not sure how to answer that. Funding Ukraine and giving them weapons is obviously more hostile position towards Russia than just about every other option besides going to war.
You’re going to have lay out a strong argument here if you want anyone to believe that ignoring the situation would lead to less hostility. We ignored russias land grabs Georgia which was followed up by Crimea being taken. We ignored that and it was followed up by a full scale invasion into Ukraine. The idea that we are at fault for the hostility here and, separately, that we should have stayed out of it is ridiculous
If we want to be frank, I think you’re being disingenuous by talking about hostilities between nations while referencing Ukraine and then walking it back to USA-Russia relations.
I think you’re either using a motte and Bailey fallacy or you’re so pro Russia you are discounting Ukraine as a state with agency.
Feel free to prove me wrong by laying out a solid argument but right now everything you’ve posted seems like it’s not reliable
I dont think there is anything disingenuous in prioritizing US-Russia relations more and US-Ukraine relations less.
Ukraine has 100% agency, but that is independent of US support. The US has agency too. I hear this ignored a lot with respect to NATO. The US can unilaterally deny any country entry- all it takes is a vote - but people in this thread act like it is helpless and has no control over admittance.
Ok, well taking you at face value, Russia opposes us on a global stage and Ukraine is trying to align with us as an ally. Why the fuck would we not back up Ukraine against Russian in this situation then, other than for the fact that Russia is threatening massive damage to us?
That is a reasonable enough question to pause on, but if Russia is threatening that for land gains in opposition to values we support(democracies) then we might as well roll over and show our bellies. We have a significantly stronger military and capitulating to their threats is a net negative to us in both the short and long term.
If someone threatens to kill you unless they get everything they want, you either need to decide to live with them as your master or call their bluff
By that argument, why doesn't the US just join the war with Russia against Ukraine?
Anyway I think I'll avoid getting sucked into this. I just find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that helping a country in their own defense could actually be an act of hostility. It's really such a nonsensical position.
>I just find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that helping a country in their own defense could actually be an act of hostility. It's really such a nonsensical position.
To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly. It's a country directly in their backyard so the threat (real or imaginary) is much more magnified than say, if this was a proxy war on the other side of the world. Their problems with Ukraine are closer and more real to them there than they are here halfway across the globe to us in the US now. In their eyes we are going actively out of the way to meddle in affairs that they perceive as being indirectly hostile towards them.
Maybe when someone claims this is an act of hostility, they might mean that this opens up the standard to reciprocal action further down the line? Say, the possibility of the next boots on the ground conflict the US finds themselves involved in seeing the enemy side funded and equipped by the Russians by weapons we've seen to be not ineffective in modern warfare, when in a climate with better relations they'd have chosen not to do so. We'd probably still "win" by whatever metric we set but it'd undoubtedly lead to more loss of US lives than it could have otherwise, and they could hide behind the moral defense of "supplying an underdog with arms, equipment, training, and military intelligence in someone else's backyard is not an act of hostility."
> To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly.
Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO. But instead of solidifying peace, bowing in to Russian demands only encouraged Russia to go further. They invaded Georgia the same year, and parts of Ukraine six years later, and attempted a full take-over of Ukraine in 2022, sparking the largest war in Europe since Hitler.
>Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO.
But that's not really true and omits some crucial details. We didn't offer them ascension plans but we did repeatedly flaunt the promise that eventually both countries would be full fledged NATO members. [0] This came from top NATO and US political leadership- I believe even used by presidential candidates then in their campaigns. Calling open taunting a sign of respect doesn't fly and the invasions of both Georgia and Ukraine didn't happen until after we repeatedly goaded the Russians and implanted the idea in their head that they either act now, or regret it later when those countries join up after we spent years building them up.
Would Russia have invaded them regardless? Hard to try to mindread alternate history but odds are good that they would have. But we did have a hand in the provocation of what definitely did happen and is happening now and in their eyes that might be seen as an act of hostility.
I suppose if there's any lesson to be taken from that is that trouble was stirred up instead of an attempt at a more diplomatic approach (or even something aggressive and decisive, putting our foot down and doing something about it back then), we gave Ukraine a false sense of confidence, told them we'd back them, and now are refusing to take on more responsibility for it because we aren't the ones facing the bloodshed, our support is a pittance and win or lose our day to day lives will be much the same.
[0] https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html
> We didn't offer them ascension plans but we did repeatedly flaunt the promise that eventually both countries would be full fledged NATO members.
In your opinion, how common it is in diplomatic forms of communication to send informal positive signals while avoiding any meaningful official steps when an action is deemed undesirable?
