You are not alone. The economist articles related to Russia/Ukraine for the past few weeks are pure war mongering.

This article is pure propaganda war. It is this generation's "WMDs in Iraq"

And the industrial-military complex will laugh all its way to the bank while stepping on the innocents corpses

I live under a rock, can you clarify why the Economist wants Russia to want war, and who those friends are?

I doubt the Economist much cares. As for the parties unknown who direct the Economist’s editorial staff? I could only speculate. Since such speculations would necessarily include offering some pretty unsavory possibilities, I’ll not share them here.

To write paywalled click-bait articles about it.

Russia annexed Crimea and has been engaged in a proxy war in Donbas for 8 years. The Kremlin has now amassed 100K - 200K troops at Ukraine's border.

Yet, the Russian propaganda machine continues to claim it's the West that wants war.

Can you explain how the West is the aggressor here?

You dont need any propaganda machine to see that countries that are furthest from the conflict geographically and economically have the least to lose. That is why the warmongerist representing US/UK war efforts in every conflict is so excited about the situation.

Having little to lose is not a rationale for doing something.

You've still not explained how the West is the aggressor in the face of the continued overt Russian military aggression that we can all see.

One reason to incentive warmongering I assume is domestic politics in the Western countries: Biden's and Boris Johnson approval ratings are pretty low, and nothing better than war to give it a boost. Take Johnson for instance: some days ago the news was his parties during the pandemic, but, alas, not anymore.

Ukraine is at the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, where Western powers regularly encourage color revolutions bringing the country to a point of civil war. "The west" has virually no skin in the game but leaders would prefer Russia sanctioned and isolated so that once again US has unchallanged superpower status.

Meanwhile, as discussed, Russia, Ukraine and EU have a lot to lose in a devastating and bitter war. At the same time Russia is obliged to keep stability and relative prosperity in the region for its citizens at home and Russian nationals abroad.

The best route for Russia is to defend the status quo as passively as possible while waiting for the Ukrainians to realize that for the "west" Ukraine's destruction is about as good as Russia's. And I think this route is feasible for Putin, so this will happen(not much).

Aside from the fact that some of your statements are plainly incorrect, you're claiming that the U.S. is fomenting war simply because it wants "unchallenged superpower status".

That is obviously quite vague and unrevealing. A very elementary assertion that elides calls for verifiable facts.

Worse, Russia has rolled tanks in the region, annexed territory, and continues to fight a separatist war. The idea that they are somehow not the aggressor completely defies all reason and observable reality.

Likewise, the idea that they are somehow keeping stability and prosperity in the region through their overtly imperialistic military aggression in an otherwise peaceful context is directly contrary to the reality. Ukraine simply wishes to remain a free and sovereign democratic nation. If Russia were not invading and threatening them, there would be no conflict.

Three comments later, and you have still failed to explain how the West is the aggressor.

While I agree with that premise, it is good to point out the NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic countries and weapon shipments to Ukraine is a thing. Though I doubt this is at the same scale, and we as simple people have no way to verify any of this and people generally trust the propaganda on whichever side they are on.

NATO troops and weapon shipments to Ukraine became a thing after Russia started threatening Ukraine's existence -- we want to help the Ukrainian people. We as "simple" people can decide whether we trust people like Putin or people like Biden.

No. It is not. The pressure for Ukraine to join NATO has been simmering for decades before the west financed a coup to put literal nazis in power in Ukraine. Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex

> Don't believe this kindergarten geopolitics they fed your people to ensure you'll be happy to send kids to die to enrich the military industrial complex

This is kind of weird given that NATO propaganda right now is justifying the absence of intervention—making the case that despite the illegality of current Russian action and the potential expanded invasion, Ukraine might get aid but essentially must be written off because the alternative is a World War—whereas it is Russian propaganda that is justifying war.

Like, of NATO wanted to send the kids from NATO countries to die to enrich the military-industrial complex, they really ought to get their propagandists to stop working against their own goal.

Of course, the pressure come from the US, which has proven in the last decades to resort to this kind of propaganda blitz before they embark in another unjustified military adventure. This is another "OMG!!!! WMDs in Iraq". And as always the American media does its part in manufacturing consent for a war that nobody needs now. Make no mistake, the US government is the aggressor here.

This comment did not age well.

Or neither.

Russia is defending herself from the aggressive encroachment of NATO. It is not very different from the US in the past not wanting Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba.

There is a sort of aggression in that the West, and most the world's people really, like human rights and democracy and oppose the murderous dictator for life thing. Obvs that threatens Putin and he doesn't want that stuff setting in too much in his neighborhood.

