Yeah but I don’t think that it is so simple. I would think nations are sufficiently deterred from establishing precedents which can later be used on them. Does Russia want to legitimize a recipe that could be used by Japan to snatch Russian territory? I don’t see them waving the Nuke card at all.
Look: the Russian invasion sucks for everybody involved and in particular the Russian and Ukrainian civilians. War might be good for many things but at the very least it is not obviously good for politics. I think it’s not controversial to expect that Russian leadership would have much preferred to develop influence through significant mutually beneficial relations with its neighbors.
What is to be done however if at some point a third party with infinite resources is those neighbors to an impasse on topics of national security to Russia? And after this those third parties start arming those neighbors with advanced weapon systems? Exactly what do you expect the US would do in a similar situation?
People wishing that the war would stop are not simply siding with an invader or a bully. They are being practical and recognizing a legitimate grievance of the Russians. Unless your position is that we live in a world where nations are unequal wrt security expectations you have to acknowledge the reality that the Russians have a legitimate claim to be upset about.
Why aren’t the other nations upset? There’s nothing legitimate about their grievances. Their super powers days are over, they just won’t believe it yet, and that delusion is costing Russia dearly. Instead of being a prosperous mid power, they insist on going for broke.
> How is it in the interest of the Ukrainians to trigger this invasion? Russia has always made it clear that Ukraine was a red line for what it sees as NATO encroachment on its borders.
This is completely false. "NATO encroachment" is a VERY recent talking point which is part of the neo-fascist narrative that Russia developed attempting to excuse its own inadequacies. You should google Foundations of Geopolitics which is basically a Russian version of Mein Kampf. This book is required reading for majority of Russian politicians, diplomats and high ranking military officials. Before Russia decided that it wanted to pursue a fascist state, NATO was not on its agenda at all.
Russia the fascist state? Russian citizens have greater free speech and expression rights than any E.U country, U.K, Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
In the U.K people are currently being jailed for years for mild social media posts. Hopefully the Axis of resistance will liberate the West. This American certainly hopes so.
>How dare you call Russia the fascist state when Russian citizens have greater free speech and expression rights than any E.U country, U.K, Australia and New Zealand.
So in Russia you can't support the country you're currently at war with. In the West you can't criticize a man who stabbed three children at a Taylor Swift concert.
Would you like to reconsider who has greater free speech rights?
American as apple pie. You're a hacker, see where the IP I'm commenting from is located. What hubris to think millions of Americans aren't completely fed up with this fascist empire. If you're still unsure, for 20 years now Congressional approval hasn't cracked 30%.
I'm sorry but the stats are readily available online. Far more people both in totality and per capita are arrested for saying things online in the non-U.S anglosphere than Russia.
Don't get me wrong, the United States wants the same for its citizens but our annoying Bill of Rights and Supreme Court have slowed the descent into tyranny.
Doesn’t even matter at this point? Do we have free speech when the boundaries of what is acceptable speech is defined by an oligarchy that is willing to suppress stories in all forms of media?
One thing seems certain to me: we were never free. Those in power will do as they please. Here or in Russia it’s all the same.
Right. Because we don’t have Snowden on the run. Because we don’t have a media empire that is suppressing every single Israeli war crime. Because we don’t have international bodies like the ICC being used against our enemies (eg Serbs) and being suppressed against our friends (eg Israelis).
Russia has its interests. It puts them above human rights. We have our interests and guess what we do the same.
Need I remind you that we fabricated reasons to invade Vietnam and Iraq and in the process we killed millions of civilians? Or do you need a list of all the governments we admit to have toppled over the years?
Our misguided belief that we occupy some moral high ground is objectively making the world a worse place. By our hands and by the fact that we are enabling other countries to act the same (eg Iran and Russia). How about instead we concretely define principles and standards that we apply uniformly? Why do we have to pretend like we are uniquely act with impunity on the global stage?
Russia is not a superpower if it can't even have air superiority on its own land and struggles to push beyond 150km from its own border, it's just a very nuclear armed nation thanks to the Soviet days.
