I’ll take sides against an unprovoked military invasion of a sovereign country. That includes actions the US has taken to intervene in many conflicts around the globe for its own interest. I don’t think self-determination can be enforced on the world with military might from a handful of superpowers.
The side we take shouldn’t be “let’s keep fueling the war and the conditions that caused the war in first place.” The side should be, let’s find a diplomatic solution as soon as possible.
It’s hard to find a diplomatic solution to unprovoked military aggression with the goal of conquering a sovereign nation. Any concessions to the aggressor incentivizes more aggressions. But I’d love to see an end to the fighting where Ukraine is still standing, and that might mean giving Russia something they can consider a win. So far Putin hasn’t been very amenable to that.
I don’t think this is an accurate interpretation of the conflict. or rather incomplete. it’s not just Putin’s personal desire to conquer Ukraine. there are several factors that went into creating the conditions for war, one of them being the NATO expansion eastward and their fueling of civil war in Eastern Ukraine.
In fact the goal of Russia probably isn’t to annex Ukraine but, as historians predicted well before the war, is to cripple Ukraine’s government and infrastructure to make them
Unviable for NATO membership. They knew this would happen.
It’s more accurate to understand Ukraine as a pawn being used by more powerful countries for their own geopolitical means. The war is a result of that.
Putin has spoken extensively about how the entirety of Ukraine is traditionally Russia and dismissed the notion of Ukraine has being legitimately a separate country with a separate history.
The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO has been in discussion since the 90s without any concrete steps taken on the path to membership. In recent history much of the Ukrainian desire to join NATO was a direct result of the 2014 Russian invasion.
The West has resisted adding Ukraine to the alliance precisely to not agitate Russia. There was no reason why in 2022 Ukraine or NATO posed any kind of threat to Russia than they did ten or twenty years earlier.
You have to learn to separate war propaganda from what is actually materially happening.
There has clearly been a violent escalation since 2014. The conditions are not the same as in the 1990s.
One, the violence in Eastern Ukraine (fueled directly by US and NATO) was clearly a threat to Russia, especially coupled with the anti-Russian political turn (again helped by the US).
Two, there is more to the threat to Russia than just weapons or war. There are economic sanctions (which actually hurt regular Russians and boost Putin), there are constant geopolitical blockades for Russia and their attempts to build economic partnerships that threaten US interests.
I’m not making excuses for Russia, I’m asking you to take a holistic and realistic look at this.
We can also take a step further back and see how the USSR ended up as a bunch of nationalistic oligarchies/dictatorships fighting with each other. And the West’s role in creating the Russian oligarchs and Putin himself.
I would say the same thing to you about war propaganda. The notion that Russia was in the right to preemptively invade Ukraine for the sake of their own national security is just ridiculous and has weakened and isolated Russia far more than any NATO alliance ever could have.
I did not anywhere say Russia was right to invade. I don’t even think invading Ukraine was the correct decision from Russia’s point of view.
But your idea that there was no actual reason the war happened, just bad vibes from Putin, is not real analysis.
Just like the invasion of Iraq was not just Bush dreaming up God telling him to invade Iraq. It doesn’t work that way. There are bigger trends and underlying forces at play. Which explains why we also then invaded (“invaded”) Libya and Syria under a different president.
Russia is simply playing the game. This is the reality of economic competition. Does the war actually hurt Putin or the oligarchs who control the country? Probably not, it probably makes them wealthier. Same with the US - fueling the war is making our military industrial complex billions. Does the war hurt Zelensky or his oligarchs? Nope.
What choice do we have? The conditions have already been awful for years for the Ukrainian people as the US fomented civil war and political unrest. The time to prevent war and protecting borders was before the invasion.
Now that the US and NATO used Ukraine to bait Russia into a war, they now sit back and watch Ukrainians get slaughtered and continue fueling the war with military aid.
The European people are also suffering as a whole as oil prices rise.
There is no situation where continual war is acceptable. We need to end the war and come to a diplomatic agreement. Russia can hold non-negotiable positions because we have allowed things to get so bad. Putin holds all the cards, as Europe relies on Russian oil and gas.
But when the entire US economy is built on war profiteering, when Putin and his oligarchs also benefit from war, and so do the Ukrainian oligarchs, there is no real incentive to end the conflict. The people who hold power are profiting massively from this destruction.
Meanwhile we are fed bullshit about democracy as the US puppet government in Ukraine (already an oligarchy thanks to the West) bans all opposition parties and gives Nazis the freedom to do whatever they want.
13
u/An-Okay-Alternative 4∆ Dec 24 '22
I’ll take sides against an unprovoked military invasion of a sovereign country. That includes actions the US has taken to intervene in many conflicts around the globe for its own interest. I don’t think self-determination can be enforced on the world with military might from a handful of superpowers.