When you know your enemies have plans that are openly at ends with yours, when the heads of their alliance say this will come to pass, when their political elites campaign on the promise that they will push this cause along, when your rival countries make investments in this future, do you believe the words coming out of their mouths? Or chalk it all up to informal positive signals? Words aren't empty and a big part of diplomacy is choosing the right ones. Even in the slightest smidge of an off-chance that this was just placation, they chose to phrase it in a way that still comes off as a threat- act now, because if you don't WE will. I don't think it's a fair argument to claim that it meant nothing and we didn't really want those countries in NATO. We made a compromise then to not let them in to try to appease Russia, then immediately flubbed it by antagonizing them with a looming perceived threat over their head in the future. Had we played things more diplomatically things could have panned out differently.
>Turkey applied for EU in 1987 and negotiations are currently about 6% done. Would you expect Turkey to become a member of the EU in foreseeable future?
There's no set time for how long it can take a country to join NATO and requirements can be bent or overlooked if expediency is required. There's multiple countries that have joined in timespans of <5 years.
> When you know your enemies have plans that are openly at ends with yours
In what way are the EU and NATO enemies of Russia? Both organizations stipulate the goal of ensuring peace in Europe and have a good track record at that. Is peace, stability and prosperity in Europe at odds with Russian plans?
I think it's not a hot take in the slightest to say that NATO and Russia consider each other enemies. I certainly don't think anyone would be calling them friends, or close allies. They clash often politically and their goals rarely seem to align. And now they've pitched their support in a war by proxy to help defend Ukraine from Russian invasion. You don't think that Russia views NATO as an enemy?
> You don't think that Russia views NATO as an enemy?
I guess it depends on who you ask.
I recently read the memoirs of the man who was the Russian minister of foreign affairs 1990-1996. He certainly did not view NATO as an enemy. Already in 1992, he foresaw that all of Europe would eventually join the EU and NATO, because their core values would sooner or later lead to accepting new democracies as they matured. He expected that Russia would join those organizations too, but before that could happen, his fraction unfortunately lost the domestic political struggle to the old guard who wanted to maintain Russia as their personal fortress, and turned domestic anti-western brainwashing up to 11 before anyone in the west even lifted a finger at them.
He concluded despite some diplomatic mistakes that were made, the west was on the right side of history by working with new democracies and has been successful in ensuring peace and prosperity through cooperation with their new partners. Russia, which returned to Soviet-era antagonism, failed.
He hopes that one day, Russian people will be able to follow other European nations in finding their national interest in democratic reforms and cooperation with western institutions.
He wrote the book a little before the full-scale invasion. The war has made him less poetic and more direct. He does not think very highly of people who buy the Russian narrative about NATO threat. He now calls them "chumps" and "useful idiots" who help to cement the little fortress where Putin and his KGB buddies can freely loot Russian people with impunity. And now, unfortunately, the insatiable greed has spilled over to Ukraine too.
>the west was on the right side of history by working with new democracies and has been successful in ensuring peace and prosperity through cooperation with their new partners
Very true, doesn't take more than a glance to see how much more prosperous former east bloc influenced states became once they broke towards the West. Certainly would have been interesting to see a future where Russia and NATO played nice and Russia ended up joining, and cultural relations were strengthened between both sides.
>He does not think very highly of people who buy the Russian narrative about NATO threat.
Unfortunately, I think this is just something that's part of human nature and will never truly go away. Humans generally tend to perceive others meddling in their affairs, with or without good reason or intentions as a threat- there are not many (if any?) countries large enough to exert both political influence and physical force on the world stage that would also at the same time tolerate a perceived enemy or human "other" to exert any kind of influence on their own neighbors and sphere of control.
> with or without good reason or intentions as a threat
When world leaders become delusional, a word he uses to describe Putin, should others enable that? When a world leader starts to think that, for example, that all Jews in the world are his enemies who must be exterminated, should rest of the world retreat and hope for the best?
People like Merkel noticed in 2014 the latest that Putin was sharing nonsense theories about race, gays and supremacy of Russian culture in personal conversations. They choose to ignore and tiptoe around it. Instead of peace, we got war in 2014. Obama refused to send lethal aid, others didn't do much more for Ukraine. We hoped to somehow improve relations. Instead, we got even larger war.
On the eve of the full-scale invasion, Putin demanded further 100 million people in Europe to be left for him to chew.
More than half a million people on all sides have died since then in Ukraine, with no end in sight. Where are our red lines?
That minister of foreign affairs, he thinks that any acceptable lines were crossed a long time ago, draws parallels with notable dictators of the 20th century, and advocates that it is better for everyone, including Russia, if Putinism was decisively defeated like Nazism in its day.
That obviously depends on your objectives and world view.
In my opinion, it teaches that the NATO should have stayed out of the region in the first place, and the US specifically should be carefully about upsetting regional power balances.
>Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO
This is not very accurate IMO.
There were significant NATO policy decisions immediately preceding the 2014 invasion with respect to Ukraine. Further decisions were taken immediately proceeding the 2022 build up and subsequent invasion.
The first was in 2008 when NATO decided Ukraine could start the NATO membership process.
This came to a head at the start of 2014 when Euromaidan revolution lead to a change of government.
Feb 2014, Russisa takes Crimea
In 2016, Ukraine was granted a NATO Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programs and Trust Funds.
In 2018, Ukraine was officially given NATO aspiring member status.
2021 NATO reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member.
2021 Russa Masses on the Ukrainian boarder and makes the same threat of invasion it has made for 10 years if it doesn't get US assurance that Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO. US still refuses
2022 Russia invades.
This whole war was telegraphed a decade ago and nobody involved was willing to compromise.
I think personally that it would have been better if the parties involved could come to a solution based in self-determination and demilitarization.
What the Kremlin says and what is actually means and does are so fundamentally divorced that it would be endearing that you think you can take them at their word if it wasn't so painful because even the slightest bit of study on the subject would tell you how dangerously foolish that is.
The Kremlin has telepraphed exactly one thing, since forever: they'll try to get away with blatant bluff, force, oppression and otherwise until the day Muscovy is no more.
The only rational thing would be to bite the bullet now, while it is at its smallest in years, and take the Kremlin out. Just end it, and forcibly put something sane in its place. The good news is that this snake doesn't have much more than a head, and that disintegration is a given.
>What the Kremlin says and what is actually means and does are so fundamentally divorced that it would be endearing that you think you can take them at their word if it wasn't so painful because even the slightest bit of study on the subject would tell you how dangerously foolish that is.
>The Kremlin has telepraphed exactly one thing, since forever: they'll try to get away with blatant bluff, force, oppression and otherwise until the day Muscovy is no more.
I think we tend to scrutinize our enemies harder than ourselves sometimes in that regard. I don't know what country you're from and thus won't try to guess, but here in the US looking at what our politicians have said or say over the years they're guilty of a similar disconnect. What's important is that there have been two decades of noise in Russia over what's happening now and we disregarded it, diplomatically snubbed them, stoked the flames, and followed up by not taking the steps to take full responsibility for Ukraine's safety when the dam finally burst.
When the situation was reversed, and Russians were meddling in our own backyard with Cuba, we were able to reach a diplomatic solution instead of escalating- we (understandably) blew a gasket over a foreign superpower encroaching on our local home sphere of influence, reached out, and they backed down with concessions that made both sides relatively happy to leave that conflict at that. Now that something similar is happening on their side of the world, we were more than happy to goad them until they invaded. Russia's actions in Ukraine are disgusting but it's understandable what the parent comment meant when he said this was telegraphed many years in advance.
The situations are so uncomparable, the kind of claims, aims, methods and history so different, that I'll just ask you to examine those facts a bit further.
Im not American, perhaps you guessed. What (some/many) Americans dont get is that its not about 20th century geopolitics. It's about a consistent pattern playing out for the past 500 years, more depending on how you count. You can check out Timothy Snyder's lecture for a taste of that history.
It's about Russia never backing off ever. That's the only role the US plays: providing a credible threat greater than Russia can muster. This Russia hasn't changed in that way of dealing, because it is core to its conception (collaborators with the Golden Horde). I never will. Cuba was far less of a thing for them then it was for the US. They didn't back off at all, that is a misunderstanding of their goals and means.
> The first was in 2008 when NATO decided Ukraine could start the NATO membership process.
NATO membership of Ukraine and Georgia was, is, and in foreseeable future remains a pipe dream. Any hope of NATO entry was dashed when Russia invaded in 2014, because NATO members did not and do not want to get involved in an on-going conflict. It's always been the opposite: weakness has encouraged Russia to act bolder and bolder. We are now at watershed moment where the previous policy of appeasement has been discredited beyond repair and western experts have finally begun to universally recognize this simple truth.
> This whole war was telegraphed a decade ago and nobody involved was willing to compromise.
There is nothing to compromise over. Russia wants to subjugate us, we want to live in freedom. We have as much common ground with Russians as Britons or the French had with Germans when Hitler "telegraphed" his intentions.
> I think personally that it would have been better if the parties involved could come to a solution based in self-determination and demilitarization.
This strategy is how most neighbors of Russia from Finland down to Romania got invaded by Russia the last time around and lost a sizable portion of their population to Russian crimes of genocide.
Even Sweden, which had been neutral since Napoleonic times, decided to ditch neutrality and sign a mutual defense pact with other European nations, because the threat of Russian aggression is too large to face alone.