As for the NATO enlargement narrative I don't know why people still try to push this when it's clear as water that Russia wants to annex more and more territory, even their conditions for ceasefire are mostly about Ukraine ceding territory to Russia.
So you believe Russia is simultaneously so weak that they can barely push out 150km beyond their borders and greedily eyeing their neighbors for annexation potential?
And are you saying NATO can’t be enlarging because Russia wants to annex territory so that means NATO hasn’t been enlarging?
So you believe Russia is simultaneously so weak that they can barely push out 150km beyond their borders and greedily eyeing their neighbors for annexation potential?
The way you speak about Russia is akin to the way an abuse victim would speak about their abuser - it's everyone's fault but Russia's that they invaded.
Also don't you dare make them lose their temper.
Russia isn't under threat from NATO, as it's a defensive alliance. They seem to understand that as well, as they pulled their air defense systems from the region bordering Finland.
> I think people dont realize that the Russians are a super power.
The soviet union was a super power. If anything people realised that Russia's supposed power is mainly posturing.
And it was high time for that. In the past some western governments attempted a policy of appeasement - all it achieved was emboldening Russia.
It's useful to compare Russia with other countries.
Russia pop 145 million. GDP 2.24 Trillion.
Brazil, pop 205 million, GDP 1.92 Trillion.
Brazil isn't anyone's idea of a super power. Difference is Russia has or had a lot of Soviet cold war era weapons and weapons manufacturing. With the emphasis on the increasingly had.
So yes you are right. And I agree about the wife beater logic.
I see you've never seen Estonia or Latvia on a map. Nor realize NATO is already there. Why have they not been invaded while since 2008, Georgia and Ukraine have? Total mystery.
Sure. Or world hunger. Or building more schools and infrastructure in the developing world. Or generally investing in making technology accessible to improve outcomes for people.
> I think people dont realize that the Russians are a super power.
Super power that cannot defend it's own borders during the hot war. I guess their superpower army too busy conquering Moon and Mars or far away galaxy.
And you know what's not happened when Ukraine started to capture Russia territory? Putin and his gang said nothing at all about nuclear weapons during last 10 days. Not even single hint even though he like to talk about them every time when his ass not in danger.
This is because they are criminals and bullies and these kind of people only understand force.
Good that Vietnamese did not realize US is a super power and will just nuclear bomb them when they get frustrated they are losing conventional war.
> A Ukrainian government that has refused to engage with its neighbor on topics that its neighbor claims are matters critical to its national security
If the "matters critical to its national security" involve unprovoked invading of other country, then it's good they don't care, even assuming your biased rhetoric has anything close to reality.
I forgot that Vietnam shares a border with the US, is very close to the US capital, and was in discussions with the US adversaries to stage their troops in Vietnamese territories.
Really? It’s absolutely not that Ukrainians are cooperating with western lunatics trying to undermine MAD by deploying nuclear capable weapon systems all over the Russian borders?
MAD prevented WW3. What do you think happens if the US thinks it can cause significantly more harm to China and Russia through first strikes?
Maybe you haven’t noticed recently how there already western weapon systems actively striking targets within Russia. Those same systems can deliver nuclear payloads.
So what your are saying is a falsehood based on the current realities on the ground.
I suppose any of the thousands of regular aircraft that Ukraine has "could" deliver a nuclear payload. But that would be a pretty stupid way to launch a first strike, and doesn't change the MAD equation in any way.
> if anything the story of Finland ascension into NATO supports the arguments that NATO is intentionally -- and aggressively -- pushing Russia to war
It's incredible the convoluted things people tell themselves to explain away the simple and obvious reality:
The only reason Finland and Sweden joined NATO was because Russia invaded Ukraine and started a genocide, while threatening Finland and Sweden with the same (and nukes).
> What would have been better for Ukraine? To find a way to make peace with Russia or to fight it for a decade? And please dont say this is for "democracy", "freedom", and "liberty".
The option is to let Russia freely commit genocide with rape, murder, and terrorism.
Only to then steer their target to the next country and do exactly the same.
