4 ms·

> ... you invaded and are currently genociding citizens of a sovereign country. FYI: I am not Russian, don’t have any Russian family ties or ancestry or whatev

by wsc981 3y ago

> ... you invaded and are currently genociding citizens of a sovereign country. FYI: I am not Russian, don’t have any Russian family ties or ancestry or whatever. Born in The Netherlands and perhaps the earliest ancestors I know of were likely French Huguenots [0] that emigrated to The Netherlands to flee persecution in France. With that said I’d like to think of myself as having a balanced view on the conflict. ——— [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots

Aeolun 3y ago
> The west carries a big part of the blame I think the moment you say this you kind of lose the ability to say that you have a balanced view of the conflict. The west is often to blame (e.g. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Israel), but this is one of the few instances in which the west didn’t instigate anything. Pre-war Russia was a hair away (one different president) from being accepted by the international community.
- wsc981 3y ago
  > I think the moment you say this you kind of lose the ability to say that you have a balanced view of the conflict. This Ukraine / Russia conflict could have been avoided. NATO could have respected Russia’s views towards expanding to the east. USA has been warned time and time again this would cause a conflict at this point. Even USA state officials [0] warned against it. Yet NATO decided to ignore all warnings and keep expanding eastward until it became too close for comfort to the Russians. In a way quite similar to the Cuban missile crisis. ——— [0]: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w...
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > This Ukraine / Russia conflict could have been avoided. NATO could have respected Russia’s views towards expanding to the east. If Russia cared about this so much they could have either formalised there views and asked for an international agreement. Or joined NATO itself, they did neither.
  - questinthrow 3y ago
    What about Georgia and Chechenya, where was the NATO expansion there? Why did Russia invade them? What about Finland, why didn't Russia invade them when they decided to enter NATO? If this entire war is about stopping NATO expansion?
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    I disagree. Russia has been where it is all the time, and it’s been able to reach all of continental Europe with it’s missiles for the past half century. NATO has been able to do the same thing in reverse for decades. Sharing a land border is just a formality. Besides, we were kinda at the point where nobody really wanted to invade Russia to stop them from doing anything. Besides, say Ukraine joined NATO, how is the effect different from Russia taking over Ukraine. We’ll end up with a shared land border. Obviously it’d be preferred by Russia that they occupy the place, but the war was a non-starter from the beginning. The end result is exactly the opposite from what I expect Russia was hoping to achieve (unless Putin’s aim was to make Russia a second North Korea). Ukraine has never been closer to NATO, and Russia never more reviled.
- brabel 3y ago
  But this view is shared by some of the most renowned geopolitical analysts in the USA. It's not popular in the mass media, but it is absolutely not a view that should discredit anyone, unless you believe you and the media are qualified to say John Mearsheimer[1] does not have a balanced view of the conflict, while you, with all your background knowledge about Ukraine and Russian relations, do. His arguments are easy to read if you're at all interested in different views: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t... Here's a very good article that criticizes his views: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/09/tragedy-john-mearsheimer https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/09/tragedy-john-mear... > Stephen Kotkin, the preeminent historian of the Soviet Union, and Michael McFaul, the US ambassador to Russia between 2012 and 2014, acknowledged that Mearsheimer was “a giant of a scholar” and “one the clearest, most logical realist theorists out there”, but he was wrong to blame the US for Putin’s invasion. Some of his statements in this article: "International politics is a tragedy – it always has been, it is today, and it always will be. Those who believe that you can escape the iron cage, and transcend this Hobbesian world, are delusional. My argument disturbs liberals greatly.” “The tragedy ... is that you could have two states who are content with the status quo and have no interest in fighting or competing for power. Nevertheless, because they cannot know each other’s intentions, and because they operate in an anarchic system, they have to assume the worst about each other and have to compete for power." Even if you disagree with some of his arguments, I would think anyone with a rationale view of the subject will agree that there's at least some truth to it, and that the Russian government is not completely mad for thinking in those terms, as the West seems to so strongly believe in general (notice how governments always paint a picture of the "enemy" as being a mad, senseless thug - this is nothing new). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
hoc 3y ago
Well, you have not. You doing the propaganda work for a regime that tells their people that they were fighting "the Nazi regime in Kiev" to ensure their loyalty. My ancestors were also (if you don't just plainly lie about that fact, too) Huguenots and they would have not wanted you to cite them in this context after the had to leave their country not unlike millions of Ukrainian people have to right now. So, wherever you lost that insight, I'd recommend to pick it up again and recognize the irony in you propagating the Kremlin's world view.

