3 ms·

> Making more lethal and cheaper weapons is one way, sure, but one key goal of a standing military in peacetime is to maintain peace, and that can be achieved i

> Making more lethal and cheaper weapons is one way, sure, but one key goal of a standing military in peacetime is to maintain peace, and that can be achieved in many ways cheaper than that. Looking at an a propos use case, how would this approach have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tastyfreeze 3y ago
It is not the responsibility of the US to prevent an invasion in another country. A country's military is to protect its own borders and citizens and as a last resort after diplomacy fails. US influence in Ukraine in 2014 precipitated the Russian invasion. Leaving Ukraine alone in 2014 may have meant no invasion and no war. Sounds pretty great to me. Assisting Ukraine was a surefire way to start a conflict with Russia. Putin warned an invasion would be the result of NATO expansion. The US ignored the warning and shutdown diplomacy with Russia. This left Russia with no alternative but military force. Our leaders are playing a deadly game where some choices have near certain outcomes. They chose the path to war as they have for 70 years. The peaceful path would have been to leave Ukraine alone and keep talking to Putin.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  > The peaceful path would have been to leave Ukraine alone and keep talking to Putin. Not necessarily leaving it alone, but making it into a buffer state where no superpower would be able to exert more influence than the other. If something like that becomes enshrined in their constitution, the legal framework for keeping the country safe and neutral would be in place and everyone would profit, including Ukrainians. Now that ship has sailed and this became a no-win scenario. Russia will fight to the last Ukrainian for Crimea because it just can't afford losing Sevastopol. Congratulations to all involved.
  - tastyfreeze 3y ago
    > making it into a buffer state where no superpower would be able to exert more influence than the other That is a diplomatic solution that could have been arranged my continuing diplomacy with Russia.
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      And, instead, the US opted to stir up opposition despite the multiple warnings (and, quite obvious indications) that Russia would be prompted to act. Anything like that would require giving Russia a perpetual lease on Sevastopol, as well as assured access to the base. When Ukrainian politicians started floating the idea of not renewing the lease past 2015, there was very little Russia could do but to take what they needed by force, and create an unsustainable situation within Ukraine. This whole thing could have been solved by an e-mail in 2014.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Assisting Ukraine was a surefire way to start a conflict with Russia. Putin warned an invasion would be the result of NATO expansion. The US ignored the warning and shutdown diplomacy with Russia. This left Russia with no alternative but military force. Interesting comment because NATO never accepted Ukraine as a member or even gave them a MAP, hell even Germany promised Putin before he invaded that Ukraine would never be in NATO, that didn’t do anything. The quickly deleted Russian victory article also doesn’t mention NATO at all either. I think it’s far more likely that this has more to do with Russias and more bluntly Putins want to recreate the USSR and imperialism. I mean the Russian victory article does talk about how Ukraines independence was a mistake and how they have corrected that “mistake”.
  - tastyfreeze 3y ago
    A NATO country (US) gave money and weapons to a country that NATO agreed to not allow into NATO. To the country on the otherwise of that agreement (Russia) that sure looks like the start of expansion. Then the US doubled down. From 2014 to 2022, the United States has committed more than $46 billion in security assistance “to help Ukraine preserve its territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve interoperability with NATO,”, according to the State Department.[1] The US signed a treaty saying it wouldn't add Ukraine to NATO. Then supports UKraine with the stated goal of "interoperability" with NATO. The US did all but sign a treaty making it official. After Russia invaded in 2022 the US told Ukraine to not negotiate peace. Every step of the way the choice has been made towards conflict instead of a diplomatic solution. I don't know how you can look at the course of events and come to any other conclusion other than the US wants a proxy war with Russia. No choice by the US has been towards peace. [1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > A NATO country (US) gave money and weapons to a country that NATO agreed to not allow into NATO. To the country on the otherwise of that agreement (Russia) that sure looks like the start of expansion. Your source appears to indicate this started after Russia invaded in 2014. So unless Russians can see into the future I don’t see how that can be the cause. > The US signed a treaty saying it wouldn't add Ukraine to NATO. Then supports UKraine with the stated goal of "interoperability" with NATO. The US did all but sign a treaty making it official. I’ve never seen such a treaty can you link it?. > After Russia invaded in 2022 the US told Ukraine to not negotiate peace. Every step of the way the choice has been made towards conflict instead of a diplomatic solution. I don't know how you can look at the course of events and come to any other conclusion other than the US wants a proxy war with Russia. No choice by the US has been towards peace. I don’t think this is what happened, what I think happened is that when Ukraine recaptured territories (Bucha being the best example) and saw the absolute horrors that the Russians had left behind, they decided there would be no negotiating. I can understand that, I wouldn’t want to negotiate with someone who had committed such heinous crimes against my people either.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> Looking at an a propos use case, how would this approach have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine? "What's going on here is that the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path. And the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked. And I believe that the policy that I'm advocating, which is neutralising Ukraine, and then building it up economically, and getting it out of the competition between Russia on one side, NATO on the other side is the best thing that could happen to the Ukrainians. What we're doing is encouraging the Ukrainians to play tough with the Russians. We're encouraging, the Ukrainians to think that they will ultimately become part of the West, because we will ultimately defeat Putin, and we will ultimately get our way, time is on our side. And of course, the Ukrainians are playing along with this." -- John J. Mearsheimer, 2015

