re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

That's not a precursor to negotiations, its a barrier to overcome. War negotiations are rarely in good faith by all sides. I believe most grown ups understand this.

---

So again, you agree that the war has to run its course, and that the West's involvement is completely secondary and supplemental, not necessary and sufficient. Because, according to Mearsheimer, who blames the West excessively for the situation in Ukraine, the neorealist position is that states are never certain about the intentions of other states, and all states are driven by the desire to survive. In such a position, offensive actions will drive what is called the security dilemma, where insecurity about state survival drives investment in state security services, which other states see from the outside but generally do not know if the investment is for offensive or defensive operations. Because other states are also driven by their own survival, they have to respond with equal investment, and thus, states which are exclusively concerned with their security (or rather, their insecurity about their security) will drive conflicts. The guilty party here is Russia and Russia alone. Until their security concerns are either alleviated or become untenable, then there will be conflict, regardless of what the West does.

quote:

---

Great plan, Moonbeam. And after that we can sing Kumbaya and do trust falls.

---

We get it, you want to capitulate and reward Russian bad-faith. If the war is an existential concern to you, which it appears that it is, then rewarding Russian bad-faith is completely detrimental. In this instance, Russian threats on energy and wheat exports are going to cause problems for Europe proper, from your point of view. What you don't seem to understand is that given Russian behavior, if they see their approach to energy and food works here, there is literally nothing stopping them from achieving their objectives with regard to Europe, because those same energy and food concerns will be multiplied by several orders of magnitude in the event of a Russian conflict with NATO. Would you want to capitulate then too?

quote:

---

You can't trust anyone, which is why we're collectively retarded for not choosing neutrality.

---

Is there still a war???

quote:

---

The Wests involvement (lets be honest, mainly us) is to cement influence in the region, which is the opposite direction I hoped we would go after Afghanistan.

---

But the West's involvement is mainly through capital. In Europe at least, capital investment has laid bare the deficiencies of the Soviet system. It is completely unsurprising that a significant portion of Ukrainians would want to join the West, who have developed a system that has done an amazing job of driving regular people out of poverty through investment alone.

quote:

---

In the end, I kind of agree its a negligible benefit to them and in fact might cost more men, but I also realize its a strong commitment on our part. We'll be involved for decades.

---

Our commitment is barely anything at this point, and every indication is that Ukrainian integration into the US-led economic network is going to be a net good for both the Ukrainian's and the US, although for the latter it will be at a much smaller level, likely commiserating with the overall aid package, which in truth is probably a better investment than aid given to other nations in the ME, precisely because trade relations with the EU are far more robust and represent a greater degree of wealth.

In contrast, the Russian system drives wealth into the very tiny percentage at the top. No country wants to be part of that system again, hence why former Warsaw Pact nations drove NATO and EU expansion. That is the question the Russians should be asking themselves. But they won't. That question of what is driving former satellite states to the West should cause hesitancy and at least some introspection from the Russian elite. Yet their security concerns, by design, cause problems, regardless of how silly those concerns are.

The reality is that Russia is driving this on every level because their fundamental security concerns are antiquated. There is absolutely no real danger of an invasion from the European Plain and all of us know that. The West would gain absolutely nothing from such an adventure. But the Russians are insecure nonetheless.

The question that should be asked by the neutral observer, when determining 'blame' should be to ask whether this conflict would exist without external involvement. Once you answer that, then it is far easier to understand what is driving the conflict.

quote:

---

But we didn't have a choice in terms of neutrality, because the escalation is completely one-sided. It makes complete sense why former Warsaw Pact states want to join the EU and NATO given the pattern of Russian aggression this century. Those states were the ones driving that integration, such was their fear of being under the Russian yoke again.

Again, nothing Russia has done has shown that they are willing to abide by any peace agreement. That is the problem and is fundamental to any solution. The West's involvement is completely supplemental, as even without the West's aid, this conflict would exist

---

The next few years will be very interesting. Kazakhstan and some of the other former Soviet states have been building alliances with China and the west.

They recently declined to recognize the Russian claim of independent states in Eastern Ukraine and refused to send troops. They also indicated they would respect the western sanctions against Russia.

Putin and other nationalistic politicians have been (predictably) enraged by these actions. Russia has made statements of the effect that they have the right to free regions of Kazakhstan with significant numbers of ethnic Russians.

But Russian military power is stretched thin. And other major powers including China have substantial interest in Kazakhstan because of Uranium and oil energy needs supplied by Kazakhstan to China (and the rest of the world).

Russia may simply lack the strategic or military power to force their former Soviet states to do their bidding. The invasion of Ukraine has been a boondoggle for Russia but their projected weakness may make even a paper victory a strategic loss of influence over most of their former sphere.

quote:

---

Well, when a dude says "they'll negotiate when they have the military hardware to push Russia out" it tells me there's way more to the story than whats on the surface, and that the aid is more important than peace.

---

Have you forgotten how Putin spent months negotiating prior to the invasion while preparing for the invasion? Ukraine was willing to retract its application to join NATO and even made concession to swap land for peace. However, Putin still invaded. Putin will only negotiate for peace in good faith when he is forced to. Putin will only be forced to negotiate in good faith if the Russian people rise up against him, or Ukraine has the military strength to not only recapture the territory they have lost since the invasion, but take something Putin can’t bear to lose. Since it’s not looking likely at this point that the Russian people are going to turn on Putin anytime soon; the only way to make Putin negotiate in good faith is to help Ukraine to have the military might to push Russia back as well as make Putin feel like Crimea vulnerable.

Since Putin cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith. The only way to bring him to the negotiating table is more military aid to Ukraine. As Reagan said “The path to peace is strength.”

(no message)

(no message)