The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards, wants missiles in Ukraine pointing at Putin's face.

Why shouldn't it be expanding eastwards? Seems to me that if a bunch of countries want to get together to protect each other, they have every right to do so.

Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...

And let's not forget Malaysia Airlines Flight 17:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

> Especially when a near-by country has a habit of being an aggressor

Some Islamic terrorists use terror to try to form a Qoqaz caliphate on Russian territory, and Russia fighting this development within their own borders is "being an aggressor". Meanwhile the US flies to to the other side of the world to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which I suppose was a defensive action by its Department of Defense.

If NATO was nothing but a self defense pact, I'd tend to agree, but then if that was the case no one in NATO would want to expand too much.

NATO is not just a self defence organisation. It's an offensive tool. NATO has gone into more offensive missions (at least 3) than truly defensive missions (literally zero - I don't count the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan as a defensive act).

For many members of NATO, the only existing military threat is within NATO itself (see: Turkey and some of its neighbors).

The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion

"How Russia Got So Big":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1R_ycU_fS4

My ancestry is Slavic. You're going to go have a hard time convincing me not to worry about Russia.

I'm not trying to convince you not to worry about Russia. I'm explaining why NATO is worrisome to many countries. You can be as worried about Russia as you'd like, and they're going to be just as worried about NATO, and so are the citizens of many other countries.

>The truth is, NATO expanding is a great way for the West to force it's enemies to increase their defense spending and to lower the cost of offensive military interventions.

As a westerner, that does sound pretty great- especially in the face of hostility from a glorified KGB thug like Putin.

Sure. But when you're building up an offensive stance you can only expect hostility back. And it helps strongmen get into power, too.

It is well-known that offense is the best form of defense.

> The NATO, which shouldn't be expanding eastwards

If you neighbor wants to invade you and has done that already at least one in the past decade you might want a stronger ally than nobody. That is up to the country to decide. Though the cold war has shown that neither party wins in a climate of fear.

If countries close to Russia both geographically and historically are more comfortable aligning with NATO rather than Russia, perhaps the problem is with Russia.

> Russia annexed Crimea

The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.

Russia also signed a treaty that said it agreed that Crimea was part of Ukraine, not Russia. It tore that treaty up and invaded Crimea because Ukraine was thinking about not extending Russia's lease on Sevastopol.

The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries. This sounds like a broken promise to me.

> The US secretary of state, James Baker, promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastward if Russia withdrew its military from the Warsaw Pact countries

No, he didn't.

And even if he did promise the USSR that, I don't see a signed international agreement. Any such personal assurance with no formal agreement could not reasonably be viewed by anyone as anything more than a statement of policy of the then-current administration, not an open-ended binding commitment. I do see a signed treaty, signed much later, committing Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, that was in force when it invaded and occupied much of Ukraine.

Except he didn't promise the USSR anything like that. The only commitment he made was to relay the request for a commitment to not expand NATO to the US negotiating team. It was rejected by the US team and the language the USSR suggested never made it into any treaty.

I think that's fair, but it's not like the former communist countries were forced at gunpoint to join NATO.

Russia may not like it (and I'd imagine I wouldn't were I in the same position) but invading countries because of their own sovereign decisions is unlikely to be successful in the long-term.

… and because American naval base was to be built there.

https://en.topwar.ru/44990-zachem-vms-ssha-sobiralis-remonti...

The link to the official government page is dead now. But I have seen the original with my own eyes back a few years ago. And even saved it as a PDF, but can’t find it now.

Ah now, by that logic it would be acceptable for the British government to invade and occupy Ireland, India, and much of the rest of the world.

By which I mean, historical presence in an area tells us little about the legitimacy of current day activities.

And even then, Crimea was a terrible thing, but it made strategic sense (the russian fleet base is there). I don't see any real strategic benefit for Russia with invading the rest of Ukraine.

> British government to invade and occupy Ireland

The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood.

The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.

> The British government does occupy Ireland, its military is stationed in Thiepval and Holywood.

Are you from Ireland? Because I am, and this is an absolutely ludicrous reading of the situation.

The British and Irish governments partitioned Ireland, for a bunch of reasons 100 years ago. If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are (which is fine, even if I personally would prefer the island of Ireland to be one nation again).

> The last all-island democratic vote in Ireland was the second Dáil, which voted for the island to separate from the UK. A century on, British troops, who have been on a bloody campaign in Ireland from Drogheda to Bloody Sunday and on, still occupy Ireland.