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tastyfreeze 3y ago

It is not the responsibility of the US to prevent an invasion in another country. A country's military is to protect its own borders and citizens and as a last resort after diplomacy fails. US influence in Ukraine in 2014 precipitated the Russian invasion. Leaving Ukraine alone in 2014 may have meant no invasion and no war. Sounds pretty great to me. Assisting Ukraine was a surefire way to start a conflict with Russia. Putin warned an invasion would be the result of NATO expansion. The US ignored the warning and shutdown diplomacy with Russia. This left Russia with no alternative but military force. Our leaders are playing a deadly game where some choices have near certain outcomes. They chose the path to war as they have for 70 years. The peaceful path would have been to leave Ukraine alone and keep talking to Putin.

rbanffy 3y ago
> The peaceful path would have been to leave Ukraine alone and keep talking to Putin. Not necessarily leaving it alone, but making it into a buffer state where no superpower would be able to exert more influence than the other. If something like that becomes enshrined in their constitution, the legal framework for keeping the country safe and neutral would be in place and everyone would profit, including Ukrainians. Now that ship has sailed and this became a no-win scenario. Russia will fight to the last Ukrainian for Crimea because it just can't afford losing Sevastopol. Congratulations to all involved.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  > making it into a buffer state where no superpower would be able to exert more influence than the other That is a diplomatic solution that could have been arranged my continuing diplomacy with Russia.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    And, instead, the US opted to stir up opposition despite the multiple warnings (and, quite obvious indications) that Russia would be prompted to act. Anything like that would require giving Russia a perpetual lease on Sevastopol, as well as assured access to the base. When Ukrainian politicians started floating the idea of not renewing the lease past 2015, there was very little Russia could do but to take what they needed by force, and create an unsustainable situation within Ukraine. This whole thing could have been solved by an e-mail in 2014.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> Assisting Ukraine was a surefire way to start a conflict with Russia. Putin warned an invasion would be the result of NATO expansion. The US ignored the warning and shutdown diplomacy with Russia. This left Russia with no alternative but military force. Interesting comment because NATO never accepted Ukraine as a member or even gave them a MAP, hell even Germany promised Putin before he invaded that Ukraine would never be in NATO, that didn’t do anything. The quickly deleted Russian victory article also doesn’t mention NATO at all either. I think it’s far more likely that this has more to do with Russias and more bluntly Putins want to recreate the USSR and imperialism. I mean the Russian victory article does talk about how Ukraines independence was a mistake and how they have corrected that “mistake”.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  A NATO country (US) gave money and weapons to a country that NATO agreed to not allow into NATO. To the country on the otherwise of that agreement (Russia) that sure looks like the start of expansion. Then the US doubled down. From 2014 to 2022, the United States has committed more than $46 billion in security assistance “to help Ukraine preserve its territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve interoperability with NATO,”, according to the State Department.[1] The US signed a treaty saying it wouldn't add Ukraine to NATO. Then supports UKraine with the stated goal of "interoperability" with NATO. The US did all but sign a treaty making it official. After Russia invaded in 2022 the US told Ukraine to not negotiate peace. Every step of the way the choice has been made towards conflict instead of a diplomatic solution. I don't know how you can look at the course of events and come to any other conclusion other than the US wants a proxy war with Russia. No choice by the US has been towards peace. [1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > A NATO country (US) gave money and weapons to a country that NATO agreed to not allow into NATO. To the country on the otherwise of that agreement (Russia) that sure looks like the start of expansion. Your source appears to indicate this started after Russia invaded in 2014. So unless Russians can see into the future I don’t see how that can be the cause. > The US signed a treaty saying it wouldn't add Ukraine to NATO. Then supports UKraine with the stated goal of "interoperability" with NATO. The US did all but sign a treaty making it official. I’ve never seen such a treaty can you link it?. > After Russia invaded in 2022 the US told Ukraine to not negotiate peace. Every step of the way the choice has been made towards conflict instead of a diplomatic solution. I don't know how you can look at the course of events and come to any other conclusion other than the US wants a proxy war with Russia. No choice by the US has been towards peace. I don’t think this is what happened, what I think happened is that when Ukraine recaptured territories (Bucha being the best example) and saw the absolute horrors that the Russians had left behind, they decided there would be no negotiating. I can understand that, I wouldn’t want to negotiate with someone who had committed such heinous crimes against my people either.

rufus_foreman 3y ago

>> Looking at an a propos use case, how would this approach have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine? "What's going on here is that the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path. And the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked. And I believe that the policy that I'm advocating, which is neutralising Ukraine, and then building it up economically, and getting it out of the competition between Russia on one side, NATO on the other side is the best thing that could happen to the Ukrainians. What we're doing is encouraging the Ukrainians to play tough with the Russians. We're encouraging, the Ukrainians to think that they will ultimately become part of the West, because we will ultimately defeat Putin, and we will ultimately get our way, time is on our side. And of course, the Ukrainians are playing along with this." -- John J. Mearsheimer, 2015