5 ms·

>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 re

>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?
- ultimafan 3y ago
  >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 that's not really true and omits some crucial details. We didn't offer them ascension plans but we did repeatedly flaunt the promise that eventually both countries would be full fledged NATO members. [0] This came from top NATO and US political leadership- I believe even used by presidential candidates then in their campaigns. Calling open taunting a sign of respect doesn't fly and the invasions of both Georgia and Ukraine didn't happen until after we repeatedly goaded the Russians and implanted the idea in their head that they either act now, or regret it later when those countries join up after we spent years building them up. Would Russia have invaded them regardless? Hard to try to mindread alternate history but odds are good that they would have. But we did have a hand in the provocation of what definitely did happen and is happening now and in their eyes that might be seen as an act of hostility. I suppose if there's any lesson to be taken from that is that trouble was stirred up instead of an attempt at a more diplomatic approach (or even something aggressive and decisive, putting our foot down and doing something about it back then), we gave Ukraine a false sense of confidence, told them we'd back them, and now are refusing to take on more responsibility for it because we aren't the ones facing the bloodshed, our support is a pittance and win or lose our day to day lives will be much the same. [0] https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > We didn't offer them ascension plans but we did repeatedly flaunt the promise that eventually both countries would be full fledged NATO members. In your opinion, how common it is in diplomatic forms of communication to send informal positive signals while avoiding any meaningful official steps when an action is deemed undesirable?
    - ultimafan 3y ago
      When you know your enemies have plans that are openly at ends with yours, when the heads of their alliance say this will come to pass, when their political elites campaign on the promise that they will push this cause along, when your rival countries make investments in this future, do you believe the words coming out of their mouths? Or chalk it all up to informal positive signals? Words aren't empty and a big part of diplomacy is choosing the right ones. Even in the slightest smidge of an off-chance that this was just placation, they chose to phrase it in a way that still comes off as a threat- act now, because if you don't WE will. I don't think it's a fair argument to claim that it meant nothing and we didn't really want those countries in NATO. We made a compromise then to not let them in to try to appease Russia, then immediately flubbed it by antagonizing them with a looming perceived threat over their head in the future. Had we played things more diplomatically things could have panned out differently. >Turkey applied for EU in 1987 and negotiations are currently about 6% done. Would you expect Turkey to become a member of the EU in foreseeable future? There's no set time for how long it can take a country to join NATO and requirements can be bent or overlooked if expediency is required. There's multiple countries that have joined in timespans of <5 years.

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?

ultimafan 3y ago
>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 that's not really true and omits some crucial details. We didn't offer them ascension plans but we did repeatedly flaunt the promise that eventually both countries would be full fledged NATO members. [0] This came from top NATO and US political leadership- I believe even used by presidential candidates then in their campaigns. Calling open taunting a sign of respect doesn't fly and the invasions of both Georgia and Ukraine didn't happen until after we repeatedly goaded the Russians and implanted the idea in their head that they either act now, or regret it later when those countries join up after we spent years building them up. Would Russia have invaded them regardless? Hard to try to mindread alternate history but odds are good that they would have. But we did have a hand in the provocation of what definitely did happen and is happening now and in their eyes that might be seen as an act of hostility. I suppose if there's any lesson to be taken from that is that trouble was stirred up instead of an attempt at a more diplomatic approach (or even something aggressive and decisive, putting our foot down and doing something about it back then), we gave Ukraine a false sense of confidence, told them we'd back them, and now are refusing to take on more responsibility for it because we aren't the ones facing the bloodshed, our support is a pittance and win or lose our day to day lives will be much the same. [0] https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html
- mopsi 3y ago
  > We didn't offer them ascension plans but we did repeatedly flaunt the promise that eventually both countries would be full fledged NATO members. In your opinion, how common it is in diplomatic forms of communication to send informal positive signals while avoiding any meaningful official steps when an action is deemed undesirable?
  - ultimafan 3y ago
    When you know your enemies have plans that are openly at ends with yours, when the heads of their alliance say this will come to pass, when their political elites campaign on the promise that they will push this cause along, when your rival countries make investments in this future, do you believe the words coming out of their mouths? Or chalk it all up to informal positive signals? Words aren't empty and a big part of diplomacy is choosing the right ones. Even in the slightest smidge of an off-chance that this was just placation, they chose to phrase it in a way that still comes off as a threat- act now, because if you don't WE will. I don't think it's a fair argument to claim that it meant nothing and we didn't really want those countries in NATO. We made a compromise then to not let them in to try to appease Russia, then immediately flubbed it by antagonizing them with a looming perceived threat over their head in the future. Had we played things more diplomatically things could have panned out differently. >Turkey applied for EU in 1987 and negotiations are currently about 6% done. Would you expect Turkey to become a member of the EU in foreseeable future? There's no set time for how long it can take a country to join NATO and requirements can be bent or overlooked if expediency is required. There's multiple countries that have joined in timespans of <5 years.