And the sanctions also result in oligarchs losing their assets. Want to be an ass and disconnect from the west? Fine. But you’re not taking your toys. They can be in prison together with the people they constantly barrage with these narratives. If sanctions don’t work and not sanctioning doesn’t work, might as well sanction and be done with it.
Russia invaded a neighboring country and is racking up the war crimes against civilians there. A Russian teenager unable to play XBox is maybe slightly less important than the indiscriminate shelling of hospitals and nuclear power plants.
And straight up shooting civilians on the street with assault rifles... this is literally happening in Ukraine :(
Putin _is_ getting his power from the Russian people. It's unfortunate they believe his lies, but they do, and that's what makes him strong.
Ya know The Us feels very threatened by Belarus. They should have to withdraw from their alliance from Russia and decouple. Otherwise we’ll invade and neutralize it ourselves.
Should Russia schedule a delivery of nuclear weapons to Cuba for this week or next?
>Ya know The Us feels very threatened by Belarus. They should have to withdraw from their alliance from Russia and decouple
Is that because of its close proximity to Maine?
I guess it's closer than Iraq...
Frankly, I couldn’t care less. But if you think a country choosing to ally with a country is the same as positioning nuclear weapons, well, that’s your problem. Recall that Russia exited nuclear arms treaties and controls, which were the result of an insane arms buildup and included activities like putting missiles in Cuba. Even the Soviet Union got it.
> Is that because of its close proximity to Maine?
So you can only feel threatened by a country that you share a border with?
> I guess it's closer than Iraq...
This is called whataboutism and it can safely be rejected.
The US repudiated the ABM treaty before Russia did any of that (Russian withdrawal from START II was a direct response to that), and also exited the Open Skies Treaty first. There are many, many things to blame Russia for, but collapsing the arms control and verification regime that developed during the Cold War was entirely the US (and specifically an active partisan project of the GOP.)
> On December 13, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush, who argued that Washington and Moscow no longer needed to base their relationship on their ability to destroy each other, announced that the United States would withdraw from the ABM Treaty, claiming that it prevented U.S. development of defenses against possible terrorist or "rogue-state" ballistic missile attacks. [1]
[1] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/abmtreaty
Without getting into the entire history of tit-for-tat let’s not pretend that withdrawing from this treaty was the result of some wonton aggression toward little ole’ Russia.
From game theory stand point that is the only course of action to maintain MAD.
If you're falling behind in drones and high precision weapons, it would be very disadvantageous if everyone went nukeless.
US was the dominant influence behind economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, so I do not understand how that argument can be made in good faith. It's Dr. Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein (his creation) for being a monster.
Also, if the Cold war was over - why did NATO even expand? A lot of people on HN say that it is a purely defensive alliance, why would you expand if you were acting in good will, especially when you said you would not?
Many reasons. One can simply be good salespeople. Another could be an effective role as world police. Another could be to constrain violent dictatorships from invading neighboring countries. But sure it’s just so very aggressive toward little ole’ Russia.
> US was the dominant influence behind economic reforms in Russia in the early 90s, so I do not understand how that argument can be made in good faith. It's Dr. Frankenstein blaming Frankenstein (his creation) for being a monster.
What argument?
> Also, if the Cold war was over -
I guess you can debate this with someone but everyone alive who anybody cares to listen to recognizes that the Cold War ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.
> why did NATO even expand?
Because Russia is a mafia state run by old KGB morons who are pillaging the country and, as you can see, starting wars against neighboring countries. Georgia. Moldova. Ukraine. Why wouldn’t you want to be protected from that?
> A lot of people on HN say that it is a purely defensive alliance, why would you expand if you were acting in good will, especially when you said you would not?
Don’t care.
There's war in Yemen right now, with one of the sides heavily backed by Saudi Arabia, where's the world police? Or does it only respond to calls when land changes hands?
>starting wars against neighboring countries.
1/3 countries admitted in 1999 have a border with Russia.
3/7 countries admitted in 1999 have a border with Russia.
0/4 of those admitted after that.
>Because Russia is a mafia state run by old KGB morons who are pillaging the country and, as you can see, starting wars against neighboring countries.
There's no denying it being a mafia state, but that may not necessarily be the only or even the dominant explanation.
Even Wikipedia (which Russia had repeatedly considered banning on its territory) cites quite different reasons: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence."
>Georgia
The situation with Georgia reads very similar to the current conflict, except Georgia had taken the Russian role in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian%E2%80%93Abkhaz_confli...
But why not just say that and stop saying stuff like "no-no, those anti-ballistic missiles we deployed in Poland are against potential Iranian aggression."
I think encircling your border with an offensive military alliance is very much like placing nukes 100 miles away and pointing them at you, yes.
I wouldnt want the military alliance that destroyed Libya anywhere near me if I thought I could be a target. Having a strict "dont end up like Libya" policy is actually a fairly sensible.
>This is called whataboutism
It's called sarcasm.
Why do you think NATO is an offensive alliance against Russia?
> I wouldnt want the military alliance that destroyed Libya anywhere near me if I thought I could be a target. Having a strict "dont end up like Libya" policy is actually a fairly sensible.
Odd isn’t it? It’s almost like if you are like Libya, and you murder your citizens, deny them basic rights, and enrich yourself at their expense you end up on the receiving end of some measure of justice. I can’t imagine what could possibly prevent that. No country has ever figured that out. Nope. No way.
It was set up specifically to oppose Moscow.
It destroyed Libya.
It is an offensive alliance without question.
That doesnt excuse Russia, but Russia invading Ukraine doesnt excuse NATO either.
Wrong. It was set up to oppose the Soviet Union. Not Russia. Putin himself was talking about joining NATO. Regardless of how serious he was, no country consider joining an organization if it’s hostile to them.
> It is an offensive alliance without question.
Good thing you mentioned Libya, because that’s the only campaign that NATO involved in an offensive role. Even putting aside the circumstances of that campaign, an offensive organization that exists for 73 years but has only waged a single war, does that make any sense?
I said Moscow. Did Moscow stop being Moscow?
>Good thing you mentioned Libya, because that’s the only campaign that NATO involved in an offensive role.
One rape makes you a rapist.
>an offensive organization that exists for 73 years but has only waged a single war
They've waged many. I gave Libya as an example because there are no shades of gray in that war and because it was the war that shaped Putin's view of what NATO's endgame was for Russia (quite fairly, IMHO).
Or Finland. What then? Negotiated peace only works if it works, and it clearly doesn't with Putin. We tried your suggestion already and it failed.
The point is we DIDNT try adhering to minsk, zelensky decided he 100% wanted to be NATO rather than neutral and NOW look where we are.
A bit of decentralization, some restored Russian language rights and a promise for NATO to back off would ALL have been easier.
>What happens when he comes for the rest of Ukraine in another 8 years, or Moldova?
How exactly does neutral make that happen?
What happens when NATO tries to do to Russia what it did to Libya?
Maybe it will turn people into Putin supporters, and maybe, hopefully, with time, it will push them to revolt.
What's the option, though? Inaction? Sanctions hurt the people because hurting the support base is the only way to exert pressure on those unrepresentative governments.
At the end of the day, all governments operate via the consent of the governed, even autocracies. But the expression of that consent gets really ugly the less democratic the environment. The international community can't fix Russian democracy, so all that is left for us (absent military action) is to change the reward structure for those who can.