As bad as this may seem, it is actually beneficial to the rest of the world.
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2023
-12 points (33.3% liked)
Europe
3981 readers
22 users here now
Europa
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Beneficial?
Of course. If anti-war activists achieve their goal, Russia will withdraw from Ukraine. Then, NATO will set up bases there, including nuclear weapons, in the most strategically relevant outpost at the Russian border. This, of course, will allow NATO to easily defeat Russia, the largest military power barring itself. Unopposed, it will take on China, the only real contender to the US on the economic front. This will eventually result in the US keeping its hegemony for the rest of our lifetimes, which by simple imperialist logic is detrimental to current global South nations. So as much as I dislike authoritarianism, those activists don't know what they are doing (or, worse, know it damn well) and stopping them by any means will help the rest of us.
the largest military power barring itself
Don't make me laugh. China easily is a more competent and dangerous military power than Russia. Russia is maybe on par with Iran, though Iran has the fact that they are not embroiled in a war of attrition with a minor neighbour with no way out going for them.
Ironically Russia has shit both for quantity and quality of military production. I mean imported French tank optics? Hand assembled fighter jets? Whatever the fuck the Kuznetsov is?
Russia spends around 9% of its GDP on its military, if the EU did the same, the result would dwarf the US. No point in doing it though as Russia is not a threat to the EU militarily. Maybe as much as Syria is, if they implode and cause a refugee crisis.
NATO to easily defeat Russia [...] Unopposed, it will take on China
What does that mean? Who started the aggression in Ukraine?
I dislike authoritarianism
I agree. Let's hope for democracy everywhere.
What does that mean?
NATO will act according to their interests. If they can defeat an enemy, they will do so. If your point is that the US will simply point all its weapons towards Russia and China and then simply smile and let them peacefully develop to overtake the US in every aspect as they are doing, you're wrong.
Who started the aggression in Ukraine?
Russia did. But I don't think they should just sit back and watch as the US prepares to deal a lethal blow to them. The US has set up bases all around Russia, formed military alliances with countries near its border. The US has also promoted coups in many post-Soviet states to make their governments US-affine. Even after the 2014 pro-US coup in Ukraine, Ukrainian citizens voted for the seemingly pro-Russian Zelensky, who had promised to normalize relations with Russia and embrace the Russian culture and language in the Donbas region, and were fooled by what turned out to be a new US puppet regime and continued war against the Donbas. Even US officials admit they were planning for the war, just that they didn't think Russia would strike first. At this point, who even launched the first missile in this particular development of the 2014 war is just a small technicality in a complex hybrid war that's been developing for years.
Let’s hope for democracy everywhere.
If two authoritarian behemoths are fighting to death as they are, randomly biting and scolding both in hopes that they'll magically become democratic is a stupid strategy. At best, you will achieve nothing. At worst, one of them will weaponize your innocence against the other, which is quite the case.
Russia did
Ukraine coup government did. They attacked Donbass in 2014, starting civil war. Donbass called Russia for help to which they answered, but 8 years later.
It was naturally escalation, but hardly starting the aggression in Ukraine. I won't even mention USA having significant role in the coup in the first place and then NATO arming Ukraine during the entire civil war.
Yeah, I know. But the word "aggression" is (intentionally, hats off to US propaganda) vague; the user I was responding to interpreted it as "launching an attack into a territory generally recognized as foreign", so I'm going with that definition. I generally do not argue on terminology, since it's not practical to do so. But thanks for the heads up!
“launching an attack into a territory generally recognized as foreign”
That definition is pretty vague too, it just move the weight from "agression" to "attack" which is also not very defined, but if it is exluding internal conflict for some weird reason, in that case it would be USA taking big part in couping the democratically (or at least the most democratically in the history of independent Ukraine) elected president.
Well, you're really damn right. But lately I've found it easier to just sidestep the whole "aggression" thing altogether than argue on that, where I would have most certainly hit a wall. So, "yeah, sure, scary Russkie man did the bad, now let's move on to the important stuff". I've come to like doing it like this more.
It definitely ease up discussion with those types, but by aquitting the origin of events, you just end up on their position. The guy you discuss know this extremely well, he will go to extreme lenghts to not admit there was even a US-sponsored coup in 2014 because if he admit it his entire narration will crumble into dust.
If they [Nato] can defeat an enemy
No one wants to defeat or have war with Russia (nor China or any country). That wouldn't make sense. NATO could have entered the war in Ukraine at any time (with the "excuse" of Russia did "strike first" as you said), but it didn't, because this war -like any war- doesn't make sense.
The US has set up bases all around Russia
Fair. But didn't Finland recently and all other countries before join Nato voluntarily? Why so?
in hopes that they'll magically become democratic
If we do what the people want -in Russia, Ukraine, and everywhere else- then we would "magically become democratic". I argue that no soldier in the battlefields wants to be a soldier, and those who want the war are not in the battlefields. But in non-democratic societies, people don't make the decisions (and, yes, no democracy is perfect, there's is a lot do and the work may never end).