The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998, to ratify the Good Friday agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Northern_Ireland_Good_Fri...

While I'm sure that tensions run high in the Russian/Central/Eastern Europe part of the world with respect to Ukraine, dragging in inflammatory propaganda from other parts of the world (that you clearly know very little about) is incredibly unhelpful, and quite frankly rather offensive to people who have to live with it.

But, I also mentioned India in my comment. By your OP, it appears legitimate for the British to invade India right now. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why or why not?

> If you look at what people in the North of ireland (still part of the UK want), most of them want to remain as they are

If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia. Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.

> The last all ireland vote occurred in 1998

The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.

> I also mentioned India

Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military, which is not the case.

A referendum held amidst annexation cannot possibly be legitimate.

> If you look at what the people in Crimea voted for, they voted to be part of Russia. If what people in a region want is paramount as you seem to say then eastern Ukrainian regions seem to want to break from Ukraine and align with Russia.

So, I presume you're talking about this referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum

In general, I tend not to respect referendums that are preceded by invasion of military forces (who I believe were not Russian, according to the Russian government of the time?). But yes, you are correct, the people of Crimea did vote for this.

However, this is massively, massively different from both the original Treaty between the UK and Ireland in 1920, as all UK troops had withdrawn before this occurred. Additionally, the 1998 referendums took place in an environment where most of the violence had stopped for a number of years, which is definitely not the case in Ukraine.

> Russia has not done anything in the Ukraine which England has not done or is not doing in Ireland, to your apparent approval.

So, you'd be fine if the Russians wiped out the native language of the Ukrainian people, cut down their forests and watched as multiple millions of them died? Clearly you wouldn't be (I hope) and only someone with absolutely no context on Irish/UK history would make such a ludicrous claim. Additionally, it was the United Kingdom that this did, not England (which only exists as a nation in sports).

> The Dáil vote was all ireland, the 1998 was two separate votes, on the whole island for the same issue. Any how the result from the second Dáil and the 1998 vote were on the same principle affirmed, the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies.

I feel like you may have mistaken the 1916 proclamation of independence with the 1998 referendum, which I think speaks to your lack of understanding of the issues (and I cheerfully admit that I know very little about the history of Russia/Crimea/Ukraine). From a Republic of Ireland point of view, the 1998 referendum was actually about giving up a territorial claim on the six counties of Northern ireland, which is very different from what happened in Crimea.

> Your original comment has modern Ireland as unmolested by the British military,

I just cant even, with this statement. Like, every weekend when I was growing up, there were violent deaths in the North of ireland (and Britain) on behalf of terrorists/freedom fighters (delete as appropriate). There was definitely a bunch of terrible things done during this period, but the vast majority was driven by people living on the island of Ireland, not the British government. The British government didn't make it any better, but they didn't mass 130k troops around the North at any point.

> I also mentioned India

I'm going to assume that you have no answer to my question then.

On that note, I'll bow out of this conversation as I'm not sure it's productive for either of us. Hope you have a great morning/afternoon/evening.

>> Ah now, by that logic it would be acceptable for the British government to invade and occupy Ireland, India, and much of the rest of the world.

Mongolia would like to have a word.

> The Russian military was in the Crimea back when redcoats were stationed in New York City, and has been in the Crimea ever since.

No, it hasn't.

From the creation of Soviet Ukraine in 1919 through 2014, Russia neither controlled nor pretended to control Crimea (except for a 9 year period from 1945-1954), which it acknowledged was its own entity (prior to 1945) or part of Ukraine (after 1954).

(People sometimes equate the USSR, which essentially replaced the Russian Empire with “Russia”, but the modern Russian Federation is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR, just as Ukraine is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.)

Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago.

> Crimea was part of Russia until about sixty year ago.

The 9 year period it was part of the Russian Federation ended closer to 70 years ago, but I’ve updated the GP to reflect it.

> its own entity (prior to 1945)

Still, nested within the Russian Federation as an administrative entity. (Also, autonomy throughout the USSR was more or less a formality anyway.)

Strange, Wikipedia thinks it was a part of RSFSR:

> The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic[a] was an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic *of the Russian SFSR* (1921–45) and the Ukrainian SSR (1991–92) located on the Crimean Peninsula. The political unit was succeeded by the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

[0]

> On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.

> Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:

> To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province *from the Russian SFSR* to the Ukrainian SSR.

Regarding "...is a direct linear continuation of the entity that was known as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, not the USSR":

> The Republic of Byelarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, as successor states of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in connection with the Treaty, shall assume the obligations of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the Treaty

[1]

Does USA position on this matters?

