We have been in a proxy war state for at least a year ( some could credibly argue that it was longer than that ), so this accident is hardly a surprise and more along the lines of 'it was bound to happen'.

I have my own opinions and, for several reasons, I don't want Russian army to succeed in takeover of Ukraine, but, uhh, we are moving into a very bad place I predicted few years ago ( re-institution of new axis of powers and effectively forcing Puting into the arms of XI, who, if no one remembers, has become defacto main target of future US policy ).

We will also continue moving towards a bad place if we just let Russia do what it wants in Ukraine (and beyond). It will cost the West one way or the other.

I am not sure I agree, but if that is the case, then slowly boiling the frog is the wrong strategy to begin with. If that is true, then one big move and a show of force is the appropriate one.

I think there is a clear misunderstanding of today's world order combined with a recognition that there is, clearly based on what is happening, a space to test its boundaries ( metaphorically and literally ).

<< It will cost us one way or the other.

Full agreement. What is the lesser or at least more acceptable cost from US perspective?

NATO doesn’t want to become an actual war party if they can help it, and instead want to contain the conflict within Ukraine, hoping that will be sufficient. So they try to do what they can within that constraint, and within each member country’s domestic political constraints, as of course its citizens aren’t eager to get drawn into a war, or to otherwise suffer from their country’s involvement. At this point it’s also unclear what China will do should Russia start losing the war due to more direct NATO involvement; and finally there’s the nuclear risk.

On the other hand, if you let Russia roam freely and restrict yourself to formal protest, that would set a very bad precedent, and would only encourage further military operations by Russia and other authoritarian parties wanting to expand their sphere of influence. Last but not least, Ukraine is a significant agricultural and mineral/metal producer in the world, which the West certainly doesn’t want to see under Russian control, not to speak of Ukraine’s role in the geostrategic importance of the Black Sea.

Slowly boiling the frog worked pretty well during the Cold War. There's no reason to think that it can't work again. If we keep the pressure on through proxy wars, diplomacy, and sanctions then the Russian empire may eventually disintegrate further.

The US and Russia have been in a proxy war state since WW2.

You are technically right ( cold war ), but mostly wrong nonetheless.

Can you substantiate that claim for after cold war debacle? There was a period and not a short one, where relations with Russia were a lot warmer and gave some hope for less crazy future.

Let's just assume the cold war cooled down for a couple years until Putin got a firm enough hold on his power he could rewarm it.

And yes, the Age of Aquarius was remarkably short and I found it severely lacking.

Even during initial Putin's reign there was a period of relative non-interference in each other's spheres. If, and I am assuming a little bit here, you are suggesting that regular spy-vs-spy constitutes a proxy war, then we have always been at war.. with everyone.

Maybe the right question becomes: how would you define a proxy war then? I think our disagreement lies in a definition of a concept.

> then we have always been at war.. with everyone.

There is spy-vs-spy for getting information and there's spy-vs-spy with the intention of blocking the other country's interests. The first can be seen as merely defensive while the other is a bit more offensive.

For instance, stealing secrets can be seen as defensive, while covertly supporting fringe political groups is squarely on the offensive side.

Relations between the Soviet Union and America deteriorated almost immediately following Germany's surrender. Or are you talking about Détente or the 90s and early 00s? In the former case, the two sides were still overtly postured for war with each other. In the later case, the apparent "warm relations" were little more than the Russia being in such a disorganized state that the only thing they could really accomplish was the accepting of western investment/bribes. Not exactly a healthy relationship.

That's more or less when the US got involved, but the broader conflict goes back more than a century before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game

We are not forcing Putin into anything.

He has already long time ago made up his mind that US and the West will become his enemy.

The only way we actually can win him over is by beating him decisively and fast.

Yes, that is the paradox of Russian mindset.

There is another way. An idea should creep into the minds of common Russians how Chinese will come and eff them over. This is not impossible considering their commonly heavily xenophobic mindset and their current experience in far east Siberia where Chinese just pour in in millions.

<< We are not forcing Putin into anything.

Hmm, how so?

