6 ms·

Russia knows [war is costly], why would it want to make things even worse? Because its leadership is deranged, and is willing to put a large chunk of its popul

Russia knows [war is costly], why would it want to make things even worse? Because its leadership is deranged, and is willing to put a large chunk of its population through a wood chopper (and endure decades of blunted growth and economic estrangement) in order to indulge its geopolitical fantasies. Which is why it started the current war in 2014 in the first place. Ukraine losing some territory is NOT the end of the world The literal "end of the world", no. But it would lead to a very bad long-term situation in Europe and throughout the world if Russia's aggression were to be validated in this case. Especially if it were to be awarded -- as you appear to be advocating -- permanent sovereignty over the territories it is currently claiming.

brabel 2y ago
> Because its leadership is deranged How can you be so sure? Because you saw it on the news? Like "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq? > in order to indulge its geopolitical fantasies. Is it a fantasy to prevent Ukraine joining NATO? Is it a fantasy to narrow down the Western border to a more "defendable" region? Maybe. But I would say it's a fantasy to think you can push out half a million Russian soldiers from an area 20% the size of pre-2014 Ukraine back into Russia without causing an absolutely massive escalation in which nuclear weapons are not just a possibility, but almost a certainty. A 60 billion dollars package won't make a dent. Are you willing to send 10x that (I suppose that level of money would indeed make a dent, but who knows, maybe not even that)? Send enough troops to get the job done (i.e. the real possibility of your family members being sent to die in the front)? We all know the answer: that won't happen.
- ajuc 2y ago
  If Ukraine was accepted into NATO in 2008 neither this war nor the war in 2014 would have happened. Russia won't invade Finland nor Sweden despite them joining NATO. In fact Russia moved all units from Finnish border to Ukraine as Finland joined NATO :) If you force Ukraine to give up some territories to Russia and stop the war now - you're only making sure Russia invades in a few years again after establishing new bases, refilling stocks and drafting people from new territories to army. This is what happened with Crimea and the part of Donbas they occupied in 2014. You're not saving any lives, you're just making the next war easier for Putin. As for nuclear weapons - ask yourself why hasn't USA nuked Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.
  - brabel 2y ago
    > This is what happened with Crimea and the part of Donbas they occupied in 2014. That's a distorted view of reality. In 2008, Ukraine was very far from being in a position to join NATO, or even to want to. When the 2014 revolution happened, remember that there was a pro-Russia elected president in Ukraine. The Donbas war and the Crimea annexation happened exactly in response to the ousting of that president by the Maidan Revolution. Most of the Donbas was/is strongly pro-Russian (they had been voting for Pro-Russian governments since the independence of Ukraine from the USSR, just check some maps of pre-2014 elections results by Ukrainian region). So, no, that's not what happened in 2014 at all, and I don't understand why some people are repeating this narrative uncritically. > As for nuclear weapons - ask yourself why hasn't USA nuked Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. The USA had no business in those countries. That has nothing to do with the situation in Russia, where they see Ukraine alignment as absolutely essential for their defense strategy. Vietnam is exactly in the opposite side of the world from the USA. Ukraine is basically the gate to the Russian heartlands. If you hold Ukraine, Russia cannot effectively defend against you. It's such a completely different situation that I must ask if you're trolling?
    - ajuc 2y ago
      > In 2008, Ukraine was very far from being in a position to join NATO, or even to want to. Jake Sullivan (American diplomat) said in an interview with Mikhail Zygar recently that he was in the room when it was talked about. Ukraine was in favour. Eastern Europe was in favour. USA was in favour. Germany and France blocked it, indirectly making the war in 2014 and this one possible. > The Donbas war and the Crimea annexation happened exactly in response to the ousting of that president by the Maidan Revolution This is Russian POV. It's not the truth. Russia poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate in 2003. It blackmailed Yanukovych in 2013. It doesn't care about formalities, it cares about owning Ukraine. > If you hold Ukraine, Russia cannot effectively defend against you. Nobody wants to invade Russia and you know it perfectly well. Russia knows it too (that's why they moved the army from Finnish border and from Kaliningrad Oblast). You can shell Sankt Petersburg from Finland using regular artillery. If anything - Finland entering NATO is a much worse military problem for Russia than Ukraine. Yet somehow Russia was fine with it, but Ukraine is just impossible :) It's just an excuse, the real reason Russia invaded Ukraine twice is just imperialism. And they can be cured from it. They just need to lose their imperial war, like all the other empires. > The USA had no business in those countries. And neither does Russia in Ukraine. Decide for yourself - is Russia bloodthirsty enough to start nuclear war over Ukraine, or is it "just another country like us". You can't have it both ways.
- racional 2y ago
  Because you saw it on the news? It's self-evident from their statements and their actions. Combined with even a basic understanding of regional history. It's a fantasy to think you can push out half a million Russian soldiers [without nukes] The Vietnamese managed do exactly that its colonial occupier (the United States) some 50 years ago. France got kicked out of Algeria. The U.S. got its ass handed back to it again, Afghanistan just a few years ago. In order to reverse an occupation, one doesn't need total, crushing victory (though that would of course be more than welcome on the ground in Ukraine). You just have to convince the occupier that project will be ultimately unsustainable. And that the time has come to pick up their toys and go home.
  - racional 2y ago
    "to do exactly that to its", "in Afghanistan", "that the project"

