3 ms·

Thanks, I will check it out. What I also don't understand is that I'm being downvoted just for asking a sincere question. What am I doing wrong?

TOMDM 2y ago
The problem is it's a point widely pushed by Russian propagandists. True or not, earnest or not in inquiry, people will reflexively judge it all the same.
- gitaarik 2y ago
  Well if you are in war with a country, you should at least try to understanding their perspective from their viewpoint to understand their motivations. If you want to prevent more conflict at least..
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    And I rarely see this topic being discussed. Why is that a taboo? That's supicious
    - SiempreViernes 2y ago
      I think it's because the US did sort of promise to block expansion, but then changed its mind and in now in hindsight it doesn't seem like they managed it very well but don't want to look bad.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Ultimately it's the weakest justification to allow Russia to do what it was always going to do anyway. There's not much to really discuss here unless you thought Russia was a credible place in the last 20 years.
      - gitaarik 2y ago
        That sounds like a prejudgment. You say Russia would have done this regardless of NATO's actions, but you don't know that. And you're downplaying the importance of NATO's actions and it's influence on Russia's actions.
        TOMDM 2y ago
        Russia already shared borders with NATO. The truth of the matter from Ukraine's perspective is that this never would have happened if Ukraine was a NATO member. NATO hasn't moved aggressively on Russia. The motivations for Russia and it's neighbours for their opinions on joining NATO are the same. Russia doesn't invade NATO members. That's why Russia's neighbours want to join and why Russia doesn't want them to.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    The context is that Russia kept expanding for 13 years under the same dictator, and then this time is the straw that broke the camel's back. The trust was broken several times. I don't really care to understand the mindset of a dictator. They want power, resources,or reputation out of it. There's not a lot of justified reasons to lead an assault that will cost millions of your citizen's lives.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - gitaarik 2y ago
      I agree we shouldn't take the mindset of a dictator seriously, but we should take the threat of a superpower seriously. And we should show respect to a superpower as long as it's a superpower, because getting into conflict with a superpower can cause WW3. I don't mean with that that I fully agree with their standpoint, but that we shouldn't fuck too much with them, because they might fuck with us.
somethingreen 2y ago
The only part of you post that can be steelmanned into what can be considered an argument is "NATO expansion". And that argument falls apart if you actually think and explore it for like 15 minutes. Like, what is NATO and its purpose, how does "expansion" actually work in terms of process, what events took place on the continent between 90s and new NATO members joining, what else could have compelled parties to go through the process and how durable that would be? And then the rest of your "question" is straight up factually false.
- gitaarik 2y ago
  Well if it's so clear to you, why can't you give a straight up argument? People always say things like "explore it for 15 minutes" or "think about it" or whatever. But I think people are just repeating what other people say. And yeah if everyone's opinion is like this, and you explore it for 15 minutes, and you're the kind of person that repeats what everybody says, then I can understand. But then you can't explain why you actually have that opinion.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    Eastern Europe rushed towards NATO as soon as the Russian-controlled Eastern Bloc dictatorships crumbled, to secure themselves from falling prey to Russia ever again. Existing NATO members were for a long time very lukewarm about the idea of accepting new members. The US did not push or expand NATO onto anyone, but Eastern Europe did everything they could to pull NATO towards them to gain additional security against the very same Russia that had just reluctantly agreed to the dismantlement of their dictatorships and removal of their armies from Eastern Europe. Are you not aware that the Russian-run communist dictatorships were not voluntary, but forced upon Eastern Europe? That's the key to understanding everything.
ArnoVW 2y ago
the problem is that simply asking the question plays into the hands of Putin. In war, the objective is to get the other party to stop fighting. Either by destroying his means, or by destroying his will. If you can get enough people to believe that a war cannot be won, or that it is not just, then they will stop. And you have won. See Psychological warfare [1] This is why Putin is menacing with nuclear weapons, even if he knows that he cannot use them. This is why Putin is making statements about Ukraine being a fascist nazi state, that he just had to invade for the good of the planet. This is why reliable / true statistics about macro-economics and battlefield victims have become state secrets. Every time someone naively, but sincerely, enters in the reasoning of Putin, the public debate is shifted a little bit to his advantage. This is what is referred to as a Useful Idiot [2]. And due to Brandolini's Law, otherwise known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle [3] it takes time for people to be educated. So people get frustrated with having to explain every time. So they just downvoted you. I guess. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
- gitaarik 2y ago
  So what is your argument, that we should go on fully with the war and send more soldiers to the front? Because we don't want to make any concession with Russia? Because we don't want to sympathize at least a little bit because that would make us "weak"? So we should go on and risk WW3?
  - ArnoVW 2y ago
    No. My reply was just based on your question, the point being that your question originated in Russian propaganda. That it was based on dishonest reasoning by Putin. And that asking the question was helping Putin. Read a history book: anyone can give reasonable sounding justifications for invading a country. At the very least leaders need support for their wars, so nobody lets loose the dogs of war, saying "yeah I just want their stuff". In geopolitics, the truth is not always in the middle. But if you're now asking me my personal opinion, should we "continue the war", then, yes I think we should continue to enable Ukraine to defend itself. So if Ukraine wants to send more soldiers to the front, to defend their nation, then yes we should support them. Note: that does not automatically mean sending American or European soldiers, but that was never on the table. We should continue to support them because we engaged ourselves to support Ukraine in the 90's, when we forced them to hand over their nukes to Russia. We should continue the war because as both recent and less recent history has borne out, allowing Russia to perform a landgrab will give the wrong ideas to other countries, ultimately resulting in geopolitical instability everywhere. We should continue to allow Ukraine to defend itself because demonstrably, it is effective. I have kids, and do not want WW3. But if after losing hundreds of thousands of men, during a three year war, Putin has not started a nuclear war; do you really think he will start one now? If anything, supporting Ukraine will prevent future conflict. All of this is obvious for anyone who has performed even a cursory study of history. Which probably explains why you were downvoted.

