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.