Invasion of Ukraine • Page 58

The history of the conflict has been explained several times now but you keep reverting back to the same reductionist perspective. To summarise:

• Putin would not be in power if it wasn't for the West
• NATO didn't have to spend the last three decades expanding eastwards, there was an opportunity at the end of the Cold War to disband and chart a new course
• Victoria Nuland: Leaked call shows US hand on Ukraine
• The policy of escalation since the war began, of pouring billions of dollars worth of weapons into Ukraine, has not helped to deescalate. There has been no push for peace from the US, just intransigence

If this conflict goes nuclear, the policy approach that you and a few others in this thread have supported, will be largely to blame. The United States is by far the most dangerous nation on earth, its foreign policy unquestionably aggressive and its military without peer. I am not denying Putin's responsibility, but you are for some reason denying the history of the US in the region, and it's a view that has no basis in reality.

 

Never once denied it. I even said I’m here for the scrutiny of the previous actions of the US. That’s not a solution or showing who is the one who will actually pull the trigger, however.

Also, not going to pretend that assisting a defending nation (Ukraine) against an unwanted aggressor (Russia) is escalation. It’s not escalation to help someone being bullied when they stand their ground against a bully.

Putin could easily have talks or let Ukraine do whatever Ukraine wants but, no, he would rather there be nuclear war.

Talking about the history is NOT going to change the outcome to a present conflict. Save that for history class. Regardless of the history, the fact now is that Putin won’t let Ukraine choose and he’ll make the first nuclear strike to kill tens of thousands just to avoid letting Ukraine decide. Just because Russian propaganda and interference failed and didn’t attract Ukrainians as much as US propaganda and interference is not an excuse for threatening nuclear war.

Unless you’re trying to justify nuclear war, I don’t see why you’re so insistent on bringing up what led to it. None of that is a solution. Condemning the one who is threatening nuclear war is a closer solution. Ukraine never threatened nukes. The US never threatened nukes. Only Putin.

It just feels like some would rather die than to admit that Putin IS escalating nuclear war by being the ONLY ONE to make nuclear threats. We’re not going to strap a NATO badge on you for admitting that Putin has escalated this to nuclear. You’re not a Ukrainian citizen, so don’t worry. You’re not having to make a binary choice between Putin and NATO.

 

It's actually mad that you think we should ignore the history of the conflict and how we got to this point. I'm bringing up the history because it's only by understanding it, that we can figure out how to arrive at a just and peaceful resolution. It's pretty clear that we've gone past the point of no return and some kind of compromise needs to be reached if there is to be a negotiated settlement. Sadly most of the people in power on both sides share your belligerence, and that's why we're on the brink of nuclear annihilation. I've already said that Putin has responsibility for the conflict. You just seem to get very angry and turn the caps lock on when you're forced to acknowledge the role of the US in all of this.

 

Proud to be Minnesotan

 

I'm not making a choice between them, I do not support Putin or NATO. This is McCarthyism. I'm guessing decades of uncritically swallowing US propaganda has made you unable to deal with any criticism of the US empire without assuming the one doing the criticising is some kind of traitor.

 

Same vibes
https://bulletin.facs.org/2020/03/caring-for-the-hiroshima-maidens/

 

Not really, but I get your point

 

Russia Loses 23 Tanks, 26 Armored Vehicles and 6 Drones in Single Day: Kyiv

 

Suddenly I'm okay not being in my old unit assisting the Ukrainian Army (after I was just alerted half a dozen times over the last week due to NK's bullshit).

 

Just because you think it's good, doesn't mean it's not escalation. Sending more weapons to a war zone is, by definition, escalation, even if it makes you uncomfortable. Your definition of escalation isn't used in any serious discussions of the concept.

