4 ms·

Why do we just dismiss what the Russians keep saying? They keep saying they don’t want US weapon systems on their border. I agree that there is lots of propagan

Why do we just dismiss what the Russians keep saying? They keep saying they don’t want US weapon systems on their border. I agree that there is lots of propaganda. And who knows if the elections in the autonomous regions were legit. But I think it’s kind of obvious that the core Russian desire is to keep nato far from its borders. If we dismiss everything the Russians say and accept everything said by those arming Ukraine there is no point for debate on this topic: we can only accept the mainstream media narrative that Ukraine must fight and we must support it endlessly. All I can say is we had similar situations in the past and decades after the fact we realized we were lied to. Too bad millions died I guess?

mopsi 2y ago
> Why do we just dismiss what the Russians keep saying? They keep saying they don’t want US weapon systems on their border. If you listen to Russians, then you're left with an impression that they are being surrounded by US weapons on their borders. If you look at the numbers, then that turns out to be a blatant misrepresentation of truth. For example, the US fielded ~5000 main battle tanks in Europe at the end of the Cold War. In 2013, the last 10 were removed. The opposite is true: post-Cold War era has brought rapid disarmament to Europe, which has emboldened Russia to invade Ukraine, because disarmament has limited how much and how quickly allies could help Ukraine. > But I think it’s kind of obvious that the core Russian desire is to keep nato far from its borders. Ironically, this is "obvious" only if you accept the premise that Russia is determined to violate the security of its neighbors.
aguaviva 2y ago
I wasn't responding to what "the Russians" where saying; but rather to what you were saying. Which unfortunately was just plainly illogical and counterfactual (on that specific point, at least). But to address one aspect of what you're saying now: I think it’s kind of obvious that the core Russian desire is to keep nato far from its borders. This is broadly correct, and perfectly understandable. However the war was never really about NATO expansion in the first place. And even if it were -- it definitely wasn't a rational response to that concern. And it certainly wasn't a response that the regime was "pushed" into taking. The war was entirely optional for them - a failed gambit for enhanced "stature" and prestige on the global stage, basically[0]. Very much analogous to, and exactly as evil and stupid as the 2003 Iraq invasion, and supported by lies equally obvious and stupid. That unfortunately far too many otherwise perfectly decent and intelligent people were far to eager to believe. If we dismiss everything the Russians say and accept everything said by those arming Ukraine there is no point for debate on this topic: we can only accept the mainstream media narrative that Ukraine must fight and we must support it endlessly. I see plenty of room for debate on alternatives to the idea that Ukraine must keep fighting at the current pace until an unequivocal withdrawal (if that's what you mean by "supporting it endlessly"), and if you talk to Ukrainians directly you will very quickly find that they do as well. However in order to even get there we first need to free ourselves of broken narratives in terms of what's actually been happening on the ground, and stop assuming that what the current regime says is interchangeable with what Russians in general say or think. It would also be helpful to just completely forget about "mainstream media narratives", whatever those even supposedly are. When instead you can build your own far more reliable narratives from first principles (studying history, talking with people from there, or actually visiting the safer parts of the country if you like). -- [0] Along with a desire on the part of the regime to promote and secure its longevity by keeping Ukraine out of Western economic and cultural influence, which it felt deeply threatened by, which is where the analogy breaks down somewhat (the US never had any specific obsession with Iraq in the way Putin has with Ukraine). And now that the initial gambit has clearly failed -- the war isn't about any of these initial motives; but rather a simple and desperate desire to save face, so that the regime can survive for a few more bloody years. The main point being (as with the US in Iraq) its true aims were/are entirely different from its outwardly stated aims.

mopsi 2y ago

> Why do we just dismiss what the Russians keep saying? They keep saying they don’t want US weapon systems on their border. If you listen to Russians, then you're left with an impression that they are being surrounded by US weapons on their borders. If you look at the numbers, then that turns out to be a blatant misrepresentation of truth. For example, the US fielded ~5000 main battle tanks in Europe at the end of the Cold War. In 2013, the last 10 were removed. The opposite is true: post-Cold War era has brought rapid disarmament to Europe, which has emboldened Russia to invade Ukraine, because disarmament has limited how much and how quickly allies could help Ukraine. > But I think it’s kind of obvious that the core Russian desire is to keep nato far from its borders. Ironically, this is "obvious" only if you accept the premise that Russia is determined to violate the security of its neighbors.

aguaviva 2y ago

I wasn't responding to what "the Russians" where saying; but rather to what you were saying. Which unfortunately was just plainly illogical and counterfactual (on that specific point, at least). But to address one aspect of what you're saying now: I think it’s kind of obvious that the core Russian desire is to keep nato far from its borders. This is broadly correct, and perfectly understandable. However the war was never really about NATO expansion in the first place. And even if it were -- it definitely wasn't a rational response to that concern. And it certainly wasn't a response that the regime was "pushed" into taking. The war was entirely optional for them - a failed gambit for enhanced "stature" and prestige on the global stage, basically[0]. Very much analogous to, and exactly as evil and stupid as the 2003 Iraq invasion, and supported by lies equally obvious and stupid. That unfortunately far too many otherwise perfectly decent and intelligent people were far to eager to believe. If we dismiss everything the Russians say and accept everything said by those arming Ukraine there is no point for debate on this topic: we can only accept the mainstream media narrative that Ukraine must fight and we must support it endlessly. I see plenty of room for debate on alternatives to the idea that Ukraine must keep fighting at the current pace until an unequivocal withdrawal (if that's what you mean by "supporting it endlessly"), and if you talk to Ukrainians directly you will very quickly find that they do as well. However in order to even get there we first need to free ourselves of broken narratives in terms of what's actually been happening on the ground, and stop assuming that what the current regime says is interchangeable with what Russians in general say or think. It would also be helpful to just completely forget about "mainstream media narratives", whatever those even supposedly are. When instead you can build your own far more reliable narratives from first principles (studying history, talking with people from there, or actually visiting the safer parts of the country if you like). -- [0] Along with a desire on the part of the regime to promote and secure its longevity by keeping Ukraine out of Western economic and cultural influence, which it felt deeply threatened by, which is where the analogy breaks down somewhat (the US never had any specific obsession with Iraq in the way Putin has with Ukraine). And now that the initial gambit has clearly failed -- the war isn't about any of these initial motives; but rather a simple and desperate desire to save face, so that the regime can survive for a few more bloody years. The main point being (as with the US in Iraq) its true aims were/are entirely different from its outwardly stated aims.