by wsc981 3y ago

Aeolun 3y ago

> The west carries a big part of the blame I think the moment you say this you kind of lose the ability to say that you have a balanced view of the conflict. The west is often to blame (e.g. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Israel), but this is one of the few instances in which the west didn’t instigate anything. Pre-war Russia was a hair away (one different president) from being accepted by the international community.

wsc981 3y ago
> I think the moment you say this you kind of lose the ability to say that you have a balanced view of the conflict. This Ukraine / Russia conflict could have been avoided. NATO could have respected Russia’s views towards expanding to the east. USA has been warned time and time again this would cause a conflict at this point. Even USA state officials [0] warned against it. Yet NATO decided to ignore all warnings and keep expanding eastward until it became too close for comfort to the Russians. In a way quite similar to the Cuban missile crisis. ——— [0]: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w...
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > This Ukraine / Russia conflict could have been avoided. NATO could have respected Russia’s views towards expanding to the east. If Russia cared about this so much they could have either formalised there views and asked for an international agreement. Or joined NATO itself, they did neither.
- questinthrow 3y ago
  What about Georgia and Chechenya, where was the NATO expansion there? Why did Russia invade them? What about Finland, why didn't Russia invade them when they decided to enter NATO? If this entire war is about stopping NATO expansion?
- Aeolun 3y ago
  I disagree. Russia has been where it is all the time, and it’s been able to reach all of continental Europe with it’s missiles for the past half century. NATO has been able to do the same thing in reverse for decades. Sharing a land border is just a formality. Besides, we were kinda at the point where nobody really wanted to invade Russia to stop them from doing anything. Besides, say Ukraine joined NATO, how is the effect different from Russia taking over Ukraine. We’ll end up with a shared land border. Obviously it’d be preferred by Russia that they occupy the place, but the war was a non-starter from the beginning. The end result is exactly the opposite from what I expect Russia was hoping to achieve (unless Putin’s aim was to make Russia a second North Korea). Ukraine has never been closer to NATO, and Russia never more reviled.
brabel 3y ago
But this view is shared by some of the most renowned geopolitical analysts in the USA. It's not popular in the mass media, but it is absolutely not a view that should discredit anyone, unless you believe you and the media are qualified to say John Mearsheimer[1] does not have a balanced view of the conflict, while you, with all your background knowledge about Ukraine and Russian relations, do. His arguments are easy to read if you're at all interested in different views: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t... Here's a very good article that criticizes his views: https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/09/tragedy-john-mearsheimer https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/09/tragedy-john-mear... > Stephen Kotkin, the preeminent historian of the Soviet Union, and Michael McFaul, the US ambassador to Russia between 2012 and 2014, acknowledged that Mearsheimer was “a giant of a scholar” and “one the clearest, most logical realist theorists out there”, but he was wrong to blame the US for Putin’s invasion. Some of his statements in this article: "International politics is a tragedy – it always has been, it is today, and it always will be. Those who believe that you can escape the iron cage, and transcend this Hobbesian world, are delusional. My argument disturbs liberals greatly.” “The tragedy ... is that you could have two states who are content with the status quo and have no interest in fighting or competing for power. Nevertheless, because they cannot know each other’s intentions, and because they operate in an anarchic system, they have to assume the worst about each other and have to compete for power." Even if you disagree with some of his arguments, I would think anyone with a rationale view of the subject will agree that there's at least some truth to it, and that the Russian government is not completely mad for thinking in those terms, as the West seems to so strongly believe in general (notice how governments always paint a picture of the "enemy" as being a mad, senseless thug - this is nothing new). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

hoc 3y ago

Well, you have not. You doing the propaganda work for a regime that tells their people that they were fighting "the Nazi regime in Kiev" to ensure their loyalty. My ancestors were also (if you don't just plainly lie about that fact, too) Huguenots and they would have not wanted you to cite them in this context after the had to leave their country not unlike millions of Ukrainian people have to right now. So, wherever you lost that insight, I'd recommend to pick it up again and recognize the irony in you propagating the Kremlin's world view.