3 ms·

> I think his message of peace and diplomacy over endless interventionist wars and healing the divide are gaining traction. It's the right message at the wrong

> I think his message of peace and diplomacy over endless interventionist wars and healing the divide are gaining traction. It's the right message at the wrong time. It sure sounds noble, "peace". But as an ally to a defending party, it essentially means leaving Ukraine to fend for themselves against Russia's invasion - which would actually be expanding the war. I've made many attempts at following these arguments that Russia is somehow a reluctant party here, and they just never add up. They're always full of assertions hyperlinked to supporting posts that don't actually check out as being true. (But if you don't dig, I can see how they would be persuasive) And just for reference, I was against the Iraq War even before the invasion. I routinely call the US an "empire". I've been generally against the casual US meddling in various foreign countries that is now characterized as the "forever war". But I also understand that it's fallacious to focus on the US as the only possible aggressor, and this situation seems like a straightforward case of Ukraine wanting to avoid being re-subjugated by the Russian empire by choosing to align with the looser business empire of the West. If anything, all of these narratives against helping Ukraine by echoing criticisms of the Iraq War just feel like more terrible consequences of that misadventure. I am all for peace and ending the war in Ukraine. But this is not an American political issue, but rather a Russian one.

lowkey 3y ago
"It's the right message at the wrong time." I respect your position but I firmly disagree. This war was never about saving Ukraine. It is and has always been a proxy war between two super-powers - primarily focused on weakening Russia and seeking regime change. [0] The US and NATO provide arms and funding while the young men of Ukraine are being killed at a rate of 7-1 vs Russia, with nothing to show for it but 300k dead Ukrainian young men. "I am all for peace and ending the war in Ukraine. But this is not an American political issue, but rather a Russian one." I am also for peace and ending the war in Ukraine - and I don't excuse the inexcusable actions of Putin. However, we need to get past the comic book depictions of US/NATO = Good, Russia = evil, and look at the world from the perspective of our opponent if we are ever to end the vicious cycle of endless wars. Russia repeatedly made it clear that bringing Ukraine into NATO was a red-line. Putting nuclear-capable US stinger missiles on Russia's border, 400 miles from Moscow able to decapitate their leadership in minutes was always a non-starter. It doesn't excuse Putin's invasion, but it does explain it somewhat. Imagine if Russia had nuclear capable missiles on the US border, say in Canada or Mexico. We would invade in a second. There are no good guys in war, only lies and propaganda from both sides. I want to see an end to the bloodshed and that requires us to seek peace over escalation. The only winners in war are those who make the guns and bombs. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/18/russia-ukraine-war-us-involvement-leaked-documents/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/18/... https://archive.is/0pGKh https://archive.is/0pGKh
- mindslight 3y ago
  The definition of "proxy war" hinges upon being instigated by another party. Every narrative I've seen about Russia being some reluctant participant is full of holes or based on innuendo. If missiles were the problem, then why not attack those military assets and leave it at that? Having lost so much influence with your neighbor that they're cozying up to another sphere of influence to protect themselves still doesn't create a justification to conquer them, regardless of whether you call yourself a super/great power or not. Without the US instigating the war, heavy support (including intelligence sharing anyone with half a clue knew was going on) still does not constitute a proxy war. Like many narratives, "proxy war" falls apart under scrutiny. But it does sound edgy and contrarian if you don't examine it too closely. I do agree that there are some terrible realpolitik incentives here. The US isn't doing this solely for freedom and democracy, just like it wasn't in Iraq, regardless of the advertising for both. But that doesn't mean that Ukraine itself cannot be benefiting. Based on experiences of people who fled the previous Russian ("Soviet") empire, I can certainly see why they would choose this despite the cost. > seek peace over escalation This is the complete wrong framing for the defensive side of a war. Deescalating defense means that Russia will escalate attacks. I too had been lured by the hope that military might was becoming less relevant. But now Russia's actions have demonstrated that the peace we had (and still have, for the most part) is a product of military might.
  - lowkey 3y ago
    The first casualty in war is the truth - and this applies to both sides. I don't expect to convince you that you may have been mislead about the origins of this war, but I will nonetheless try. The war didn't start in 2019, or even 2014, but in 2014 the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, was recorded plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected leadership of Ukraine and deciding who would replace him as was reported by the BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, NPR and NBC. [0][1][2][3] Before you respond with a counter-claim that Russia did something bad first thus justifiying the coup, I will concede that they may very well have done so, but this only proves my point that this is nothing more than an ongoing proxy war between these super-powers that has now gone from covert to kinetic. I fail to see how anyone can claim this is anything but a proxy war. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-audio-reveals-embarrassing-u-s-exchange-on-ukraine-eu-idUKBREA151VA20140207 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-a... https://archive.is/EMGcA https://archive.is/EMGcA [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-purported-recording-of-us-diplomat-blunt-talk-on-ukraine/2014/02/06/518240a4-8f4b-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-pu... https://archive.is/WFmZJ https://archive.is/WFmZJ [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/video/audio-of-leaked-nuland-conversation-162208835907 https://www.nbcnews.com/video/audio-of-leaked-nuland-convers...

