distic
9d ago
(apparently agreed upon in advance by the heads of state)
Isn't the british monarch the head of state of like 90% of the commonwealth?
distic
9d ago
They would have to end democracy to achieve the conquest (just imagine the protests...), and therefore the opinion of canadians would not matter at all
distic
22d ago
It's only a waste if you think Putin will stop there. If you think you will have to defend yourself against Russia at some point, then the sooner the better
distic
22d ago
Cyprus is a very small country with 1 million inhabitants, and Turkey invaded a third (not half) of the country and its population. 300 000 people is the same order of magnitude as just the losses during the war in Ukraine.
About Syria, it's a mess. Everyone and their friend owns some part of Syria. If you can tell me more about it I'm curious, honestly. How many Turkish soldiers are their in Syria? What part of the territory do they control?
distic
22d ago
No those governments weren't autocratic given that the power has swiftly switched hands. Sure they were and are still corrupt, but the corruption level is continuously decreasing since those revolutions.
distic
22d ago
I'm pretty sure Russian or Chinese nukes in Portugal would have an important effect on the geopolical balance
distic
22d ago
What is your theory exactly? The proof that Ukraine is a threat to Russia is that Russia decided to increase the threat level? If Ukraine in NATO is dangerous to Russia, what about Finland and Sweden then? The NATO threat on Russia plays absolutely no role in the actions of both sides (excepted as a propaganda tool) therefore it is unimportant.
distic
22d ago
Yes it can because:
-
it is not important for Russia: it's just an excuse (once again, if they felt threatened they just increased the threat)
-
It's not important for NATO, given that the west has never really promised anything to Ukraine.
Therefore it seems to me you all say it is "important", but if it's neither important for Russia (their policy proves it) nor for NATO, I don't really think it can be important "per se"
distic
23d ago
Yes I know, that is the point. What in the world makes them secure without a proper army and wouldn't work for Estonia, excepted that none of their neighbours have been imperialistic for decades?
distic
23d ago
It's perfectly possible to decrease the threat level significantly, for example by verifiably decreasing the stockpile of nuclear weapons both sides, establishing verifiable demilitarized zones both sides of the border,...
distic
23d ago
But Ireland and Portugal have also a relativemy weak military and they aren't particularly threatened
distic
23d ago
All this discussion started with my very falsifiable claim that Ukraine surrendering to Russia would increase, not decrease, the threat level for eastern Europe. I'm not sure how you got to the point that there is any metaphysics involved
distic
23d ago
You are strawmanning, you know. If Russia wanted to decrease the threat at their borders there are other ways, like building trust. With their invasion they only increased the perceived threat from the other side and therefore their own threat level. Given that they were perfectly able to predict it the perceived NATO threat is just a pathetic excuse and you know it
distic
23d ago
Yes we shouldn't have let Turkey do that, but it seems to me the orders of magnitude involved in those wars is not similar at all
distic
23d ago
Regime change is fine as long as border change isn't?
It's not about being fine or not, it's about disproving the claim that Russia is only interested in protecting itself against NATO
If you're unable to understand
I'm not unable to understand anything. So you are telling me if NATO drops its defenses in eastern Europe, Russia will become less threatening? Is this what you mean?
There are other way to build trust and increase your security than invading neighboring countries
distic
23d ago
They lost the soft war, so had to settle for a hard one.
No they "had to" nothing. The best way to ensure security is to build trust with your neighboors and not to sponsor corrupted autocratic governments
distic
24d ago
That's like saying because the United States objected to nuclear weapons in Cuba, they logically will blockade every country in the world until nuclear weapons are removed from them.
No, not at all. It would only work this way if the US were expanding their borders in the process (as Russia did with Crimea and wants to do with the four oblasts). Because when you expand your border they actually get closer from the threat, which justifies another war where you expand them further.
If Russia is so terrified with having its territory invaded, then the first step should be not to annex Crimea and Mariupol, because with their coast they provide a very sweet invasion spot, eg from Turkey.
distic
24d ago
You didn't reply to the strongest point of my message, where I argue that your logic logically implies that Russia will never be safe until it controls the entire world (and you don't seem to intend to do anything to avoid it)
distic
24d ago
If caring about countries outside your border is paranoia, why does the US care so much about latin American countries?
I didn't say caring about countries outside your border is paranoia. It would be contradictory with helping Ukraine, wouldn't it?
But if "caring about countries outside your border" means invading other countries and expanding your own territory even though your country is already the largest in the world, then the only conclusion is that Russia will have to conquer the entire world to feel safe.
Russia is already the country the most heavily armed with nuclear weapons ; and Ukraine or not the US can erase Russia from the map, so Ukraine can be part of NATO without any change in the threat level for Russia.
distic
24d ago
What is the end-state your policy is aiming for? A ceasefire? Deter subsequent Russian invasion? Restoration of Ukraine's original borders? The Russian army destroyed? Putin deposed? Russia broken up? Something else?
The main end-state aim was that every country in the world understand that there is no hope to change the world order by force. So a deterrent, but not only for Russia: also for China/Taiwan, etc.). This end-state is now unreachable, because the world order has changed, but that it hurts the aggressor is the most important part. Saving Ukrainians is a net benefit, though.
How much aid would you provide?
Any aid unless:
-
It seriously threatens the economy
-
It seriously threatens US security (as in, the US wouldn't be able to handle a direct attack)
-
There is a risk of direct conflict with Russia
So I would provide weapons, money and intel. No no fly zone (because it means a direct war with Russia), nuclear umbrella only after a peace agreement.
Is there an end-state or a potential event in the war that you think would falsify your understanding of the war, and convince you that providing aid was a bad idea?
Most of the time, I think individual policies are not falsifiable (politics does not work this way). But in this case, there are things
-
The aid sent actually hurts Ukraine and benefits Russia
-
The NATO threat on Russia decreases (eg the US leave NATO), and Russia becomes less threatening.
The last point is the most important to me. Russia and most of the pro-Trump side justify the invasion by saying that Russia feels threatened by NATO and has no other way to protect itself. I think this is bullshit, and the only reason Russia feels threatened by NATO is because it protects countries it wants to invade. If Russia and Trump are right, then Russia should become less aggressive if NATO is less threatening. If Europe and I are right, Russia should become more aggressive if NATO is less threatening.
It's a commonwealth of nations (that's its name...) not a commonwealth of individuals
More options
Context Copy link