I don't know about you, but if I was in his position I would be seeking allies that have a beef with US and, surprise, this is exactly what he did. So yeah, if he wants to survive politically ( and otherwise ) he is effectively forced by US ( and the generated coalition -- and we can discuss how willingly they went along to do that ) to seek those out.

What I would not do is roll over as a practical measure to keep my life ( based on still fairly recent history ), where there is a clear path to perceived completion of a goal.

So yeah. US is forcing Putin's hand in choosing allies ( and we could argue to what extent Orange Revolution changed his calculus ).

Now, we could talk about what that means in practice, but I assure you the logical conclusions are even worse, because it does mean undermining Russia's new bestest friends or at least making their lives difficult.

Regardless, that statement is factually plain wrong.

<< He has already long time ago made up his mind that US and the West will become his enemy.

Eh. No. If he did make up his mind, it was about 're-uniting' Russia. Where he miscalculated was that US would care (1) and (2) be able to convince Germany ( and other less willing allies ) to actually go along with attempt at alienate Russia on the global stage.

<< The only way we actually can win him over is by beating him decisively and fast.

Eh again. This is the same argumentation I saw leading to Iraq, Afghanistan ( recent examples only ) and now, surprise, Russia. I mean, it is a great plan if you can make it work, but what, exactly are you proposing here? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

<< Yes, that is the paradox of Russian mindset.

I don't want to assume again, so I would love to hear a little more than a sentence on this. I am familiar with this sentiment, but it is generously applied to just about any enemy of US ( and its variants also helpfully include ">they< only respect strength ( they referencing current enemy)" ).

<< There is another way. An idea should creep into the minds of common Russians how Chinese will come and eff them over.

This is not a shot, but "should" is likely not a great political or rhetorical tool. I would personally recommend trying to place yourself in Russians position geopolitically. Right now, China is an allied power that is actively helping Russia, where US and western powers are actively working against it. The moment you do, you will understand that your suggestion, while it sounds reasonable in US, has a low penetration rate in Russia.. suggesting that this opinion that is intended for US's market of ideas..

<< This is not impossible considering their commonly heavily xenophobic mindset and their current experience in far east Siberia where Chinese just pour in in millions.

I will admit that don't know them both as well to offer a definitive statement here.

Saying that we are forcing Putin to do anything is like saying that resisting to rape is forcing rapist to used more violence. The rapist already had a plan.

There is actually a joke going on about all these "peace initiatives". The police officer is arriving to the crime scene and sees a rape in progress and says: Stop it! Both of you, stop it!

It's nonsense.

Nobody is forcing Putin to do anything he has not already planned to do. The fact that he only has few logical steps available does not mean that we are forcing him to make those - it's still up to him.

He can actually stop this war right away. Nobody is forcing him to continue.

Yes, he made up his mind already in 2007 the latest and yes, he miscalculated Russian army's ability to conduct military operations successfully. Thinking that somehow the West will accept his attempt to occupy other nations again is a grand delusion. But make no mistake - the "rotten West" has been the enemy figure for long time, the narrative that NATO is somehow surrounding Russia has been going on for long time. He chose to oppose the West, not to be friend with it. He did it very visibly.

I saw the war coming already in 2009, when he started to rehabilitate Stalin in public. The war hysteria has been growing in Russia since then very rapidly.

How to make Ukraine win decisively and fast? Just stop this half-assed support and start giving serious aid the Western economies should be capable of. It is the lack of Western will power that helps Putin to continue this war - he perceives that the West is still weak and he can win eventually. This war is fundamentally different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - we don't have to occupy Russia.

This paradox is a street level wisdom from many people who have actual experience with Russians: if you are attacked, you have to attack back fiercely. If you don't, you are not respected (more precisely, you are disrespected and considered weak and exploitable), if you do, you are, if you win, they might very likely consider you as their friend.