This is revealing on how liberals view history, as completely irrelevant. This is functionally identical to telling Black Americans slavery was so long ago, so stop talking about it. History is never irrelevant to current events. Imagine making this argument in a vacuum, about current events in general, not specifically Ukraine. It's nonsense. It's also especially hilarious next to the arguments about how Putin is literally Hitler. I'm sorry, it's completely incoherent and when those with power hold this worldview it leads to war and misery. If you wanted to prevent those things for everyone, you would certainly care about history.

In the lead-up to this war I was posting about my fears of escalation by both sides and how it could easily lead to nuclear war. They were dismissed as unrealistic by those on this site who share your views. Now, the fears are realistic, but any discussion of how we arrived in a place where that's the case is proscribed as apologia. The escalation you support contributed to this situation in a way that was predictable and indeed predicted specifically on this site. What inputs contributed to that prediction? Historical ones mostly.

I'm trying to make sure the next time we're in a similar situation people like you and those in power who share your views don't respectively cheerlead and implement the same mistakes and lead us to the same miserable endgame. I don't expect it to have any significant impact on you or those like you, but there are others reading.

Of course Putin is escalating, he is escalating in a predictable manner in response to escalations from the other side. This is how escalation occurs. Despite not being a Ukrainian citizen, out of solidarity I was concerned about nuclear escalation and the immiseration caused by bourgeois war in January, were you?

 

Dunno what a liberal is.

or “my side.”

I’m just sensing polarity

All I know if that I disagree with both the history of NATO going east and Putin choosing to go nuclear. And I’ll blame both according to their measure.

Not going to play identity politics over that. Not really my idea of a thrilling time or constructive dialogue.

 

You do, you're just being cowardly and using the use of an ambiguous term as an excuse not to address any of the points I made. If I remove the word liberal from my post will you respond to its substance? It's admittedly not central to the point. Similarly, I never said "your side" in my post so I'd appreciate it if you would not misquote me. The only sides I refer to are those fighting a war, where the use of "side" should be uncontroversial.

Is a third party arming one side of a war escalation? Do you think understanding history can clarify current events in general and if so why not in this case? Can you point out what you identify as identity politics in my post? What were your thoughts before the invasion began on the possibility of it becoming nuclear? Do you think avoiding nuclear war at all costs is a reasonable foreign policy goal?

 

Insane how this thread is turning since the beginning. Once again I am asking if people are on Russia's side in this conflict. And if so, why/how? Just... genuinely curious. What is your legit justification to X over Y. Like... who invaded who here?

 

Let's take Russia and Ukraine out of the equation; if China invaded the US, and declared that California, Oregon, and Washington was now theirs, and held a referendum at gunpoint that "supported" that land now being China's, would it then be smart of the US to give that land to China, to not fight back and ask for outside help, so as to not escalate closer to a nuclear situation? Or are we against this situation in principal, and that instead this Russia/Ukraine situation is a one-off? Because we know Putin is not a rational actor, and therefore can't be trusted with making sound decisions? Is there a right time for any country to fight back/ask for outside help, against a nuclear-armed invader?

 

These are the kinds of things you say when you don't value history to help you understand the state of the world. There is simply no comparison between the historical relationship of Ukraine and Russia and that of China and the US. The situation you describe is ridiculous on it's face in a way that the current one never was even before 2014 - even before Putin took power. It would also be a conflict between two nuclear powers and thus would be immediately escalated to a point this war will never reach god willing.

But, no, it's not smart to immediately cave to every demand of every country with a nuke. What is smart is to orient foreign policy around the pursuit of peace and avoidance of war, and general avoidance of conditions which lead to nuclear powers feeling backed into a geopolitical corner, immiserated and looted and ruled by a revanchist nationalist. I'm sorry if this answer is frustrating to you because it does not address the immediate circumstances to your satisfaction, but circumstances are created by conditions which are created by history. There is no value in taking this context out of the discussion because the discussion doesn't exist without this context. Geopolitics can't be reduced to a war game. There is literally nothing without history.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."