Especially considering Russia is still repaying USSR's foreign debt.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_transfer_of_Crimea#Decree

[1] https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/27389.pdf

This seems to be a popular edgy opinion but I think it's useful to occasionally remember who has thousands of soldiers massed on the border.

HackerNews has a weirdly pro-Russia bent, at least in these comment sections. People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?) and how Crimea is and has been Russian, even though the Russians invaded and conquered it in the past decade... Really odd. Not just making arguments against US involvement but flat out repeating false, pro-Russian propaganda.

> People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?)

Ok, I have no "pro-Russia" bent at all, I think they are to blame in this whole story as their concerns could've been addressed by diplomacy like most European leaders have been trying to say... but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine and how it might think war is a justifiable way to stop that from happening? And if that's the case, how it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been (with Krimea and Eastern Ukraine in a war situation for several years)?

It's hard to do so, but try to imagine yourself being a decision maker on the Russian side. Seeing an extremely important, historically aligned neighbour that has a very large, geographically un-obstructed border with you, and who can block your access to extremely important maritime routes, trying to join a military alliance who sees you as one of their main enemies.

While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable and I can totally see how NATO nations should do everything it can to avoid this war, they have nothing to lose, while Russia has a lot at stake... sometimes, it's a wise move to back off your expansion to avoid loss of life and making the situation much, much worse (imagine a world with Russian-occupied Ukraine for years to come)... when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge).

I highly recommend the Caspian Report channel on YT and its series on this conflict to understand the motivations on each side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNIU6TRsRzk

GP: >> People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?)

You: > but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine

Why would Ukraine want to align with NATO instead of the country that just invaded it?

> While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable

Why?

> it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been

Sounds like appeasement to me

> when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge).

The why go to war over something symbolic?

It's hard to communicate, it seems, when people seem to do all they can to not understand the other side. (talking not only about this exchange, by the way).

Your quotes of me are disingenuous.

OP asked why NATO shouldn't expand. I answered that doing so will surely trigger a war, as Russia made clear already.

> Why would Ukraine want to align with NATO instead of the country that just invaded it?

I suppose you mean "wouldn't", and I would agree that they want to align with NATO as the current government is very anti-Russia (notice that Ukraine goes back and forth on this, it's not always the way it is now). But what a country wants is not always what they can do. I am sure Georgia would love to join NATO too and make sure Russia never invades it again... but is NATO willing to go to war with Russia over Georgia? Or over Ukraine? The answer is no. NATO already said so: they will not support Ukraine militarily if Russia invades.

So the real question is whether it's worth letting Russia invade Ukraine simply because NATO cannot meet the Russian demands to say Ukraine will not join NATO.

> The why go to war over something symbolic?

You must've misread something... NATO meeting the Russian demands would be symbolic in my understanding (again, because NATO didn't have concrete plans to let Ukraine join it... Russia just wants NATO to make that official - a mostly symbolic act). But NATO not meeting this demand will cause a war for sure, which has nothing symbolic about it. Children will die (have you seen the faces of the soldiers on the front line, FFS they are children, 18 yos).

> The why go to war over something symbolic?

They are not going to war. They just expand their presence on the borders to make a point. If NATO feels menace with those deployments, they are expected to understand that Russia feels the same. If NATO is not making commitment on paper not to expand and to scale down their current presence, Russia will not make commitments to stop those annual military exercises they have been doing for years.

Have you rethought these comments at all, Ivan?

Yes. They remain valid as a way of thought for many Russians before the war and should be kept for history. Hardly anyone in Russia was considering real war as a possibility, so when Putin made the orders it came as a deep shock. Before the recognition of separatist territories, his strategy seemed at least rational if wrong. He could be understood, even if his actions were not approved. Not anymore. I do not know when this transition happened, when the last red line was crossed by him in his mind, but now it is total uncertainty. Whatever he planned with this invasion, his calculations are so obviously mistaken, that it is hard to understand how this decision was made at the first place. It will not help Russia to achieve any long term or short term goals and it will jeopardize his own rule. Now he is certified crazy. And this is scary as shit.

Thank you for coming back and adding this. Indeed, it is scary as shit, and because now any kind of trust in whatever Russia says or claims is lost there is absolutely no way to contain this. Russia could join peace negotiations and it wouldn't amount to anything. This does not have a happy ending I'm afraid.

Best of luck. We'll probably all need it.

Thank you very much for the perspective, I think people all around the world are shocked at his brazenness and even people who were "right" about his plans are horrified to be so.

