4 ms·

Yes, there is popular support, but the consequences have been barely discussed. We don't openly admit, that by supplying Ukraine, we are entering a war with Rus

by js8 1y ago

Yes, there is popular support, but the consequences have been barely discussed. We don't openly admit, that by supplying Ukraine, we are entering a war with Russia, based on our own decision (not as a defensive measure). This vigilantism (even if it can be argued is employed to protect international law) goes against the idea that we're a peaceful country. There is no consensus about Russia attacking Czechia (or any EU country) next. In fact many military experts agree that Russia doesn't even have military personel to occupy whole Ukraine. It's also unclear why, if Putin's ambition is some kind of Hitlerian/Napoleonic expansion to Europe, he would wait 25 years (into his 70s) to do it. And to the extent he has reasonable goals, we can put something tangible on the negotiation table to see what he really wants, instead of guessing. We (I mean NATO) didn't - this indicates it's us who doesn't want to negotiate; because we don't want to reveal our colonial preference (Ukraine is already being described as a great next investment).

1718627440 1y ago
We had have Russian cyber attacks and terrorist attacks for decades. I don't think we get to decide to not be in war with Russia. Being an weapon source is also different form being in open war. > In fact many military experts agree that Russia doesn't even have military personel to occupy whole Ukraine. Doesn't really matter. Nazi Germany also didn't had the military personnel to occupy Central Europe for a prolonged time, this didn't stop them from trying. > if Putin's ambition is some kind of Hitlerian/Napoleonic expansion to Europe, he would wait 25 years (into his 70s) to do it Internal politics (NS Germany started the expansion when they got bankrupt), being busy in other parts of the world (Middle east), there is not a lack of incentive. > because we don't want to reveal our colonial preference We don't prevent countries from joining if there population supports it. This is different from taking colonies even if Russia claims to not understand this distinction.
- js8 1y ago
  > We had have Russian cyber attacks and terrorist attacks for decades. I am curious what are you referring to. I have read some reporting based on BIS reports and Vrbětice is by far the worst incident (2 dead). > Being an weapon source is also different form being in open war. As long as you can maintain it, perhaps. But did Putin give us an assurance that he will not escalate to an open war? I am not Putin fan, but I don't see us trying to deescalate, which is the only realistic way to end the war. > Nazi Germany also didn't had the military personnel to occupy Central Europe for a prolonged time, this didn't stop them from trying. According to quick search, Germans during WW2 had >600k troops in Poland maintaining order. Russia doesn't have an army to fully occupy Ukraine. Even if we accept that today's Russia has similar ambitions to Nazi Germany, and has to be defeated in a similar way, there are two important obstacles to that victory: - Russia has nuclear weapons, WW2 Germany had not - Today, there is no USSR helping to fight, which was significant So it's a non-starter. And idea that you somehow put Russia on their knees and keep them there, for decades - not only it is morally abhorrent, but also bad for European security and economy (unlike U.S., we are their neighbor). > We don't prevent countries from joining if there population supports it. This is different from taking colonies even if Russia claims to not understand this distinction. Yes, but why should Americans care? See my other comments in this thread. I think there is this mass delusion among Americans that they don't have any colonies, but I think Israel and Gaza shows that's not true. It's a different system, more adhoc, but U.S. maintains significant economic and military power in many parts of the world. And U.S. have destroyed Middle East with these shenanigans, so I am not happy them applying similar divisive policies to Eastern European countries.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    > I am curious what are you referring to. A lot of cyber attacks in the last decades, stuff like WannaCry, Kaspersky..., Navalny, threats to politicians, espionage for example the recent case about Maximillian Krah, Navalny, bombs in packets that were supposed to be in the air while detonating, drone attacks, purposed limitations in gas supply... I mean now NATO is discussing responses, but these things aren't exactly new and have been going on for years. > Russia doesn't have an army to fully occupy Ukraine. As far as I understand it they are still not really using the official army, since they fear that might have consequences about the stability of the regime. Also there is an asymmetry as we care about a nation as it's people, but the Russian leadership (it's not only Putin) doesn't feel like that. Troop loss isn't more to them than a number and they have a wast population that they are willing to burn for there own goals. Ukraine was really underestimated, but I think we underestimate our military ability. We relied to much on the USA and dissolved our armies thinking there will never be another war. > And idea that you somehow put Russia on their knees and keep them there, for decades I don't think anybody plans for that. >> Yes, but why should Americans care? I don't understand what you want to say, this wasn't about Americans? > I think there is this mass delusion among Americans that they don't have any colonies, but I think Israel and Gaza shows that's not true. The USA are/were the major world power, yes they do have influence among the world. But the Israel/Gaza issue is mostly caused by having nationalists on BOTH sides. The other nations on the world also have agency. > And U.S. have destroyed Middle East with these shenanigans, so I am not happy them applying similar divisive policies to Eastern European countries. Russia wasn't exactly uninvolved either, but I don't see how Ukraine is that much comparable and EU countries investing in the military is very much the agency of ourselves. > but I don't see us trying to deescalate, which is the only realistic way to end the war. This always assumes that Putin has issues that are orthogonal to the war that we can just negotiate. What I perceive to be the case is that they just want territory expansion and control over the run away states of the USSR. The war isn't just a necessary nuisance and a means to the goal, but the goal itself.