 

"But, no, it's not smart to immediately cave to every demand of every country with a nuke." But if the invader's #1 demand is to declare illegal ownership of that invaded land, how do you not cave to that? Was there any situation or proposal/peace solution where you think Putin would have been fine with giving the lands in the east and Crimea back to Ukraine?

 

I never said “your side”

your quote:

“similar situation people like you and those in power who share your views”

sounds like you’re grouping me into a “side”

All of what I say falls to deaf ears here. I’ve said I’m not for NATO moving east and that I’m for scrutiny of what America has done prior.

But just because I condemn Putin for being the only one who is wanting to push the nuclear button and that I support Ukraine autonomy despite the outcome, I’m continuously being lumped into a pre-determined shape that you and Immortal choose to see me as. If I’m not for you, I’m against you. If I’m not seeing that Putin isn’t at fault for choosing nukes, I’m on whatever side you’re against or whatever you see it as.

I’m not going to play that game. Like I said, identity politics is not my idea of a good discussion.

And I really don’t know what makes a liberal here. Someone against Putin choosing to pull the nuke trigger? Someone against NATO expansion? Quite the spectrum.

You can be against NATO expansion and also blame Putin for choosing to go nuclear.

 

I really don't think anyone here disagrees with that. But what Putin has done in Ukraine is basically take that off the table right now. And I think it takes a very...Russian-centric view of the events that lead us here to say that Ukraine and the choices its people have made were about avoiding peace and pursuing war. They wanted better relations with Europe and the Western world, and Russia is punishing them for that. That is the circumstances we're dealing with at the end of the day here, and understanding that NATO expanded to other countries in the 2000s doesn't really validate Putin's actions here in any way.

I'm not saying history is irrelevant, but just because a country taking a bad/evil action isn't the worlds foremost imperialist superpower doesn't mean its actions can't be imperialist themselves, or that another country's previous imperialism makes their actions okay. I think a lot of people (at least here) understand Putin's logic, but reject it outright as the best move to make for either Russia or Ukraine.

 

I think obviously the problem here is the question of "what can we do right now that decades of history and mistakes have led to this point?" My answer from the beginning has been to find a way to negotiate out of this, which is a strategy that certainly hasn't been attempted by NATO/the US, but also increasingly is being rejected by both parties in the war. It's still absolutely worth trying, but there's a decent chance we're past the point where anything can come of it. My personal opinion is that long-term war with tens of thousands of civilian deaths is not worth it for Ukraine to hold onto Crimea and Donbas (similarly to how I feel about Ukrainian soldiers holding out in Mariupol for so long after being surrounded, leading to more death and destruction for a foregone conclusion) but obviously you'll never get Ukraine to agree with that, as nations will always value territory over life. The best case scenario at this point is that Ukraine pushes Russia completely out of its territory without Putin escalating - essentially Putin admitting the war is a lost cause - but the most recent escalation on his part makes it seem like he's digging in rather than looking for a way out.

Marx was right in your quote, but the weight of the dead generations is getting to the point of suffocation and I fear we're nearing a breaking point of no return

 

If Russia had avoided all the shit they pulled in 2008 in Georgia, in Syria, in 2014 in Ukraine, and now, they'd be a much more powerful country than they are today, and will for the next several decades. Same with the US if we hadn't made that disaster of a decision to invade Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afghanistan). The oil and gas money would have continued flowing in, the Russian economy would have continued expanding, Russia's image on the world stage would have continued to get better, etc. Instead, Putin has thrown all that potential progress in the toilet, now with no hope for recovery for probably a good 30 years, if not longer

 

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here, but I still don't think Putin will end up using a nuke, or if he gives an order, that those around him won't end up carrying it out. Using one doesn't give Putin/Russia any gains

 

I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately I actually think it is more likely than not that he does.

 

Then again, I also thought Putin wouldn't be dumb/irrational enough to invade Ukraine, so what do I know