4 ms·

You are ridiculously overintellectualizing the situation by trying to construct a rational argument for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There isn't any more ra

• roenxi 2y ago
  If we entertain multiple theories though, the "Putin is just crazy!" theory fits, but so does the "gee, it is pretty easy to see why they'd be scared of NATO, look at what NATO did to them at the first opportunity" theory. Especially since it has been a factor in conversation for decades. People have been pointing out that NATO expansion was raising tension with Russia since the fall of the USSR. It is just too easy to draw parallels between what is happening in Ukraine and what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan in the earlier part of the century. There is a lot of precedent for the globe standing aside and lodging strongly worded diplomatic protests to this sort of meaningless violence. The determination of NATO to do as much damage as they can to the Russian military is concerning; that isn't the sort of thing a group open to diplomatic solutions would do. With hindsight it seems likely that their policies of strategic pressure in Russia provoked the entire conflict. > There's nothing more to it, really. All that huffing and puffing about NATO is only because NATO stands in the way. If NATO wasn't involved it does seem likely that nobody would be talking about NATO's involvement. If you want to argue that NATO should be involved then sure, that is a popular position. I'd disagree; the downside is large and the upside is hard to spot. But to argue that Russia isn't acting with reference to NATO's involvement is just displaying a void of strategic empathy. What they've been doing makes a lot of sense through the lens of a group of people panicking as NATO keeps tightening the noose on them.
  • racional 2y ago
    Hacker News, 1939: Armies don't just charge out because Hitler has his "dream", and certainly not sustaining the sort of punishment that the Germans have had to undergo in Poland. We can see from the response to Ernst Röhm that the military actually supports the Führer to a significant extent; if it was unpopular then Hitler would have been rolled by now. You aren't trying to understand the German motivation; this is unhelpful straw-manning and caricaturing. And othering the Germans with irrational motivations is stupid. As a culture we've passed up too many opportunities to calm the situation down because of a Germanophobic attitude out of the US. Years of unhinged rhetoric from 1930 onwards turned out to be unhelpful in de-escalating a dangerous situation. And I note you didn't link to speeches by Hitler. That'd be wise, it is rare to see a Anglo-American media outlet accurately representing even Anglo-American politicians. Not as a partisan thing, but as a blanket failure. It is better to go to the source material. If we entertain multiple theories though, the "Hitler is just crazy!" theory fits, but so does the "gee, it is pretty easy to see why they'd be scared of France and Britain, look at what France and Britain did to them at the first opportunity" theory. Especially since it has been a factor in conversation for decades. People have been pointing out that the Treaty of Versailles was raising tension with Germany since the end of the Great War. If the Treaty of Versailles wasn't involved in German Rearmament it does seem likely that nobody would be talking about the Treaty of Versailles. But to argue that Germany isn't acting with reference to the Treaty of Versailles is just displaying a void of strategic empathy. What they've been doing makes a lot of sense through the lens of a group of people panicking as France and Britain keeps tightening the noose on them.
    • roenxi 2y ago
      > If we entertain multiple theories though, the "Hitler is just crazy!" theory fits, but so does the "gee, it is pretty easy to see why they'd be scared of France and Britain, look at what France and Britain did to them at the first opportunity" theory. Well, yes. As a Brit I would like to believe I would have been saying things like "this Treaty of Versailles approach is a disaster, we're just giving the Germans reasons to re-arm and fight us. We should have made more of an effort towards ensuring that Germany is prosperous and wealthy despite losing the Great War. Given what the British and the French did to them at the first opportunity, they are likely to be really angry with us the next time tensions rise". Given what then happened, I would probably have scored myself pretty well for geopolitical acumen too. roenxi approved policies towards Germany in the interbellum period would have been less likely to see the British Empire make enemies and get its back broken. As we saw in the aftermath of WWII, the policies that work were occupation, respectful treatment, rebuilding and creating prosperity in the vanquished countries [0]. Similarly, the policies that would have helped with Ukraine would be a similar approach. We can't manage occupation but Russia seemed to be feeling cooperative back in the 90s, we should have taken advantage of that when the chance was open and tried to achieve all the other parts. Not salami tactics of advancing a hostile military alliance towards their borders. Creating reasons for great powers to fight you is remarkably foolish policy. Even middle powers for that matter. That is not the sort of thing that should be done. These stupid policies have consequences. [0] Policies adopted because, given the sheer scale of the disaster that was WWII, even the politicians had to admit that a new approach from WWI's failed peace was needed.