by js8 1y ago

1718627440 1y ago

We had have Russian cyber attacks and terrorist attacks for decades. I don't think we get to decide to not be in war with Russia. Being an weapon source is also different form being in open war. > In fact many military experts agree that Russia doesn't even have military personel to occupy whole Ukraine. Doesn't really matter. Nazi Germany also didn't had the military personnel to occupy Central Europe for a prolonged time, this didn't stop them from trying. > if Putin's ambition is some kind of Hitlerian/Napoleonic expansion to Europe, he would wait 25 years (into his 70s) to do it Internal politics (NS Germany started the expansion when they got bankrupt), being busy in other parts of the world (Middle east), there is not a lack of incentive. > because we don't want to reveal our colonial preference We don't prevent countries from joining if there population supports it. This is different from taking colonies even if Russia claims to not understand this distinction.

js8 1y ago
> We had have Russian cyber attacks and terrorist attacks for decades. I am curious what are you referring to. I have read some reporting based on BIS reports and Vrbětice is by far the worst incident (2 dead). > Being an weapon source is also different form being in open war. As long as you can maintain it, perhaps. But did Putin give us an assurance that he will not escalate to an open war? I am not Putin fan, but I don't see us trying to deescalate, which is the only realistic way to end the war. > Nazi Germany also didn't had the military personnel to occupy Central Europe for a prolonged time, this didn't stop them from trying. According to quick search, Germans during WW2 had >600k troops in Poland maintaining order. Russia doesn't have an army to fully occupy Ukraine. Even if we accept that today's Russia has similar ambitions to Nazi Germany, and has to be defeated in a similar way, there are two important obstacles to that victory: - Russia has nuclear weapons, WW2 Germany had not - Today, there is no USSR helping to fight, which was significant So it's a non-starter. And idea that you somehow put Russia on their knees and keep them there, for decades - not only it is morally abhorrent, but also bad for European security and economy (unlike U.S., we are their neighbor). > We don't prevent countries from joining if there population supports it. This is different from taking colonies even if Russia claims to not understand this distinction. Yes, but why should Americans care? See my other comments in this thread. I think there is this mass delusion among Americans that they don't have any colonies, but I think Israel and Gaza shows that's not true. It's a different system, more adhoc, but U.S. maintains significant economic and military power in many parts of the world. And U.S. have destroyed Middle East with these shenanigans, so I am not happy them applying similar divisive policies to Eastern European countries.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  > I am curious what are you referring to. A lot of cyber attacks in the last decades, stuff like WannaCry, Kaspersky..., Navalny, threats to politicians, espionage for example the recent case about Maximillian Krah, Navalny, bombs in packets that were supposed to be in the air while detonating, drone attacks, purposed limitations in gas supply... I mean now NATO is discussing responses, but these things aren't exactly new and have been going on for years. > Russia doesn't have an army to fully occupy Ukraine. As far as I understand it they are still not really using the official army, since they fear that might have consequences about the stability of the regime. Also there is an asymmetry as we care about a nation as it's people, but the Russian leadership (it's not only Putin) doesn't feel like that. Troop loss isn't more to them than a number and they have a wast population that they are willing to burn for there own goals. Ukraine was really underestimated, but I think we underestimate our military ability. We relied to much on the USA and dissolved our armies thinking there will never be another war. > And idea that you somehow put Russia on their knees and keep them there, for decades I don't think anybody plans for that. >> Yes, but why should Americans care? I don't understand what you want to say, this wasn't about Americans? > I think there is this mass delusion among Americans that they don't have any colonies, but I think Israel and Gaza shows that's not true. The USA are/were the major world power, yes they do have influence among the world. But the Israel/Gaza issue is mostly caused by having nationalists on BOTH sides. The other nations on the world also have agency. > And U.S. have destroyed Middle East with these shenanigans, so I am not happy them applying similar divisive policies to Eastern European countries. Russia wasn't exactly uninvolved either, but I don't see how Ukraine is that much comparable and EU countries investing in the military is very much the agency of ourselves. > but I don't see us trying to deescalate, which is the only realistic way to end the war. This always assumes that Putin has issues that are orthogonal to the war that we can just negotiate. What I perceive to be the case is that they just want territory expansion and control over the run away states of the USSR. The war isn't just a necessary nuisance and a means to the goal, but the goal itself.