4 ms·

If Putin wanted to recreate Imperial Russia, or the Soviet Union, then why would he negotiate for peace? Because as he keeps saying over and over -- the only "

If Putin wanted to recreate Imperial Russia, or the Soviet Union, then why would he negotiate for peace? Because as he keeps saying over and over -- the only "peace" he will accept is one in which his claims to sovereignty on the territories he is currently sitting are recognized by Western powers. This was his core demand during the Istanbul talks, and it's his current demand now (though he's upped it a bit recently to include regime change in Kyiv). For a serial territorial aggressor like the modern Russian state, "peace" is simply another mechanism for arriving that same the desired end state. It's also useful as a propaganda tool, to mollify the opposition to what he's doing ("See, Putin just wants peace -- he even says so!"), get people to start talking about how costly the war is, how the West is the real aggresor and so forth. That's where Mearsheimer et al come in.

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
That's probably because the wars started by "the West" (US and allies) are significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR. See: vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. Not that Russia is some big supporter of peace, but the US and its allies are the current global bully. And you don't need Mearsheimer to tell you that.
- racional 2y ago
  So if Russia wants to get to play the top bully too, for a while -- well, we should just cut them some slack and let them have their way for a while? Because fair is fair, right? That seems to be the essence of your argument here. (None of those wars are directly analogous to what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now of course; but never mind that for now).
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    Who is "we"? I'm not American. Why should I treat American and Russian aggression differently? And yes, the wars were not directly analogous but the stark reality of the matter is that the US and RUssia are two of the world bullies that are capable of invading anyone they like, and nobody can do anything about it. Again: why should I like one more than the other? Why should anyone, who is not their citizen?
    - racional 2y ago
      Why should I treat American and Russian aggression differently? One shouldn't, and both should be condemned of course. And not apologized for, like you are doing here.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
        Just to be clear, I did not "apologize" for anyone. I think you mean that I'm an apologist for someone or other? I should also clarify that, no, I am not. I am a peacenick and a anti-nationalist and I dislike all nations equally, especially the ones that go to war over perceived threats to their territorial integrity or their national interests etc. None of those things are more valuable than human lives. To be even more clear: those nations include Russia, the US, China, and basically every other national entity with an army that you might want to propose. For the record, I also dislike, strongly, people on the internet who cannot hold a conversation without insulting their interlocutor, or accusing them of some perceived mind crime.
        racional 2y ago
        I meant in terms of apologetics, in the sense of "vigorous defenses". Which seemed to apply to the first two comments of yours that I responded to. If that's not what they were, then I misread them. In regard to the peace negotiations -- it does seem (from some of the sibling threads) like you're very quick to grant the Russian side a pass, and to assign an unduly high a likelihood to the possibility that the Ukrainian/Western side simply botched their end of it (because Boris, etc). An assessment that just doesn't hold up in view of how the Russians conducted themselves during those negotiations, as the person responding to you pointed out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40663892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40663892
    - darthrupert 2y ago
      You should treat then differently because they are altogether different. When is the last time USA annexed parts of another country?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Who do you think started Korea? Free clue: It wasn't the US. Afghanistan? You seem to forget that Russia also invaded them. You also seem to forget Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, and Ukraine. So, no, the wars started by "the West" are not significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    Fine, I stand corrected: I forgot about Czechoslovakia (I don't think you're right about Korea though). In any case that still leaves Russia aggression on par with US aggression. My point in this thread is that I don't see the reason to prefer the US and "the West" to Russia. Or China. I would certainly not want to be a citizen of any of those three.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      > I don't think you're right about Korea though. Fine. Don't take my word for it. Go look. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War: "The Korean War was fought between North Korea and South Korea; it began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea and ceased after an armistice on 27 July 1953. North Korea was supported by the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union while South Korea was supported by the United Nations Command (UNC) led by the US."
- tremon 2y ago
  the wars started by "the West" (US and allies) How many wars post-WWII can you name that were started by US allies? Other than Israel, and excluding domestic terrorism issues (Italy, Germany, UK), I'm drawing a blank here.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > That's probably because the wars started by "the West" (US and allies) are significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR. See: vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. Korea was started by a USSR ally (North Korea invading South Korea), the UN Command (led by the US) was a defensive response. Vietnam is...well, the whole post-WW2 situation in the region is complicated, but it's reasonable to view it as started by Western allies of the US, particularly France. Iraq 1990- was started by Iraq. Iraq 2003 was started by the US. Afghanistan 1980 was started by the USSR Afghanistan 2001 was started by the al-Qaeda, a force intimately connected to and defended by the Taliban and based in Taliban-held territory, attacking the US. Your list of examples doesn't really make a strong case for your thesis.
racional 2y ago
"... territories on which he is currently sitting ..."