> HackerNews has a weirdly pro-Russia bent

Maybe US corporate media, owned and controlled by 1% heirs, has a particularly imperial bent, wanting to expand the American empire even farther, in this case US tanks and missiles alongside Ukraine's long border with Russia (which incidentally is filled with Russian speaking ethnic Russians who do not want this). US media is also filled with beneficiaries and think-tankers from the military industrial complex president Eisenhower talked about. The interferers in European affairs George Washington warned about. Anne Applebaum, quoted in this thread, is an un-American, anti-American who wants confrontation with Russia for whatever psychological or political reasons. With the average inflation-adjusted US hourly wage below what it was a half century ago (even before Covid), with a country racked with Covid, the US should not get dragged into a military adventure on Russia's border. Let the Europeans deal with the diplomatic niceties, the US should stay out.

I mean part of it could be that lots of us have actually been to Russia (I fit in that category) or are Russian. We don’t need to rely on third party sources to tell us how to think. I’ve also been to China and it’s so much worse but the US propaganda machine loves China, in fact we’re watching them trivialize a country that places minorities in concentration camps on primetime TV.

Doesn’t seem odd to me at all. The media has lost credibility and our government is morally bankrupt.

I’ve been to Russia, am married to a Russian, own homes both in Moscow and Kiev.

Many Americans on HN who have never visited either country have a weirdly pro-Russian bend.

That would explain cogent arguments based on the real world. Does it explain blatantly false ones that align with Russian propaganda?

What about the American propaganda that the government doesn’t spy on its citizens, because if it weren’t for Russia the person who brought that to light would be sitting in a jail cell instead of taking interviews.

do you agree that Cuba should be able to join a voluntary pact with USSR and US shouldn't do anything about it?

You don’t have to be pro-Russian or pro-Putin (two different things!) to be critical of the current US and NATO policy. When Germany was cautious about reacting to Russian military deployment on Ukrainian border, Americans started calling its important NATO partner as unreliable. Europe may have different perspective on what is going on and how to resolve the crisis. In an equal partnership everyone has the right to speak and and common policy is developed through consensus rather than by one partner dictating to others what to do. Russian government did a lot of wrong things, by fueling a civil war in a neighboring state and covering up war criminals that have shot a civil airplane. It does not mean they are going to go to war that will not help them to achieve anything meaningful. Also, it is a fallacy to assume that anyone calling US government statements a warmongering and wrongdoing is repeating pro-Russian propaganda (after all, those statements are simply opinions and interpretations - current administration never presented Russian invasion as a matter of fact). The very same facts presented by US intelligence can be interpreted in different ways, and even Ukrainian government sees them differently than United States. The US interpretation is doing more harm than good: stocks are falling, flights are being cancelled and brain drain from Ukraine is accelerating. Should we blindly trust them or at least try to do some homework to verify their claims and approaches?

It is hard not to be skeptical about the drum beats for war. Pick any conflict from Vietnam to Syria/Iraq and you'll find a complicit media parroting false pretenses.

Any amount of reckoning (fact checks?) for these past incidents (dangerous misinformation?) would go a long way.

You are right. Russia is not even dignified with national interests, it is the Ukraine and "Vladimir Putin and his entourage".

I suggest replacing "an idiot" with "misguided".

We shouldn’t spare much kindness for trolls like this.

The facts are indisputable and known to everyone, Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine.

If there's one thing humanity should know as "fact," it's that in war there are very, very few of them. Propaganda is the order of the day, not scientific fact.

Are you saying that all the publicly accessible satellite footage showing Russian troop movements is fake?

Are you saying that the discredited Russian false flag attacks in separatist areas didn’t happen? (A fact anyone can verify by looking at the metadata of those videos)

Are you saying that the Russians are lying when they confirm these troop movements? Are you saying they lied when they publicly stated that they’re considering military action in Ukraine?

What exactly are you trying to say? These are very real independently verifiable facts known to the whole world.

> only the US & allied governments are actually actively promoting the idea of going to war.

It's incredibly costly to park 150,000 troops and armor in a position to invade. But your issue is with the governments saying "excuse me, why does it look like you're positioning your troops for an invasion?" OK.

Don't overestimate the cost. If the units weren't there, they'd be doing large scale exercises and maneuvers, which can be even more costly. From the perspective of the Russian army, stationing a medium-sized force within their own borders is not going to be that expensive.

Also, the corresponding increase in gas prices is going to counteract that perhaps even completely.

The average US town has 6k people, so this is like relocating the population of 25 US towns to new, temporary housing.