NATO could have entered the war in Ukraine at any time
And it has. They are spending on this war as much as they did on Afghanistan. They are sending intel and commands directly to Ukrainian officials. And not just weapons and information; according to the recently leaked papers, there are NATO troops on the field too. They are fighting the war in all senses except legally, and, by extension, in the PR sense.
this war -like any war- doesn’t make sense
Every war makes sense. Countries start wars when that's what benefits them the most. And countries carefully plan and set up future wars.
Why so?
There are two sides in this global-scale hybrid war. Finland and other countries have joined what they believe to be the winning side, or at least the side whose victory would be more beneficial to their political interests. Other countries are siding with Russia and China. Countries joining an alliance voluntarily doesn't mean the alliance isn't a threat to the other side. NATO has gradually turned itself into an alliance with the power to defeat Russia.
then we would “magically become democratic”
No, nobody would. The US has just passed the RESTRICT Act, which imposes stronger restrictions than even China has. If you suggest that your country should just let the authoritarian guard down and allow every foreign psy-ops to have a meaningful effect on it, they'll just laugh at you or you'll be killed by thugs in an unfortunate and unrelated turn of events.
The only way to get what we want is to wait until the existing superpowers have fought each other into an unstable state, then seize power by violence. Anything else is just wishful thinking to feel better about something you don't actually ever expect to change.
Man, China is not even siding with Russia. China is against the West, it's just looking to gain as much as it can from the situation.
It's as likely to annex Siberia as help.
This is outright reactionary. You just repeating the same two or so arguments over and over again.
My point is simply pragmatic. I'm proposing a strategy that's actually viable: doing whatever little we can to avoid the destruction of Russia so the world eventually fights into a multipolar, unstable state wherein we can actually bring about change by force. What you propose is destabilizing Russia, letting it fall, then somehow banishing curruption and authoritarianism from the all-encompassing, paranoid, armed-to-the-teeth, almost Orwellian US via a strategy comparable to resorting to the power of friendship.
@pancake <my 2 cents>In the current turn of events, the world has all the chances to experience a new confrontation, whether it's in the shape of a new cold war, or a warmer one (hopefully not) - this time between China and the US.
There might be boots on the ground in Ukraine, there might be not. There might be less troops than mentioned in the leak or not. What it is for sure is that Russia is no longer in the big superpower league. At least you cannot be there when the other superpower has penetrated your entire military and intelligence structures as the same leaked documents show. And this goes to tell one imo that it is not democracy that makes a country weak, but rather corruption. When you have a well-functioning democracy with strong institutions taking each-other accountable, then what critics say is taken into account by the government and this is just beneficial for the country itself as a whole and for its interests. But when your state has weak and corrupt institutions overall, these are no longer working for your country's interests, but only for the interests of a group of people which may or may not have your country's best interest in mind. Add in a dictatorship of one man such as mr. Putler surrounding himself by yes-men and you've got what Russia is today: a country with virtually no army (only soldiers to use as cannon fodder) that is super-predictable in its actions, a pariah in the international scene and a power that can barely face a country a few dozen times smaller its size and armed with meager Western equipment (and likely forces). How can a country like that even think of winning against the entire armies of 31 independent states, all working together?
</my_2_cents>
Regarding the arest I really do not know what to think. I have mixed oppinions about the Russian opposition in general - on one side, people like Boris Nemtsov were supportive of the annexation of Crimea back in the '90s and Alexey Navalny was really having links with far-right groups - but there are also people like Garry Kasparov who openly support the return of Crimea to Ukraine and withdrawing all troops to the 1992 official border (Do check out this interview with him on Europa FM radio station in Romania, highly interesting). Call me a dreamer, a wishful thinker, whatever you want, but I am still hoping in a democratic Russia, one that abides to the international order and the rule of law. ☺
I agree to your comment. A democratic country can easily be strong against enemies. But I'd like to point that the current confrontation (Cold War, if you wish) is in such a delicate state and happening on so many fronts that even a blink, a bad move, a seemingly innocent regime change in Russia has a good chance to bring about its defeat. And surely the US is trying to promote such change, under every possible pretext. The US is playing all cards at the same time, resorting to military means, monetary policy, espionage, propaganda, censorship, foreign coups... all widely confirmed. So whatever our view on Mr. Putin/Putler/..., we must let him do his thing for now, worry about him later. Just think that every country will be so weakened after this new Cold War that toppling them will be easy ;)
@pancake So, by principle, are you arguing against democracy in Russia or in the US?
No, democracy is good. But we'll never get it if this situation resolves in a bad way.
view more: next ›