13 ms·

Russia is the aggressor in this war; if it stopped its aggression and withdrew from Ukraine, the war would stop. So the responsibility for deescalating falls sq

by af78 1y ago

Russia is the aggressor in this war; if it stopped its aggression and withdrew from Ukraine, the war would stop. So the responsibility for deescalating falls squarely on Russia. Russia has no intention to stop; on the contrary it is ramping up the production of military equipment. As only military means can stop a military aggression, it makes every sense for European leaders to support Ukraine militarily. If anything, European leaders deserve criticism for not supporting Ukraine enough.

js8 1y ago
Which war? Yes, between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, and bigger. Between NATO and Russia, NATO is the aggressor (from Russian perspective) and bigger. Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion. It's against the international law, but this intent was made pretty clear also in Georgia. EU and NATO then reacted with more NATO expansion, and supporting Ukraine militarily. They didn't offer any deescalation. (IMHO NATO should have kicked Turkey out of NATO - not a democratic country - in exchange for Ukraine to continue being sovereign neutral state.) Neither side wants to deescalate. I think both sides behave as little children. But with rockets and nukes.
- AndrewDucker 1y ago
  NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine. People join NATO in self-defence against Russia. They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours.
  - js8 1y ago
    > NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine. Morally you're correct, but on a practical level, Russia didn't want the NATO to be in Ukraine. Morality (or international law) doesn't always win - look at the Cuban missile crisis. > People join NATO in self-defence against Russia. Yes, the motivation of the joining countries is clear. What is less clear (and you should question), why they should be accepted - if such offers pose a risk of eventual escalation into a war. (I know it's not fair, but that's geopolitics.) It was the U.S. announcing in 2007 NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, despite Germany and France being against and no public/democratic discussion of this in Ukraine and Georgia (or any other NATO member). Is it hard to believe this is done for any reason other than imperial vanity? > They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours. U.S. have attacked unprovoked countries all over the planet, why trust them more than Russia? Seems quite shortsighted.
    - AndrewDucker 1y ago
      Yes, the bully who keeps attacking their neighbours didn't want anyone to protect their neighbours. Going along with this seems like a terrible idea, if you value the bully not slowly expanding until they're your neighbour.
      - js8 1y ago
        It's precisely this mindset, "us vs them", that neutral states cannot exist, which is at the heart of current escalation.
        AndrewDucker 1y ago
        Nobody is forcing anyone to join the "Resist the violent bully in your doorstep" club. It just seems to happen naturally when the violent bully starts attacking their neighbours.
        js8 1y ago
        > Nobody is forcing anyone to join the "Resist the violent bully in your doorstep" club. That kind of club might be fine, but NATO simply isn't it. Again, you're not asking the question, what is in it for the U.S. (to promise protection - with nukes - to those countries). Look at my country - Czechia. After the end of Cold war, in the context of NATO, we have done more for American security than America did for ours. We had soldiers in Afghanistan and 11 of them died. During the same period, no American soldier has died defending Czech Republic. > It just seems to happen naturally when the violent bully starts attacking their neighbours. NATO continued expanding after the end of Cold war, without Russia attacking anyone. I think it was a mistake - EU should have created its own defense, and start from a clean slate. Anyway, I don't care much about the question of historic guilt. I commented here because I think western "leaders" should be honest about their goals vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine, and they aren't.
        mopsi 1y ago