Then you have to set up logistics to provide continual daily food and fuel to the new location for all those people. Then you have to relocate tanks which get about a mile per gallon of fuel, as well as people carriers, weapons, aircraft, missiles, ammo, field hospitals, blood and medical supplies, etc.

Armies rarely do "large scale exercises and maneuvers" precisely because they are so expensive.

Russia does multiple large scale exercises an maneuvers each year.

Russia also has a lot of basing nearby. For them, they're really only moving the units a few dozen kilometers from already established bases.

So for example, you mentioned a gallon per mile for a tank, which is indeed a realistic fuel consumption. The tanks are shipped by rail to nearby bases which is very shipped, and they then have maybe 200km to cover. 120 miles for 700 tanks is 84kGal of fuel, which is 420,000$ in fuel - that is, chump change.

Aircraft don't even need to be relocated. They're already there.

The rest, sure, but it's not as expensive as you'd think.

Looks like they decided to conduct their large scale exercises in Ukraine.

Not sure I follow why they would necessarily be doing large scale exercises and maneuvers if they weren't deployed to the Ukrainian border.

Also from what I understand a lot of these Russian troops are actually in Belarus as well.

You need to keep your troops occupied to keep readiness and to maintain training. You absolutely have to do large scale exercises and maneuvers multiple times a year. These deployments take the place of already-planned exercises, which actually were to take place in Belarus also.

You mean after the coup that placed Russia siding president in Ukraine?

The regularly-scheduled coup agreed upon by citizens, aka an election?

Elections with buses filled with Donbas miners having special voting permits that alloved them voting multiple times?

Yeah,cool ekections there, with no oversight.

Putin has:

Invaded two parts of Ukraine and waged a proxy war for years.

Attempted to destabilise, poison or assassinate opponents throughout Europe.

Positioned hundreds of thousands of troops at the Ukraine border.

Threatened nuclear war recently - he directly said they would use nuclear weapons.

Putin is the one threatening war here, though of course they are waging a disinformation campaign to try to paint the US as the aggressor.

I don't think you're too cynical, but we can have our own takes. From what I was able to piece together, Russia isn't the one starting this conflict, in action. It's NATO aligned countries trying to get Ukraine to join NATO. Russia made it very clear, that ain't happening and they'll go to war over it.

So who's still agitating for war?

The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.

I mean, that's still Russia being the aggressor. Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, can align with who they wish, and be lobbied by anyone and everyone to do so, and Russia doesn't get a say in that.

And if 20 years from now, Mexico and Canada decide to align with China and invite Chinese troops to set up on the border with the US, then the leader of the US should explain to US citizen living near the borders, "Hey, I know this makes us vulnerable, and I don't like it any more than you do, but I cannot ethically do anything about it because no country gets a say in the military alliances of any other country," according to you?

Did you forget Cuba exists and that the US was regarded a the agressor for trying to get the soviets out of there? Or would it have be totally ok with you if we invaded them?

The US didn't need to invade: President Kennedy instituted a naval blockade and that plus Kennedy's promise to remove US missiles from Turkey in exchange was enough to get the Soviets to agree to remove their missiles from Cuba.

That blockade of course was an agressive act against Cuba, and it was the correct course of action IMO because a rule that says that no country will be agressive towards any other country is unworkable because there is no power above the countries that could enforce the rule. (The UN is toothless.) If a country's leaders adhere to an unenforceable rule and insist on other countries doing the same, that will on average lead to more death and less prosperity for the world than if each country's leaders rationally pursues their country's interests IMO.

Some courses of action at the country level are more ethical than others, but it is more complicated than you imply it is and any ethical framework has to take into account certain realities.

> The US didn't need to invade: President Kennedy instituted a naval blockade and that plus Kennedy's promise to remove US missiles from Turkey in exchange was enough to get the Soviets to agree to remove their missiles from Cuba.

We did try to assassinate Castro several times, so not exactly.

> That blockade of course was an aggressive act against Cuba, and it was the correct course of action IMO because a rule that says that no country will be aggressive towards any other country is unworkable because there is no power above the countries that could enforce the rule.

Practically speaking yes, but there are enough treaties in place at this point that if someone invades someone else they are at least breaking some of their own rules. Think of it like a credit system for countries, the more you break rules you laid down for yourself, the less credibility you have going forward. Decentralized global governance of sorts.

> Some courses of action at the country level are more ethical than others, but it is more complicated than you imply it is and any ethical framework has to take into account certain realities.

I didn't intend to imply it wasn't complicated when you zoom out, but it is very un-complicated when you zoom in. The guy who throws the first punch is the aggressor. Sling words, make agreements, talk a big game, but the first one to violate the sovereignty of another government is indeed the aggressor.