lowkey 3y ago

"It's the right message at the wrong time." I respect your position but I firmly disagree. This war was never about saving Ukraine. It is and has always been a proxy war between two super-powers - primarily focused on weakening Russia and seeking regime change. [0] The US and NATO provide arms and funding while the young men of Ukraine are being killed at a rate of 7-1 vs Russia, with nothing to show for it but 300k dead Ukrainian young men. "I am all for peace and ending the war in Ukraine. But this is not an American political issue, but rather a Russian one." I am also for peace and ending the war in Ukraine - and I don't excuse the inexcusable actions of Putin. However, we need to get past the comic book depictions of US/NATO = Good, Russia = evil, and look at the world from the perspective of our opponent if we are ever to end the vicious cycle of endless wars. Russia repeatedly made it clear that bringing Ukraine into NATO was a red-line. Putting nuclear-capable US stinger missiles on Russia's border, 400 miles from Moscow able to decapitate their leadership in minutes was always a non-starter. It doesn't excuse Putin's invasion, but it does explain it somewhat. Imagine if Russia had nuclear capable missiles on the US border, say in Canada or Mexico. We would invade in a second. There are no good guys in war, only lies and propaganda from both sides. I want to see an end to the bloodshed and that requires us to seek peace over escalation. The only winners in war are those who make the guns and bombs. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/18/russia-ukraine-war-us-involvement-leaked-documents/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/04/18/... https://archive.is/0pGKh https://archive.is/0pGKh

mindslight 3y ago
The definition of "proxy war" hinges upon being instigated by another party. Every narrative I've seen about Russia being some reluctant participant is full of holes or based on innuendo. If missiles were the problem, then why not attack those military assets and leave it at that? Having lost so much influence with your neighbor that they're cozying up to another sphere of influence to protect themselves still doesn't create a justification to conquer them, regardless of whether you call yourself a super/great power or not. Without the US instigating the war, heavy support (including intelligence sharing anyone with half a clue knew was going on) still does not constitute a proxy war. Like many narratives, "proxy war" falls apart under scrutiny. But it does sound edgy and contrarian if you don't examine it too closely. I do agree that there are some terrible realpolitik incentives here. The US isn't doing this solely for freedom and democracy, just like it wasn't in Iraq, regardless of the advertising for both. But that doesn't mean that Ukraine itself cannot be benefiting. Based on experiences of people who fled the previous Russian ("Soviet") empire, I can certainly see why they would choose this despite the cost. > seek peace over escalation This is the complete wrong framing for the defensive side of a war. Deescalating defense means that Russia will escalate attacks. I too had been lured by the hope that military might was becoming less relevant. But now Russia's actions have demonstrated that the peace we had (and still have, for the most part) is a product of military might.
- lowkey 3y ago
  The first casualty in war is the truth - and this applies to both sides. I don't expect to convince you that you may have been mislead about the origins of this war, but I will nonetheless try. The war didn't start in 2019, or even 2014, but in 2014 the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, was recorded plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected leadership of Ukraine and deciding who would replace him as was reported by the BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, NPR and NBC. [0][1][2][3] Before you respond with a counter-claim that Russia did something bad first thus justifiying the coup, I will concede that they may very well have done so, but this only proves my point that this is nothing more than an ongoing proxy war between these super-powers that has now gone from covert to kinetic. I fail to see how anyone can claim this is anything but a proxy war. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-audio-reveals-embarrassing-u-s-exchange-on-ukraine-eu-idUKBREA151VA20140207 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-a... https://archive.is/EMGcA https://archive.is/EMGcA [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-purported-recording-of-us-diplomat-blunt-talk-on-ukraine/2014/02/06/518240a4-8f4b-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-pu... https://archive.is/WFmZJ https://archive.is/WFmZJ [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/video/audio-of-leaked-nuland-conversation-162208835907 https://www.nbcnews.com/video/audio-of-leaked-nuland-convers...