        > what is in it for the U.S. Peace and stability for about 100 million people in Central and Eastern Europe, who will in turn consume American products and services and cheaply write code for American companies instead of designing nuclear missiles for Russians to target Washington DC. All that the Americans have to do is give a guarantee that essentially costs nothing, if it's believable enough. > NATO continued expanding after the end of Cold war, without Russia attacking anyone. NATO is not some loaf of bread sitting on a windowsill that expands on its own. Most countries in Eastern Europe worked feverishly to join NATO. Why? Because their leaders had seen the grainy VHS tapes from the 1994–1996 First Chechen War, showing horrific Russian atrocities against civilians, similar to what many had personally seen or even experienced in the 1940s and 1950s. These images dispelled any illusion that the Russian Federation was more civil than the USSR or that it would respect the sovereignty and self-determination of other peoples. Since the dissolution of the USSR, the Russia has been almost continuously at war, and it was only a matter of time before its attention shifted from the Caucasus to Eastern Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#Russian_Federation_(1991%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#... By the mid-1990s, Russia had already employed its strategy of setting up fake separatist movements to instigate armed conflicts in Europe, and a good chunk of Moldova remains under Russian military occupation to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistrian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistrian_War Nobody wanted to become the target of the next artificial "separatist movement" that would drain resources, hinder economic development, block EU integration, and leave the country vulnerable to full-scale invasion like Ukraine experienced in 2014 and then again in 2022. In an alternate timeline, Eastern Europe could have ended up like a series of Moldovas. Very poor, stagnating countries, constantly battling Russian meddling in their internal affairs. Even 30 years ago, this threat was obvious to anyone familiar with Russia. For example, here's Chechen president Dudayev, a former commander of a Soviet nuclear bomber base, predicting the future in a 1995 interview as the Russians were hunting him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IavEOx3hUAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IavEOx3hUAk
- general1465 1y ago
  NATO is not expanding on it's own. It is expanding because states around Russia does not want to be attacked by Russa. Or you think that Putin would be trying to swallow Ukraine, if Baltics would be outside NATO? Of course not, he would be going after Baltics. Easier prey.
- Yizahi 1y ago
  "Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion."(c) - tell me now, exactly which NATO expansion has happened before the invasion of Ukraine, to trigger the war? You are lying, that's what it is. PS: to anyone else reading this, the last NATO expansion in the Russian direction has happened 10 years before the invasion, when Putin was hugging western leaders and not bothered at all by the "scary NATO". This user is posting a retcon propaganda by a Kremlin. A lie.
  - js8 1y ago
    Russia started those wars to prevent Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, which was announced by G.W.Bush in 2007. I am not lying, read my comments more carefully.
    - Yizahi 1y ago
      This is an insane take. No one, not a single country, has even entertained an idea that Ukraine may join NATO. Not even in 2025, when everyone repeatedly tell Ukraine that NATO is out of the question, stop asking us. Even more, between 2010 and 2014 Ukrainian parliament has officially adopted a neutral status regarding NATO, just because it was clear it will never happen, NATO was too afraid. So basically on one hand there is factual evidence that NATO did not expand towards Russia for 10 years before invasion, and that Ukraine got a firm rejection about joining NATO and resigned to it 4 years before invasion. And on the other hand is some remark of one person, no longer in charge of anything for a decade and who's remark contradicts all factual actions of his country and his government. Yet again a kremlin lie, desperately trying to justify a war by looking for literally anything as a pretext and disregarding facts.
      - js8 1y ago
        I mean look it up: https://www.rferl.org/a/1075801.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1075801.html (I thought it was on Wikipedia but it isn't anymore.) Also, there is no need to speculate about my opinions - I am on this forum and can answer questions. I am quite decidedly not imperialist. :-) I understand that some people have difficulty understanding that somebody might take a position that doesn't conform to tribalistic friend-enemy distinction; but I do (and I am not alone). I think I have morally consistent stance on Ukraine/Russia, which is in fact in line with my stance on Palestine/Israel, for instance.
- dvfjsdhgfv 1y ago
  > Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion. You do realize NATO doesn't expand by itself? It's always a country that asks to join so that Russia can't attack it, not the other way round. NATO is not going around asking new countries to join. On the contrary: Ukraine already asked before the war and was rejected. (Not to mention the absurdity of this argument when you consider why Finland and Sweden joined NATO.)

