    > They already had it. And they gave up on it voluntarily You can't say they they gave up eastern Europe voluntarily when they didn't have a choice. They could handle a revolution in a single Warsaw pact country not in all of them at the same time and especially not at a time when the internal situation in the USSR itself was quite precarious. > made a bad deal What deal? There was a no deal involving entire Eastern Europe (how could there be?). What they did sign was the Budapest Memorandum which only affected Ukraine, Belarus & Kazakhstan. And they broke every single point of that treaty, except the one prohibiting the usage of nuclear weapons against any of these countries. In contrast the other signatories (US and UK) did not violate a single one.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      First, russia is not a monolithic coherent group. "And they broke every single point of that treaty, except the one prohibiting the usage of nuclear weapons against any of these countries" Second, much later. Third, there were russian troops all over east europe. Lots of them. (I remember) They could have smashed any uprising - but they choose not to. They choose democracy at that time. And it did not pay off for them, which is why they are back to authoritian. But there was a time when they were open for change. In my opinion, the west blew it.
      - qwytw 3y ago
        > They could have smashed any uprising - but they choose not to. Doubtful, unless you're talking about the soldiers choosing not to. The coup attempt in 1991 proved that the army in general had no interest in propping up the failing communist regime. Even if they wanted to they failed to defeat Chechnya a couple years later despite it being smaller several than east Europe by several magnitudes. > But there was a time when they were open for change. In my opinion, the west blew it. Well most of Eastern Europe ended up doing just fine despite most of the 90s being a disaster there just like in Russia. So it seems like Russia actually blew it themselves (and well to be fair Ukraine and Belarus too). > First, russia is not a monolithic coherent group. Well I'm sorry but you're the one who keeps saying "they" and that "Russia wanted X" which implies that they are a single monolithic coherent group (then again one might argue whether that's really the case in Russia currently).
CamperBob2 3y ago
"I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!" -- Russia Explain what "smarter politics" means in such a context.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  For starters: - not eroding and breaking international law by invading Iraq, setting a precedent cited by Putin - not signing the Den Hague invasion act - not getting involved in various "revolutions" in the east, like Ukraine - not targeting all russian people with sanctions after 2014, but only those in charge You know, in general leading by good example. If we want a international law forbidding countries to invade each other - it only works if the law applies to everyone. This I would consider smart politics.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - whatsu 3y ago
      I don't think it is comparable, the invasion of Iraq was way worse.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > I don't think it is comparable, the invasion of Iraq was way worse. You think the invasion of Iraq was worse than the rape and torture of civilians, including women and children? And the summary execution of all civilians aged 16 and above?. Are you okay? or just unaware of whats going on in Ukraine?.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        Well, my original point was the legal precedent. Invading another country without the need for self defense. (Or were there any indications, that Iraq was about to attack the US at all?) So at no point I said it is the same. But if you want actual official numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War 200 000 dead Iraq civilians vs 9 000 in Ukraine And regarding torture and rape, you might have missed Abu Ghraib and similar institutions? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_priso...