The US would have every right to use whatever influence they have and whatever diplomacy they can muster to try to prevent it, but yes, at the end of the day, it’s not up to them and they don’t have the right to use force to prevent it.

That would be a perfectly rational response, yes.

> can align with who they wish

Historically, this has never been true. Countless wars were started when the balance of power was threatened, even by such a small thing as marriage (can’t they marry “who they wish”?)

I think many people are unable to consider the whole picture. They want to ideally look at these things in isolation.

There's some set of [reason] the 'west' wants Ukraine to join NATO, and in theory, there's no issue with that right?.... but in reality, the consequences could be severe. It's silly to ignore the consequences when you've been informed upfront.

Most people wouldn't have any idea that it has anything to do with NATO, since the media is doing a wonderful job of misinforming. It's being pitched as 100% unprovoked aggression.

> a sovereign nation, can align with who they wish...

Oh wow, that's what I call thinking about the world as you wish the world were, rather than as the world actually is.

At the height of Soviet power, the USA were willing to fight enormous wars on the other side of the planet to stop a country voluntarily aligning with the USSR (dropping more bombs on it than all of WWII countries did combined, killing millions). They helped coups in countless countries and helped even genocidal regimes with the sole purpose of stopping USSR expansion, even when doing so was actually economically detrimental to themselves.

And the USA is far from alone in meddling with other countries' affairs. China, Russia, obviously, even not-so-big powers like Australia (ask New Guinea) and the UK (who loved doing that all over the world when it had the power to do so) will absolutely engage in whatever they can to make sure their interests are not compromised or even threatened.

There's something like 150.000+ troops surrounding Ukraine, collected all over the Russia. Maybe they don't want to invade, but they sure want to make things look like they are willing to do so.

The current actions are great marketing for NATO and for increased defense spending in Europe. For some time there was hope that Europe would be heading towards a peaceful time and it was harder to justify increases military expenses. This will change all that for a long time.

NATO's members and the Ukraine are sovereign countries. If they all want Ukraine to join NATO, it's not Russia's business. We don't say bullshit like "well, it's not the muggers fault he shot you. He made it clear he wanted to have your purse and was willing to shoot you for it"

I believe people in Ukraine themselves want to align with the West, not Moscow. Or who would like to be governed by kleptocrats? It may or may not come with NATO. NATO is unlikely to accept new members that are already in practice in a war with Russia.

Ukraine is currently governed by a bunch of obscene kleptocrats, thieves and gangsters, who throw regular coups that overturn election results, imprison political opponents, and shut down TV channels, and has been for decades, and getting worse. Outside of willingness to lend its population as cannon fodder to NATO, it really has nothing in common with some democratic fantasy-land many here pretend it to be. They had 8, no 31 years to make something of themselves, but they remain a hopeless lawless kleptocratic dump.

> Russia made it very clear, that ain't happening and they'll go to war over it

Russia is going to go to war with Ukraine if Ukraine does things Russia doesn't want them to do. And they told everyone they would ...

How is that not agitating for war?

>Russia isn't the one starting this conflict

>Russia made it very clear, that ain't happening and they'll go to war over it.

Which one is it?

>The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.

The massive troop build up along Ukraine's border and in Belarus?

You're spreading Russian propaganda.

The problem is that Russia isn’t the only country that puts out propaganda, and most people are now well aware after the lies that were used to justify the Iraq war. So far I haven’t seen any objective facts except some out of context satellite photos and anonymously sources information from the US intelligence community (A group of people who’s job descriptions are to spread misinformation)

Do you think troops have been moved to Ukraine's border in Belarus and in Russia?

Look I think you're missing the point. Chew on it for a bit, don't respond half-cocked.

You: I want do to X.

B: If you do X, I will do Y.

You can try to convince B not to do Y if you do X...

but if B is prepared to do Y, and is showing you he's prepared to do Y...

and you can't convince him not to...

then you have to consider, that if you continue trying to do X, that You are the one agitating.

Depending on what X and Y are, we condemn different actors. Agitating not really a word I would use for any pairing.

"Keep me from taking your purse" and "shoot you" we condemn B as a mugger.

"Leave me and meet someone new" and "shoot both of you" and we condemn B as a domestic abuser and potential murderer.

"Return a library book late" and "charge you $0.10 a day as a fine" and we condemn A lightly.

I would contend Russia's current actions fall squarely in the first two examples.

Let's make your examples actually match the structure I set up. You've created some weird analogies that don't relate.

