4 ms·

> starting from the US arrogance that led to the war in Ukraine What arrogance would this be?

throw310822 7mo ago
The arrogance of ignoring repeated Russian requests to stop NATO expansion and Ukraine integration into NATO, and of not stopping (well documented) US political meddling in Ukraine. This went on for many years- Mearsheimer was able to predict the war ten years in advance. The US and Europe ignored all this- the US maybe because it really stood to gain from a war, Europe because it thought it was beneath itself to seriously engage with Russia.
- woodruffw 7mo ago
  On its face, this suggests that only Russia and the US have any autonomy vis a vis who gets to be in NATO. What about what Ukraine wants?
  - throw310822 7mo ago
    NATO is a military alliance, the only ones who get a say about who is in it and who isn't are its current members. That said, of course choices have consequences, and some choices are more advisable/ appropriate than others.
    - wiseowise 7mo ago
      > NATO is a military alliance, the only ones who get a say about who is in it and who isn't are its current members. And they repeatedly rejected Ukraine and are still doing it? What's your point?
    - woodruffw 7mo ago
      I’m pretty confident that a large part of NATO (and all other military alliances) is the accession of new members. Candidate members have to want to accede, which goes back to my question: why are we talking about what the US and Russia want, when Ukraine’s wants are just as if not more important?
      - throw310822 7mo ago
        Look, the point is not what one wants. Everyone is free to make its own choices. The point is that choices have consequences, and when the consequences are very clear in advance and you still make that choice, you also take responsibility for the consequences. This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance.
        woodruffw 7mo ago
        The point appears to be changing. And again: it’s not clear why we’re talking about the US or NATO as primary drivers when Ukraine is a sovereign state that can litigate its affairs as it pleases. If you want to claim that the US meddles in Ukraine’s affairs that seems defensible, but no less defensible than the claim that Russia also meddles in their affairs (including kinetically, at the moment). Edit: I’ll also note that arrogance usually means something closer to “discounting the consequences of your actions,” which is not evidenced here.
        wiseowise 7mo ago
        > This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance. So literally Russia invading Ukraine.
- ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
  Mearsheimer was predicting Putin wouldn't do a full scale invasion of Ukraine right up until shortly after he already did , so strange choice of Cassandra to pick.
- wiseowise 7mo ago
  NATO is a defensive pact, it can't expand. Countries can and want to join it willingly. > and of not stopping (well documented) US political meddling in Ukraine Assuming that's true, and it's a big if, let's turn this around: Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to? > Europe because it thought it was beneath itself to seriously engage with Russia. Beneath itself like, checks notes, making its industry completely dependent on Russian energy exports and pretty much not doing anything when Russia attacked Georgia, occupied Crimea and attacked east of Ukraine. If Europe had a backbone and considered Russia *beneath* them, it would completely kill any trade with it.
  - throw310822 7mo ago
    > Countries can and want to join it willingly. It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity. > Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to? The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly. > pretty much not doing anything when Russia attacked Georgia, occupied Crimea Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-against-russia/timeline-sanctions-against-russia/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-agains...
    - wiseowise 7mo ago
      > It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity. And as history showed, they did the right choice. Or war in Ukraine would be war in Ukraine + Baltics + Romania. > The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly. So US is messing with Ukraine, which Russia doesn't like, therefore Russia attacks Ukraine, because it can't compete using its whip with the Wests cookie. Logic checks out. > Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014. So pretty much ignored Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. The only sanctions Russia understands is boots on the ground and rockets (now drones) attacking their military and refineries.
drysine 7mo ago
Like this: "It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them."[0] And that's coming from a man who said a few minutes earlier: "There is one of the factor here that we seem to be forgetting, and we did, though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward. ... It is not a legally binding, but it was, you might say, a geopolitical deal."[1] But later on it was a repeating speaking point that it's not Russia's business if NATO decides to expand. And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014? [2] [0] https://youtu.be/ZHm_7T7QNl8?si=3j_teBKN1sFVOGSL&t=925 https://youtu.be/ZHm_7T7QNl8?si=3j_teBKN1sFVOGSL&t=925 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8&t=706s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8&t=706s [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
- wiseowise 7mo ago
  > "It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them."[0] Has Russia ever refrained from offending the West when it suited their interests? > And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014? [2] It takes some really stupid arrogance to say shit like this when Ukraine literally had Russian stooge as a president at the time, installed via fossil fuel extortion. If Russia wanted truly neutral Ukraine, they should've backed the fuck off in the first place.
  - drysine 7mo ago
    >Has Russia ever refrained from offending the West Of course. Like abstaining in a UN SC vote, allowing NATO bomb Libya. >Russian stooge as a president at the time, installed via fossil fuel extortion Nope, Yanukovich was elected by Ukrainian people.[0] Previous pro-Western president received only 6% of votes in the first round. >If Russia wanted truly neutral Ukraine, they should've backed the fuck off in the first place. Enlighten me, how backing off when the US supports pro-Western coup in the Ukraine would've resulted in "truly neutral Ukraine"? And please mind your language [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...