brabel 2y ago

> Because its leadership is deranged How can you be so sure? Because you saw it on the news? Like "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq? > in order to indulge its geopolitical fantasies. Is it a fantasy to prevent Ukraine joining NATO? Is it a fantasy to narrow down the Western border to a more "defendable" region? Maybe. But I would say it's a fantasy to think you can push out half a million Russian soldiers from an area 20% the size of pre-2014 Ukraine back into Russia without causing an absolutely massive escalation in which nuclear weapons are not just a possibility, but almost a certainty. A 60 billion dollars package won't make a dent. Are you willing to send 10x that (I suppose that level of money would indeed make a dent, but who knows, maybe not even that)? Send enough troops to get the job done (i.e. the real possibility of your family members being sent to die in the front)? We all know the answer: that won't happen.

ajuc 2y ago
If Ukraine was accepted into NATO in 2008 neither this war nor the war in 2014 would have happened. Russia won't invade Finland nor Sweden despite them joining NATO. In fact Russia moved all units from Finnish border to Ukraine as Finland joined NATO :) If you force Ukraine to give up some territories to Russia and stop the war now - you're only making sure Russia invades in a few years again after establishing new bases, refilling stocks and drafting people from new territories to army. This is what happened with Crimea and the part of Donbas they occupied in 2014. You're not saving any lives, you're just making the next war easier for Putin. As for nuclear weapons - ask yourself why hasn't USA nuked Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.
- brabel 2y ago
  > This is what happened with Crimea and the part of Donbas they occupied in 2014. That's a distorted view of reality. In 2008, Ukraine was very far from being in a position to join NATO, or even to want to. When the 2014 revolution happened, remember that there was a pro-Russia elected president in Ukraine. The Donbas war and the Crimea annexation happened exactly in response to the ousting of that president by the Maidan Revolution. Most of the Donbas was/is strongly pro-Russian (they had been voting for Pro-Russian governments since the independence of Ukraine from the USSR, just check some maps of pre-2014 elections results by Ukrainian region). So, no, that's not what happened in 2014 at all, and I don't understand why some people are repeating this narrative uncritically. > As for nuclear weapons - ask yourself why hasn't USA nuked Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. The USA had no business in those countries. That has nothing to do with the situation in Russia, where they see Ukraine alignment as absolutely essential for their defense strategy. Vietnam is exactly in the opposite side of the world from the USA. Ukraine is basically the gate to the Russian heartlands. If you hold Ukraine, Russia cannot effectively defend against you. It's such a completely different situation that I must ask if you're trolling?
  - ajuc 2y ago
    > In 2008, Ukraine was very far from being in a position to join NATO, or even to want to. Jake Sullivan (American diplomat) said in an interview with Mikhail Zygar recently that he was in the room when it was talked about. Ukraine was in favour. Eastern Europe was in favour. USA was in favour. Germany and France blocked it, indirectly making the war in 2014 and this one possible. > The Donbas war and the Crimea annexation happened exactly in response to the ousting of that president by the Maidan Revolution This is Russian POV. It's not the truth. Russia poisoned Ukrainian presidential candidate in 2003. It blackmailed Yanukovych in 2013. It doesn't care about formalities, it cares about owning Ukraine. > If you hold Ukraine, Russia cannot effectively defend against you. Nobody wants to invade Russia and you know it perfectly well. Russia knows it too (that's why they moved the army from Finnish border and from Kaliningrad Oblast). You can shell Sankt Petersburg from Finland using regular artillery. If anything - Finland entering NATO is a much worse military problem for Russia than Ukraine. Yet somehow Russia was fine with it, but Ukraine is just impossible :) It's just an excuse, the real reason Russia invaded Ukraine twice is just imperialism. And they can be cured from it. They just need to lose their imperial war, like all the other empires. > The USA had no business in those countries. And neither does Russia in Ukraine. Decide for yourself - is Russia bloodthirsty enough to start nuclear war over Ukraine, or is it "just another country like us". You can't have it both ways.
racional 2y ago
Because you saw it on the news? It's self-evident from their statements and their actions. Combined with even a basic understanding of regional history. It's a fantasy to think you can push out half a million Russian soldiers [without nukes] The Vietnamese managed do exactly that its colonial occupier (the United States) some 50 years ago. France got kicked out of Algeria. The U.S. got its ass handed back to it again, Afghanistan just a few years ago. In order to reverse an occupation, one doesn't need total, crushing victory (though that would of course be more than welcome on the ground in Ukraine). You just have to convince the occupier that project will be ultimately unsustainable. And that the time has come to pick up their toys and go home.
- racional 2y ago
  "to do exactly that to its", "in Afghanistan", "that the project"