3 ms·

Russia promised not to invade and then invaded, then promised not to invade, then invaded, then promised not to invade, then invaded, then promised not to invad

Russia promised not to invade and then invaded, then promised not to invade, then invaded, then promised not to invade, then invaded, then promised not to invade Ukraine. Did the same trick for all former parts of Russian Empire, including Poland, Baltic States, Finland, etc.

somenameforme 3y ago
Let's take this as a given, which it isn't. Calling actions of people like e.g. Stalin, a Georgian leader of the USSR, simply "Russia" is not entirely reasonable, but whatever. It's inconsequential. We'll not only take it as a given, but also assume that Ukraine knew, without any doubt, that if they sign this agreement then Russia will come marching in and try to "really" invade them in 5 years. The point remains is that this war was a choice. They could fight now, or not. Ukraine could have, instead, spent the next 5 years setting up an unprecedented series of defense in depth series of barriers around the border, akin to what Russia did when preparing for the Ukrainian counter-attack. This was not an obligatory war for self existence, but a choice - a choice made at the urging of the West. Ultimately I think the complete catastrophe this war has turned into is largely due to multiple miscalculations. Russia obviously thought they were 'ambushing' Ukraine and would be easily able to impose their demands. And the US/UK, in turn, thought they were 'ambushing' Russia and would be easily able to impose their demands. There's some extreme parallels with WW1, where I think everybody thought they were going to be able to go in and just finish the job pretty cleanly. If those nations could have seen out outcome they were signing up for (win or lose), WW1 would have never happened. And I think the same is true here. So that leads me to wonder then, what is the future that we're signing up for now 5 years or another decade down the line? Does what sound good today, instead lead to regrets tomorrow? And that consideration is what drives my views, today.
- oneshtein 3y ago
  > if they sign this agreement then Russia will come marching in and try to "really" invade them in 5 years. 5 weeks. Typical Russian tactics is to invade, then call for peace, then reinforce area, perform ethnical cleansing, solve problem with logistic, then blame other side for something and invade again. > Ukraine could have, instead, spent the next 5 years setting up an unprecedented series of defense in depth series of barriers around the border We spent 5 years preparing our defenses, spending 5% of GPD on that, BUT huge border with RF (1974 km) and Belarus + shore (1500 km) are not easy or cheap to reinforce. Ukraine has the largest border in Europe between two countries. > This was not an obligatory war for self existence, but a choice - a choice made at the urging of the West. LOL

somenameforme 3y ago

Let's take this as a given, which it isn't. Calling actions of people like e.g. Stalin, a Georgian leader of the USSR, simply "Russia" is not entirely reasonable, but whatever. It's inconsequential. We'll not only take it as a given, but also assume that Ukraine knew, without any doubt, that if they sign this agreement then Russia will come marching in and try to "really" invade them in 5 years. The point remains is that this war was a choice. They could fight now, or not. Ukraine could have, instead, spent the next 5 years setting up an unprecedented series of defense in depth series of barriers around the border, akin to what Russia did when preparing for the Ukrainian counter-attack. This was not an obligatory war for self existence, but a choice - a choice made at the urging of the West. Ultimately I think the complete catastrophe this war has turned into is largely due to multiple miscalculations. Russia obviously thought they were 'ambushing' Ukraine and would be easily able to impose their demands. And the US/UK, in turn, thought they were 'ambushing' Russia and would be easily able to impose their demands. There's some extreme parallels with WW1, where I think everybody thought they were going to be able to go in and just finish the job pretty cleanly. If those nations could have seen out outcome they were signing up for (win or lose), WW1 would have never happened. And I think the same is true here. So that leads me to wonder then, what is the future that we're signing up for now 5 years or another decade down the line? Does what sound good today, instead lead to regrets tomorrow? And that consideration is what drives my views, today.

oneshtein 3y ago
> if they sign this agreement then Russia will come marching in and try to "really" invade them in 5 years. 5 weeks. Typical Russian tactics is to invade, then call for peace, then reinforce area, perform ethnical cleansing, solve problem with logistic, then blame other side for something and invade again. > Ukraine could have, instead, spent the next 5 years setting up an unprecedented series of defense in depth series of barriers around the border We spent 5 years preparing our defenses, spending 5% of GPD on that, BUT huge border with RF (1974 km) and Belarus + shore (1500 km) are not easy or cheap to reinforce. Ukraine has the largest border in Europe between two countries. > This was not an obligatory war for self existence, but a choice - a choice made at the urging of the West. LOL