3 ms·

> I still haven't heard anyone make a case for why we keep hitting the Russians given what acceptable US foreign policy looks like. Somewhat cynically it's ent

> I still haven't heard anyone make a case for why we keep hitting the Russians given what acceptable US foreign policy looks like. Somewhat cynically it's entirely to do with which country they attacked. Had they moved on one farther away from mainland europe I doubt we'd have heard nearly as much about it. That said it would still be wrong just as much of US (and yes Chinese) foreign policy is morally wrong. Such should be called out rather than engaging in whataboutism.

lovich 2mo ago
We already saw that happened when Russia invaded Georgia in ~2008. Which I’ll also point out to the people in this thread who are incredulous at the idea that Russia would go on to invade another country if Ukraine had folded as fast as they expected, is already proof that they had no real intentions on just Ukraine.
- roenxi 2mo ago
  [dead]
roenxi 2mo ago
That goes to the heart of it though. If we approach this cynically there are some massive downsides - we're destabilising the leadership circle that controls the largest nuclear weapons cache in the world and pushing one of the major resource-rich countries away from Europe towards Asia. The moral arguments for doing that appear to all be rank hypocrisy given what we tolerate of ourselves. So if we go back and accept a certain level of cynicism when asking "why?" what exactly is the upside for us in Ukraine? The downsides seem to be enormous and when pushed for what the actual reasons are the best people have seems flimsy and poorly thought out in relation to the risks. This war could have been approached as though it was the US or China who had instigating it and ended with a call-out as opposed to millions of casualties. The winning strategy in these things seems to me to be much more of the Chinese approach where you sit tight, set up an impressive defensive perimeter and grow your economy until all your opponents bankrupt themselves in stupid wars.

lovich 2mo ago

We already saw that happened when Russia invaded Georgia in ~2008. Which I’ll also point out to the people in this thread who are incredulous at the idea that Russia would go on to invade another country if Ukraine had folded as fast as they expected, is already proof that they had no real intentions on just Ukraine.

roenxi 2mo ago
[dead]

roenxi 2mo ago

That goes to the heart of it though. If we approach this cynically there are some massive downsides - we're destabilising the leadership circle that controls the largest nuclear weapons cache in the world and pushing one of the major resource-rich countries away from Europe towards Asia. The moral arguments for doing that appear to all be rank hypocrisy given what we tolerate of ourselves. So if we go back and accept a certain level of cynicism when asking "why?" what exactly is the upside for us in Ukraine? The downsides seem to be enormous and when pushed for what the actual reasons are the best people have seems flimsy and poorly thought out in relation to the risks. This war could have been approached as though it was the US or China who had instigating it and ended with a call-out as opposed to millions of casualties. The winning strategy in these things seems to me to be much more of the Chinese approach where you sit tight, set up an impressive defensive perimeter and grow your economy until all your opponents bankrupt themselves in stupid wars.