by af78 1y ago

js8 1y ago

Which war? Yes, between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, and bigger. Between NATO and Russia, NATO is the aggressor (from Russian perspective) and bigger. Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion. It's against the international law, but this intent was made pretty clear also in Georgia. EU and NATO then reacted with more NATO expansion, and supporting Ukraine militarily. They didn't offer any deescalation. (IMHO NATO should have kicked Turkey out of NATO - not a democratic country - in exchange for Ukraine to continue being sovereign neutral state.) Neither side wants to deescalate. I think both sides behave as little children. But with rockets and nukes.

AndrewDucker 1y ago
NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine. People join NATO in self-defence against Russia. They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours.
- js8 1y ago
  > NATO has not expanded into Russia. Russia has expanded into Ukraine. Morally you're correct, but on a practical level, Russia didn't want the NATO to be in Ukraine. Morality (or international law) doesn't always win - look at the Cuban missile crisis. > People join NATO in self-defence against Russia. Yes, the motivation of the joining countries is clear. What is less clear (and you should question), why they should be accepted - if such offers pose a risk of eventual escalation into a war. (I know it's not fair, but that's geopolitics.) It was the U.S. announcing in 2007 NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, despite Germany and France being against and no public/democratic discussion of this in Ukraine and Georgia (or any other NATO member). Is it hard to believe this is done for any reason other than imperial vanity? > They wouldn't have to if Russia didn't keep attacking its neighbours. U.S. have attacked unprovoked countries all over the planet, why trust them more than Russia? Seems quite shortsighted.
  - AndrewDucker 1y ago
    Yes, the bully who keeps attacking their neighbours didn't want anyone to protect their neighbours. Going along with this seems like a terrible idea, if you value the bully not slowly expanding until they're your neighbour.
    - js8 1y ago
      It's precisely this mindset, "us vs them", that neutral states cannot exist, which is at the heart of current escalation.
      - AndrewDucker 1y ago
        Nobody is forcing anyone to join the "Resist the violent bully in your doorstep" club. It just seems to happen naturally when the violent bully starts attacking their neighbours.
        js8 1y ago
        > Nobody is forcing anyone to join the "Resist the violent bully in your doorstep" club. That kind of club might be fine, but NATO simply isn't it. Again, you're not asking the question, what is in it for the U.S. (to promise protection - with nukes - to those countries). Look at my country - Czechia. After the end of Cold war, in the context of NATO, we have done more for American security than America did for ours. We had soldiers in Afghanistan and 11 of them died. During the same period, no American soldier has died defending Czech Republic. > It just seems to happen naturally when the violent bully starts attacking their neighbours. NATO continued expanding after the end of Cold war, without Russia attacking anyone. I think it was a mistake - EU should have created its own defense, and start from a clean slate. Anyway, I don't care much about the question of historic guilt. I commented here because I think western "leaders" should be honest about their goals vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine, and they aren't.
        mopsi 1y ago
        > what is in it for the U.S. Peace and stability for about 100 million people in Central and Eastern Europe, who will in turn consume American products and services and cheaply write code for American companies instead of designing nuclear missiles for Russians to target Washington DC. All that the Americans have to do is give a guarantee that essentially costs nothing, if it's believable enough. > NATO continued expanding after the end of Cold war, without Russia attacking anyone. NATO is not some loaf of bread sitting on a windowsill that expands on its own. Most countries in Eastern Europe worked feverishly to join NATO. Why? Because their leaders had seen the grainy VHS tapes from the 1994–1996 First Chechen War, showing horrific Russian atrocities against civilians, similar to what many had personally seen or even experienced in the 1940s and 1950s. These images dispelled any illusion that the Russian Federation was more civil than the USSR or that it would respect the sovereignty and self-determination of other peoples. Since the dissolution of the USSR, the Russia has been almost continuously at war, and it was only a matter of time before its attention shifted from the Caucasus to Eastern Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#Russian_Federation_(1991%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#... By the mid-1990s, Russia had already employed its strategy of setting up fake separatist movements to instigate armed conflicts in Europe, and a good chunk of Moldova remains under Russian military occupation to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistrian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistrian_War Nobody wanted to become the target of the next artificial "separatist movement" that would drain resources, hinder economic development, block EU integration, and leave the country vulnerable to full-scale invasion like Ukraine experienced in 2014 and then again in 2022. In an alternate timeline, Eastern Europe could have ended up like a series of Moldovas. Very poor, stagnating countries, constantly battling Russian meddling in their internal affairs. Even 30 years ago, this threat was obvious to anyone familiar with Russia. For example, here's Chechen president Dudayev, a former commander of a Soviet nuclear bomber base, predicting the future in a 1995 interview as the Russians were hunting him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IavEOx3hUAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IavEOx3hUAk
general1465 1y ago
NATO is not expanding on it's own. It is expanding because states around Russia does not want to be attacked by Russa. Or you think that Putin would be trying to swallow Ukraine, if Baltics would be outside NATO? Of course not, he would be going after Baltics. Easier prey.
Yizahi 1y ago
"Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion."(c) - tell me now, exactly which NATO expansion has happened before the invasion of Ukraine, to trigger the war? You are lying, that's what it is. PS: to anyone else reading this, the last NATO expansion in the Russian direction has happened 10 years before the invasion, when Putin was hugging western leaders and not bothered at all by the "scary NATO". This user is posting a retcon propaganda by a Kremlin. A lie.
- js8 1y ago
  Russia started those wars to prevent Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, which was announced by G.W.Bush in 2007. I am not lying, read my comments more carefully.
  - Yizahi 1y ago
    This is an insane take. No one, not a single country, has even entertained an idea that Ukraine may join NATO. Not even in 2025, when everyone repeatedly tell Ukraine that NATO is out of the question, stop asking us. Even more, between 2010 and 2014 Ukrainian parliament has officially adopted a neutral status regarding NATO, just because it was clear it will never happen, NATO was too afraid. So basically on one hand there is factual evidence that NATO did not expand towards Russia for 10 years before invasion, and that Ukraine got a firm rejection about joining NATO and resigned to it 4 years before invasion. And on the other hand is some remark of one person, no longer in charge of anything for a decade and who's remark contradicts all factual actions of his country and his government. Yet again a kremlin lie, desperately trying to justify a war by looking for literally anything as a pretext and disregarding facts.
    - js8 1y ago
      I mean look it up: https://www.rferl.org/a/1075801.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1075801.html (I thought it was on Wikipedia but it isn't anymore.) Also, there is no need to speculate about my opinions - I am on this forum and can answer questions. I am quite decidedly not imperialist. :-) I understand that some people have difficulty understanding that somebody might take a position that doesn't conform to tribalistic friend-enemy distinction; but I do (and I am not alone). I think I have morally consistent stance on Ukraine/Russia, which is in fact in line with my stance on Palestine/Israel, for instance.
dvfjsdhgfv 1y ago
> Russia started the war in Ukraine to stop the NATO expansion. You do realize NATO doesn't expand by itself? It's always a country that asks to join so that Russia can't attack it, not the other way round. NATO is not going around asking new countries to join. On the contrary: Ukraine already asked before the war and was rejected. (Not to mention the absurdity of this argument when you consider why Finland and Sweden joined NATO.)