3 ms·

Nitpicking. If Russia is at war with NATO - it ceases to exist. Why would it enter that war then? It can just go back to 1992 Ukrainian borders. Some bruised p

by ajuc 2y ago

Nitpicking. If Russia is at war with NATO - it ceases to exist. Why would it enter that war then? It can just go back to 1992 Ukrainian borders. Some bruised pride. Lots of money wasted. That's it. > I have my own opinion to that, and it's the opposite of what Russia would say, but that doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong. This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it).

_heimdall 2y ago
> Nitpicking. If Russia is at war with NATO - it ceases to exist. Why would it enter that war then? You seem way more certain than me that NATO countries have the means and will to destroy Russia in short order. Maybe you're right, but I expect that would be a much more difficult and deadly war than Russia simply ceasin to exist. > This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it). Even a bar fight isn't so black and white that you can easily say who started and when. Sure, if you want to consider recognizing that the events leading to a war are complex as relitivism then I'd argue that claiming it's easy to see Russia started this war and there are no mitigating factors muddying that water is absolutism. Boiling complex situations down to simple, binary facts is a great way to justify doing whatever it is you want to do. The balance is in the middle. I'm not arguing that Russia wasn't the agressor here, and I'm not arguing that they weren't the aggressor in 2008 or 2014 either. I am arguing, though, that one side can see unwarranted agression while the other side honestly believes they are responding to a threat that already existed.
- ajuc 2y ago
  It doesn't matter who started. It matters for morality, but you don't even need morality for this. For politics it matters how both sides estimate their chances and what in their opinions the other side will do. And it's very clear. Both NATO and Russia estimate that NATO won't invade Russia. If you disagree - notice that Russia moved its army from Finnish border to Ukraine after Finland joined NATO. And it moved its army from Kaliningrad (border with Poland and Lithuania) to Ukraine. Russian least militarized borders are those with NATO countries. If Russia actually thought NATO is going to invade - they would be scared shitless to start anything (because it makes them vulnurable and provides an excuse for intervention). Instead they leave their NATO borders naked because they estimate (correctly) that the last thing NATO wants is a war. "The balance is in the middle" is a fine way to prove 2+2 is 4.5.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    We may be talking past each other a bit here, I think we actually agree more than we disagree here. I only raised the consideration of who starts it because you mentioned it in an earlier comment mentioning why Russia wouldn't start it. I agree with you that it doesn't matter who starts it and was only trying to point out that with war it's often so complicated that you can't really ever pin it on one side starting it out of the blue. I also agree that NATO isn't planning on invading Russia, if I implied that somewhere along the way I just misspoke. I don't actually think an invasion is how the next world war would start anyway, well likely end up launching tons of drones at each other before the war is reduced to soldiers on the battlefield. > "The balance is in the middle" is a fine way to prove 2+2 is 4.5. I'm not sure the connection there. Are you proposing that we should strice to view complex situations as a binary rather than a spectrum?
    - ajuc 2y ago
      You argued if NATO doesn't back down ww3 is more likely. I argue the opposite. As for 2+2 - my point is that some things are simple, and making them seem complex is an excuse not to do anything about them. This is what happened in 2014. It was simple imperial land grab. It was preventable. But Russia and useful idiots muddled the water long enough that the help never arrived. This is what I think should be prevented. Because every time the west appeases Russia it makes ww3 more likely.

by ajuc 2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago

> Nitpicking. If Russia is at war with NATO - it ceases to exist. Why would it enter that war then? You seem way more certain than me that NATO countries have the means and will to destroy Russia in short order. Maybe you're right, but I expect that would be a much more difficult and deadly war than Russia simply ceasin to exist. > This is just relativism. Very convenient to justify doing nothing. Ultimately there are facts. Nobody was going to invade Russia and you know it (and Russian government knew it). Even a bar fight isn't so black and white that you can easily say who started and when. Sure, if you want to consider recognizing that the events leading to a war are complex as relitivism then I'd argue that claiming it's easy to see Russia started this war and there are no mitigating factors muddying that water is absolutism. Boiling complex situations down to simple, binary facts is a great way to justify doing whatever it is you want to do. The balance is in the middle. I'm not arguing that Russia wasn't the agressor here, and I'm not arguing that they weren't the aggressor in 2008 or 2014 either. I am arguing, though, that one side can see unwarranted agression while the other side honestly believes they are responding to a threat that already existed.

ajuc 2y ago
It doesn't matter who started. It matters for morality, but you don't even need morality for this. For politics it matters how both sides estimate their chances and what in their opinions the other side will do. And it's very clear. Both NATO and Russia estimate that NATO won't invade Russia. If you disagree - notice that Russia moved its army from Finnish border to Ukraine after Finland joined NATO. And it moved its army from Kaliningrad (border with Poland and Lithuania) to Ukraine. Russian least militarized borders are those with NATO countries. If Russia actually thought NATO is going to invade - they would be scared shitless to start anything (because it makes them vulnurable and provides an excuse for intervention). Instead they leave their NATO borders naked because they estimate (correctly) that the last thing NATO wants is a war. "The balance is in the middle" is a fine way to prove 2+2 is 4.5.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  We may be talking past each other a bit here, I think we actually agree more than we disagree here. I only raised the consideration of who starts it because you mentioned it in an earlier comment mentioning why Russia wouldn't start it. I agree with you that it doesn't matter who starts it and was only trying to point out that with war it's often so complicated that you can't really ever pin it on one side starting it out of the blue. I also agree that NATO isn't planning on invading Russia, if I implied that somewhere along the way I just misspoke. I don't actually think an invasion is how the next world war would start anyway, well likely end up launching tons of drones at each other before the war is reduced to soldiers on the battlefield. > "The balance is in the middle" is a fine way to prove 2+2 is 4.5. I'm not sure the connection there. Are you proposing that we should strice to view complex situations as a binary rather than a spectrum?
  - ajuc 2y ago
    You argued if NATO doesn't back down ww3 is more likely. I argue the opposite. As for 2+2 - my point is that some things are simple, and making them seem complex is an excuse not to do anything about them. This is what happened in 2014. It was simple imperial land grab. It was preventable. But Russia and useful idiots muddled the water long enough that the help never arrived. This is what I think should be prevented. Because every time the west appeases Russia it makes ww3 more likely.