7 ms·

How exactly is providing support for the defence of a country being invaded by another “escalating hostilities”?

s1artibartfast 3y ago
not sure how to answer that. Funding Ukraine and giving them weapons is obviously more hostile position towards Russia than just about every other option besides going to war.
- lovich 3y ago
  You’re going to have lay out a strong argument here if you want anyone to believe that ignoring the situation would lead to less hostility. We ignored russias land grabs Georgia which was followed up by Crimea being taken. We ignored that and it was followed up by a full scale invasion into Ukraine. The idea that we are at fault for the hostility here and, separately, that we should have stayed out of it is ridiculous
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I dont think you understand what I am saying. I am talking about US-Russian relations and hostilities between US and Russia.
    - lovich 3y ago
      If we want to be frank, I think you’re being disingenuous by talking about hostilities between nations while referencing Ukraine and then walking it back to USA-Russia relations. I think you’re either using a motte and Bailey fallacy or you’re so pro Russia you are discounting Ukraine as a state with agency. Feel free to prove me wrong by laying out a solid argument but right now everything you’ve posted seems like it’s not reliable
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I dont think there is anything disingenuous in prioritizing US-Russia relations more and US-Ukraine relations less. Ukraine has 100% agency, but that is independent of US support. The US has agency too. I hear this ignored a lot with respect to NATO. The US can unilaterally deny any country entry- all it takes is a vote - but people in this thread act like it is helpless and has no control over admittance.
        lovich 3y ago
        Ok, well taking you at face value, Russia opposes us on a global stage and Ukraine is trying to align with us as an ally. Why the fuck would we not back up Ukraine against Russian in this situation then, other than for the fact that Russia is threatening massive damage to us? That is a reasonable enough question to pause on, but if Russia is threatening that for land gains in opposition to values we support(democracies) then we might as well roll over and show our bellies. We have a significantly stronger military and capitulating to their threats is a net negative to us in both the short and long term. If someone threatens to kill you unless they get everything they want, you either need to decide to live with them as your master or call their bluff
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  It's a far less hostile position toward Ukraine, though.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    absolutely.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  By that argument, why doesn't the US just join the war with Russia against Ukraine? Anyway I think I'll avoid getting sucked into this. I just find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that helping a country in their own defense could actually be an act of hostility. It's really such a nonsensical position.
  - ultimafan 3y ago
    >I just find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that helping a country in their own defense could actually be an act of hostility. It's really such a nonsensical position. To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly. It's a country directly in their backyard so the threat (real or imaginary) is much more magnified than say, if this was a proxy war on the other side of the world. Their problems with Ukraine are closer and more real to them there than they are here halfway across the globe to us in the US now. In their eyes we are going actively out of the way to meddle in affairs that they perceive as being indirectly hostile towards them. Maybe when someone claims this is an act of hostility, they might mean that this opens up the standard to reciprocal action further down the line? Say, the possibility of the next boots on the ground conflict the US finds themselves involved in seeing the enemy side funded and equipped by the Russians by weapons we've seen to be not ineffective in modern warfare, when in a climate with better relations they'd have chosen not to do so. We'd probably still "win" by whatever metric we set but it'd undoubtedly lead to more loss of US lives than it could have otherwise, and they could hide behind the moral defense of "supplying an underdog with arms, equipment, training, and military intelligence in someone else's backyard is not an act of hostility."
    - mopsi 3y ago
      > To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly. Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO. But instead of solidifying peace, bowing in to Russian demands only encouraged Russia to go further. They invaded Georgia the same year, and parts of Ukraine six years later, and attempted a full take-over of Ukraine in 2022, sparking the largest war in Europe since Hitler. What lesson does it teach?

not sure how to answer that. Funding Ukraine and giving them weapons is obviously more hostile position towards Russia than just about every other option besides going to war.

lovich 3y ago
You’re going to have lay out a strong argument here if you want anyone to believe that ignoring the situation would lead to less hostility. We ignored russias land grabs Georgia which was followed up by Crimea being taken. We ignored that and it was followed up by a full scale invasion into Ukraine. The idea that we are at fault for the hostility here and, separately, that we should have stayed out of it is ridiculous
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I dont think you understand what I am saying. I am talking about US-Russian relations and hostilities between US and Russia.
  - lovich 3y ago
    If we want to be frank, I think you’re being disingenuous by talking about hostilities between nations while referencing Ukraine and then walking it back to USA-Russia relations. I think you’re either using a motte and Bailey fallacy or you’re so pro Russia you are discounting Ukraine as a state with agency. Feel free to prove me wrong by laying out a solid argument but right now everything you’ve posted seems like it’s not reliable
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I dont think there is anything disingenuous in prioritizing US-Russia relations more and US-Ukraine relations less. Ukraine has 100% agency, but that is independent of US support. The US has agency too. I hear this ignored a lot with respect to NATO. The US can unilaterally deny any country entry- all it takes is a vote - but people in this thread act like it is helpless and has no control over admittance.
      - lovich 3y ago
        Ok, well taking you at face value, Russia opposes us on a global stage and Ukraine is trying to align with us as an ally. Why the fuck would we not back up Ukraine against Russian in this situation then, other than for the fact that Russia is threatening massive damage to us? That is a reasonable enough question to pause on, but if Russia is threatening that for land gains in opposition to values we support(democracies) then we might as well roll over and show our bellies. We have a significantly stronger military and capitulating to their threats is a net negative to us in both the short and long term. If someone threatens to kill you unless they get everything they want, you either need to decide to live with them as your master or call their bluff
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
It's a far less hostile position toward Ukraine, though.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  absolutely.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
By that argument, why doesn't the US just join the war with Russia against Ukraine? Anyway I think I'll avoid getting sucked into this. I just find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that helping a country in their own defense could actually be an act of hostility. It's really such a nonsensical position.
- ultimafan 3y ago
  >I just find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that helping a country in their own defense could actually be an act of hostility. It's really such a nonsensical position. To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly. It's a country directly in their backyard so the threat (real or imaginary) is much more magnified than say, if this was a proxy war on the other side of the world. Their problems with Ukraine are closer and more real to them there than they are here halfway across the globe to us in the US now. In their eyes we are going actively out of the way to meddle in affairs that they perceive as being indirectly hostile towards them. Maybe when someone claims this is an act of hostility, they might mean that this opens up the standard to reciprocal action further down the line? Say, the possibility of the next boots on the ground conflict the US finds themselves involved in seeing the enemy side funded and equipped by the Russians by weapons we've seen to be not ineffective in modern warfare, when in a climate with better relations they'd have chosen not to do so. We'd probably still "win" by whatever metric we set but it'd undoubtedly lead to more loss of US lives than it could have otherwise, and they could hide behind the moral defense of "supplying an underdog with arms, equipment, training, and military intelligence in someone else's backyard is not an act of hostility."
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly. Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO. But instead of solidifying peace, bowing in to Russian demands only encouraged Russia to go further. They invaded Georgia the same year, and parts of Ukraine six years later, and attempted a full take-over of Ukraine in 2022, sparking the largest war in Europe since Hitler. What lesson does it teach?