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago

That's probably because the wars started by "the West" (US and allies) are significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR. See: vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. Not that Russia is some big supporter of peace, but the US and its allies are the current global bully. And you don't need Mearsheimer to tell you that.

racional 2y ago
So if Russia wants to get to play the top bully too, for a while -- well, we should just cut them some slack and let them have their way for a while? Because fair is fair, right? That seems to be the essence of your argument here. (None of those wars are directly analogous to what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now of course; but never mind that for now).
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  Who is "we"? I'm not American. Why should I treat American and Russian aggression differently? And yes, the wars were not directly analogous but the stark reality of the matter is that the US and RUssia are two of the world bullies that are capable of invading anyone they like, and nobody can do anything about it. Again: why should I like one more than the other? Why should anyone, who is not their citizen?
  - racional 2y ago
    Why should I treat American and Russian aggression differently? One shouldn't, and both should be condemned of course. And not apologized for, like you are doing here.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
      Just to be clear, I did not "apologize" for anyone. I think you mean that I'm an apologist for someone or other? I should also clarify that, no, I am not. I am a peacenick and a anti-nationalist and I dislike all nations equally, especially the ones that go to war over perceived threats to their territorial integrity or their national interests etc. None of those things are more valuable than human lives. To be even more clear: those nations include Russia, the US, China, and basically every other national entity with an army that you might want to propose. For the record, I also dislike, strongly, people on the internet who cannot hold a conversation without insulting their interlocutor, or accusing them of some perceived mind crime.
      - racional 2y ago
        I meant in terms of apologetics, in the sense of "vigorous defenses". Which seemed to apply to the first two comments of yours that I responded to. If that's not what they were, then I misread them. In regard to the peace negotiations -- it does seem (from some of the sibling threads) like you're very quick to grant the Russian side a pass, and to assign an unduly high a likelihood to the possibility that the Ukrainian/Western side simply botched their end of it (because Boris, etc). An assessment that just doesn't hold up in view of how the Russians conducted themselves during those negotiations, as the person responding to you pointed out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40663892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40663892
  - darthrupert 2y ago
    You should treat then differently because they are altogether different. When is the last time USA annexed parts of another country?
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Who do you think started Korea? Free clue: It wasn't the US. Afghanistan? You seem to forget that Russia also invaded them. You also seem to forget Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, and Ukraine. So, no, the wars started by "the West" are not significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  Fine, I stand corrected: I forgot about Czechoslovakia (I don't think you're right about Korea though). In any case that still leaves Russia aggression on par with US aggression. My point in this thread is that I don't see the reason to prefer the US and "the West" to Russia. Or China. I would certainly not want to be a citizen of any of those three.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    > I don't think you're right about Korea though. Fine. Don't take my word for it. Go look. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War: "The Korean War was fought between North Korea and South Korea; it began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea and ceased after an armistice on 27 July 1953. North Korea was supported by the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union while South Korea was supported by the United Nations Command (UNC) led by the US."
tremon 2y ago
the wars started by "the West" (US and allies) How many wars post-WWII can you name that were started by US allies? Other than Israel, and excluding domestic terrorism issues (Italy, Germany, UK), I'm drawing a blank here.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> That's probably because the wars started by "the West" (US and allies) are significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR. See: vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. Korea was started by a USSR ally (North Korea invading South Korea), the UN Command (led by the US) was a defensive response. Vietnam is...well, the whole post-WW2 situation in the region is complicated, but it's reasonable to view it as started by Western allies of the US, particularly France. Iraq 1990- was started by Iraq. Iraq 2003 was started by the US. Afghanistan 1980 was started by the USSR Afghanistan 2001 was started by the al-Qaeda, a force intimately connected to and defended by the Taliban and based in Taliban-held territory, attacking the US. Your list of examples doesn't really make a strong case for your thesis.

racional 2y ago

"... territories on which he is currently sitting ..."