A: I want to take your purse.

B: If you take my purse, I will kill you.

If A continues to try and take the purse, A is obviously the agitator.

A: I want to leave you.

B: If you leave, I will kill you.

We agree B is a monster here, and this is a police matter, not global politics.

Maybe we can create a better example...

A: Hey B I want to nail your cousin.

B: I will not allow that to happen. Bro I will ruin your world. Literally, armageddon. Don't do it.

If A continues trying to nail the cousin, clearly the agitator.. no?

You flipped my first example. I said A said "I don't want to give you my purse" B says "give me your purse or I will shoot you".

And I like how the only example you can think of where the word "agitator" flows well is when someone is trying to stop two consenting adults from having sex. Because clearly the person B on your last example is an asshole who is wrong, and you're using "agitator" to just mean "willing to ignore overt threats"

I think your own weak example highlights how you know you're wrong on this issue.

I flipped your first example because it doesn't relate to the situation we're talking about and what you were responding to.

B isn't trying to take something from A. A is trying to woo (something near B) and B is promising consequences.

It no longer has anything to do about who is right, or what is right... that black and white right and wrong are no longer relevant.

If B is willing to back up the claims, A has to seriously consider their choices.

It's pretty close to the same in my example with the cousin... It doesn't matter if B is an asshole or is wrong, what does that have to do with anything?

The funny thing is, I don't think I'm even taking a position on the actual argument... I just think there's so much narrative control that many aren't even capable of considering alternative explanations.

The problem I have with this is it seems like you're arguing for might makes right. B is basically a bully and is making a choice for both parties then (B's way or war). Meanwhile I just don't want to be bullied or feel vulnerable to my bully neighbor.

I'm not arguing in favor of might makes right, but global politics isn't simple and many of the players aren't rational or reasonable. I'm arguing for dealing with reality, and acknowledging reality. I don't have a strong position either way, to be honest, and I don't think really any of us know enough to be so confident.

What are the X & Y in this situation?

Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum where they committed to respect Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal.

And Russia gets to decide whether another sovereign country gets to join a military alliance…why? Because they can? The amount of laundering of Russian propaganda on here is depressing if not surprising.

well, you answered it. "because they can"

Russia has already invaded Ukraine, with special forces and proxy forces, in Donetsk and in Crimea, indeed Putin claims Ukrainians and Russians are the same people. The forces they support have even committed war crimes like downing a civilian jet and killing hundreds and in recent days shelling civilian villages.

While it seems to be fashionable to make excuses for a murderous dictator like Putin, Putin’s intentions are clear and include at the very least regime change in Ukraine to install a puppet regime.

If you call massing hundreds of thousands of troops at two borders, invading two parts of a country and staging massive war games at another puppet state nearby ‘zero evidence’, your denial of reality is chamberlainesque. I hope you accept you were deeply wrong about this if Russia does invade again.

You're being hyperbolic... I am merely pointing out this doesn't appear to be unprovoked. This place should be a little more open-minded than an MSNBC panel.

That was not being hyperbolic at all, I’m just stating facts about the actions of Putin.

I would suggest those putting 50% of their active combat forces on the border of another country and taking an invasion stance are the ones who want war. Perhaps if Putin hadn't profited so much and had not allowed the oligarchs to literally loot the Russian economy over the past decade plus they, Russia, would not be in the situation they are in.

I just don't see how the economist making zero evidence claims has any influence on whether putin sends tanks over the border. To war monger, surely you must have some effect on whether war happens!

> The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.

The insane media drum beats are exactly like before Afghanistan and Iraq. It is so depressing how absolutely nothing has changed.

The US is not going to fight a war over Ukraine and has ordered all its troops to leave Ukraine. Russia will invade Ukraine and leave it broken for even suggesting that it could join NATO and then leave. The US is only sending troops into Eastern Europe in case Russia stays and feels like causing trouble in bordering NATO countries where the US has Article 5 obligations.

The US military industrial complex is left wanting, Biden has sinking approval ratings and nordstream 2 is about to be turned on. All signs point to needing to start a conflict by the US.

This comment did not age well.

indeed

>The zero-evidence claims that Russia was about to invade sure look like pure propaganda from the same people who are thirsty for it.

Do you still feel this way?

> So who's still agitating for war?

Putin. Putin is agitating for war.

Maybe I've actually tried to get a better understanding, and just have a different perspective on things? I consume a lot of varied media, but I also work 10-14 hours a day.

There are also a lot of people unwittingly participating in Russian disinfo ops. We should condemn them, but they’re usually not paid.