TOMDM 2y ago

The problem is it's a point widely pushed by Russian propagandists. True or not, earnest or not in inquiry, people will reflexively judge it all the same.

gitaarik 2y ago
Well if you are in war with a country, you should at least try to understanding their perspective from their viewpoint to understand their motivations. If you want to prevent more conflict at least..
- gitaarik 2y ago
  And I rarely see this topic being discussed. Why is that a taboo? That's supicious
  - SiempreViernes 2y ago
    I think it's because the US did sort of promise to block expansion, but then changed its mind and in now in hindsight it doesn't seem like they managed it very well but don't want to look bad.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Ultimately it's the weakest justification to allow Russia to do what it was always going to do anyway. There's not much to really discuss here unless you thought Russia was a credible place in the last 20 years.
    - gitaarik 2y ago
      That sounds like a prejudgment. You say Russia would have done this regardless of NATO's actions, but you don't know that. And you're downplaying the importance of NATO's actions and it's influence on Russia's actions.
      - TOMDM 2y ago
        Russia already shared borders with NATO. The truth of the matter from Ukraine's perspective is that this never would have happened if Ukraine was a NATO member. NATO hasn't moved aggressively on Russia. The motivations for Russia and it's neighbours for their opinions on joining NATO are the same. Russia doesn't invade NATO members. That's why Russia's neighbours want to join and why Russia doesn't want them to.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  The context is that Russia kept expanding for 13 years under the same dictator, and then this time is the straw that broke the camel's back. The trust was broken several times. I don't really care to understand the mindset of a dictator. They want power, resources,or reputation out of it. There's not a lot of justified reasons to lead an assault that will cost millions of your citizen's lives.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    I agree we shouldn't take the mindset of a dictator seriously, but we should take the threat of a superpower seriously. And we should show respect to a superpower as long as it's a superpower, because getting into conflict with a superpower can cause WW3. I don't mean with that that I fully agree with their standpoint, but that we shouldn't fuck too much with them, because they might fuck with us.