The arrogance of ignoring repeated Russian requests to stop NATO expansion and Ukraine integration into NATO, and of not stopping (well documented) US political meddling in Ukraine. This went on for many years- Mearsheimer was able to predict the war ten years in advance. The US and Europe ignored all this- the US maybe because it really stood to gain from a war, Europe because it thought it was beneath itself to seriously engage with Russia.

woodruffw 7mo ago
On its face, this suggests that only Russia and the US have any autonomy vis a vis who gets to be in NATO. What about what Ukraine wants?
- throw310822 7mo ago
  NATO is a military alliance, the only ones who get a say about who is in it and who isn't are its current members. That said, of course choices have consequences, and some choices are more advisable/ appropriate than others.
  - wiseowise 7mo ago
    > NATO is a military alliance, the only ones who get a say about who is in it and who isn't are its current members. And they repeatedly rejected Ukraine and are still doing it? What's your point?
  - woodruffw 7mo ago
    I’m pretty confident that a large part of NATO (and all other military alliances) is the accession of new members. Candidate members have to want to accede, which goes back to my question: why are we talking about what the US and Russia want, when Ukraine’s wants are just as if not more important?
    - throw310822 7mo ago
      Look, the point is not what one wants. Everyone is free to make its own choices. The point is that choices have consequences, and when the consequences are very clear in advance and you still make that choice, you also take responsibility for the consequences. This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance.
      - woodruffw 7mo ago
        The point appears to be changing. And again: it’s not clear why we’re talking about the US or NATO as primary drivers when Ukraine is a sovereign state that can litigate its affairs as it pleases. If you want to claim that the US meddles in Ukraine’s affairs that seems defensible, but no less defensible than the claim that Russia also meddles in their affairs (including kinetically, at the moment). Edit: I’ll also note that arrogance usually means something closer to “discounting the consequences of your actions,” which is not evidenced here.
      - wiseowise 7mo ago
        > This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance. So literally Russia invading Ukraine.
ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
Mearsheimer was predicting Putin wouldn't do a full scale invasion of Ukraine right up until shortly after he already did , so strange choice of Cassandra to pick.
wiseowise 7mo ago
NATO is a defensive pact, it can't expand. Countries can and want to join it willingly. > and of not stopping (well documented) US political meddling in Ukraine Assuming that's true, and it's a big if, let's turn this around: Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to? > Europe because it thought it was beneath itself to seriously engage with Russia. Beneath itself like, checks notes, making its industry completely dependent on Russian energy exports and pretty much not doing anything when Russia attacked Georgia, occupied Crimea and attacked east of Ukraine. If Europe had a backbone and considered Russia *beneath* them, it would completely kill any trade with it.
- throw310822 7mo ago
  > Countries can and want to join it willingly. It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity. > Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to? The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly. > pretty much not doing anything when Russia attacked Georgia, occupied Crimea Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-against-russia/timeline-sanctions-against-russia/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-agains...
  - wiseowise 7mo ago
    > It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity. And as history showed, they did the right choice. Or war in Ukraine would be war in Ukraine + Baltics + Romania. > The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly. So US is messing with Ukraine, which Russia doesn't like, therefore Russia attacks Ukraine, because it can't compete using its whip with the Wests cookie. Logic checks out. > Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014. So pretty much ignored Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. The only sanctions Russia understands is boots on the ground and rockets (now drones) attacking their military and refineries.

drysine 7mo ago

Like this: "It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them."[0] And that's coming from a man who said a few minutes earlier: "There is one of the factor here that we seem to be forgetting, and we did, though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward. ... It is not a legally binding, but it was, you might say, a geopolitical deal."[1] But later on it was a repeating speaking point that it's not Russia's business if NATO decides to expand. And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014? [2] [0] https://youtu.be/ZHm_7T7QNl8?si=3j_teBKN1sFVOGSL&t=925 https://youtu.be/ZHm_7T7QNl8?si=3j_teBKN1sFVOGSL&t=925 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8&t=706s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8&t=706s [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

wiseowise 7mo ago
> "It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them."[0] Has Russia ever refrained from offending the West when it suited their interests? > And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014? [2] It takes some really stupid arrogance to say shit like this when Ukraine literally had Russian stooge as a president at the time, installed via fossil fuel extortion. If Russia wanted truly neutral Ukraine, they should've backed the fuck off in the first place.
- drysine 7mo ago
  >Has Russia ever refrained from offending the West Of course. Like abstaining in a UN SC vote, allowing NATO bomb Libya. >Russian stooge as a president at the time, installed via fossil fuel extortion Nope, Yanukovich was elected by Ukrainian people.[0] Previous pro-Western president received only 6% of votes in the first round. >If Russia wanted truly neutral Ukraine, they should've backed the fuck off in the first place. Enlighten me, how backing off when the US supports pro-Western coup in the Ukraine would've resulted in "truly neutral Ukraine"? And please mind your language [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...