somethingreen 2y ago

The only part of you post that can be steelmanned into what can be considered an argument is "NATO expansion". And that argument falls apart if you actually think and explore it for like 15 minutes. Like, what is NATO and its purpose, how does "expansion" actually work in terms of process, what events took place on the continent between 90s and new NATO members joining, what else could have compelled parties to go through the process and how durable that would be? And then the rest of your "question" is straight up factually false.

gitaarik 2y ago
Well if it's so clear to you, why can't you give a straight up argument? People always say things like "explore it for 15 minutes" or "think about it" or whatever. But I think people are just repeating what other people say. And yeah if everyone's opinion is like this, and you explore it for 15 minutes, and you're the kind of person that repeats what everybody says, then I can understand. But then you can't explain why you actually have that opinion.
- mopsi 2y ago
  Eastern Europe rushed towards NATO as soon as the Russian-controlled Eastern Bloc dictatorships crumbled, to secure themselves from falling prey to Russia ever again. Existing NATO members were for a long time very lukewarm about the idea of accepting new members. The US did not push or expand NATO onto anyone, but Eastern Europe did everything they could to pull NATO towards them to gain additional security against the very same Russia that had just reluctantly agreed to the dismantlement of their dictatorships and removal of their armies from Eastern Europe. Are you not aware that the Russian-run communist dictatorships were not voluntary, but forced upon Eastern Europe? That's the key to understanding everything.

ArnoVW 2y ago

the problem is that simply asking the question plays into the hands of Putin. In war, the objective is to get the other party to stop fighting. Either by destroying his means, or by destroying his will. If you can get enough people to believe that a war cannot be won, or that it is not just, then they will stop. And you have won. See Psychological warfare [1] This is why Putin is menacing with nuclear weapons, even if he knows that he cannot use them. This is why Putin is making statements about Ukraine being a fascist nazi state, that he just had to invade for the good of the planet. This is why reliable / true statistics about macro-economics and battlefield victims have become state secrets. Every time someone naively, but sincerely, enters in the reasoning of Putin, the public debate is shifted a little bit to his advantage. This is what is referred to as a Useful Idiot [2]. And due to Brandolini's Law, otherwise known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle [3] it takes time for people to be educated. So people get frustrated with having to explain every time. So they just downvoted you. I guess. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

gitaarik 2y ago
So what is your argument, that we should go on fully with the war and send more soldiers to the front? Because we don't want to make any concession with Russia? Because we don't want to sympathize at least a little bit because that would make us "weak"? So we should go on and risk WW3?
- ArnoVW 2y ago
  No. My reply was just based on your question, the point being that your question originated in Russian propaganda. That it was based on dishonest reasoning by Putin. And that asking the question was helping Putin. Read a history book: anyone can give reasonable sounding justifications for invading a country. At the very least leaders need support for their wars, so nobody lets loose the dogs of war, saying "yeah I just want their stuff". In geopolitics, the truth is not always in the middle. But if you're now asking me my personal opinion, should we "continue the war", then, yes I think we should continue to enable Ukraine to defend itself. So if Ukraine wants to send more soldiers to the front, to defend their nation, then yes we should support them. Note: that does not automatically mean sending American or European soldiers, but that was never on the table. We should continue to support them because we engaged ourselves to support Ukraine in the 90's, when we forced them to hand over their nukes to Russia. We should continue the war because as both recent and less recent history has borne out, allowing Russia to perform a landgrab will give the wrong ideas to other countries, ultimately resulting in geopolitical instability everywhere. We should continue to allow Ukraine to defend itself because demonstrably, it is effective. I have kids, and do not want WW3. But if after losing hundreds of thousands of men, during a three year war, Putin has not started a nuclear war; do you really think he will start one now? If anything, supporting Ukraine will prevent future conflict. All of this is obvious for anyone who has performed even a cursory study of history. Which probably explains why you were downvoted.