You can understand a Russians better when you think them as common white supremacist. Jews are bad, the West is bad because it is weak (lets immigrants, blacks in), and of course Chinese are bad because they are Chinese. Geopolitically Russia will be no super power, so it has to align with the West or with China. China doesn't see Russia as a partner, but as an exploitable token that can be used against the West. It has been always in the interest of Russia to align with the West where it has chance to be taken as an equal partner (mind you equal to other countries, not superior).

Of course at the moment they must to a lot self reflection to get there but it's possible.

> This paradox is a street level wisdom from many people who have actual experience with Russians: if you are attacked, you have to attack back fiercely. If you don't, you are not respected (more precisely, you are disrespected and considered weak and exploitable), if you do, you are, if you win, they might very likely consider you as their friend.

Finland is a good example of this. The beating Russians got from Finland in the Winter War[1] is legendary and Finns are respected for that. Finland enjoyed relatively good relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, far better than most countries, which allowed it to act as a mediator in key diplomatic events of the Cold War.[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords

My apologies, but we can be just as easily produce a counter example where Poland took Moscow[1] and Russia having nothing that would resemble respect. If anything, the events that followed suggest quite the opposite.

<< this paradox is a street level wisdom

I disagree. If anything, it is street level wisdom that strength is the only thing Russian respects. And again, note that the same wisdom is applied to other nations when convenient for narrative purposes.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_occu...

Seems it's been decided that we're all going to have one of those giga-meltdowns that leaves hundreds of millions, or possibly billions, dead.

I sincerely hope you wrong.

How again is it the US's fault that Russia invaded a sovereign country and refuses to leave even as his forces are repeatedly repelled and he even doubled down by """annexing""" another country's territory in a sham referendum?

How about the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict? Trained and armed it for 8 years, boosting its confidence, building up for an all-out decisive attack against Donbass, forcing Russia's hand to intervene? Knowing that pitting Ukraine against Russia in a drawn-out conflict would be hugely beneficial for arms sales as well as a testing ground for equipment, and most importantly seen as weakening Russia in the same way as USSR was in Afghanistan?

So let me get this straight:

- Russia invades Ukraine in 2014 and takes Crimea - Ukraine gets aid and training and weapons - Russia goes for an all-out invasion in 2022

But the US is the guilty party, as:

- the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict - forcing Russia's hand to intervene

What is this? Geopolitics amateur hour?

I guess the ideal world order is one in which Russia is free to annex neighboring countries with no consequences, otherwise 'they'll be forced' to do even worse.

As a former resident of a former communist country (which has been invaded by the Russians 13 times across its history), I am appalled at the level of discourse I sometimes find on Hacker News about the (more recent) Russian invasion. I really hope these are puppets or bots or something.

<< I am appalled at the level of discourse I sometimes find on Hacker News about the (more recent) Russian invasion.

As a person of similar origin, I believe I am entitled to respond to this post.

Whatever you may think of the invasion ( I am not a fan of war myself ), the reasons for it are not exactly hidden anywhere. Orange Revolution removed Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence by removing its puppet, which meant Russia lost control over its former satellite, which left Putin with few options. Now, use of force is kinda frowned upon these days, but it does not mean it does not happen and Ukraine is likely something that Putin was not willing to let go for one reason or another. I think you will agree that letting go of Crimea is almost as likely as letting go of Kaliningrad -- very unlikely unless basically forced to for strategic reasons.

<< What is this? Geopolitics amateur hour?

FWIW, HN seems more clearheaded about it than most forums on the net.

Were are you from?

I'm not debating the reasons Putin thought this was a good idea. My problem is with this narrative that Putin had his hands tied (by NATO) to invade. Because it implies that:

- Ukraine has no agency

- in the 21st century, it is still acceptable to attempt wars of conquest

- Russia cannot survive as a state without an allied Ukraine (as if being a Gas station with nukes can be threatened in any way)

- Russia has no imperial ambitions - LOL (did I mention 13 invasions of my homeland? The last of which took 14 years for the Red Army to leave, featured mass deportations and ethnic 'readjustments' and ended with ~50 years of communism)

- 'the west' should do nothing to help Ukraine as to not piss off the Russians (as of course, they're already pissed off, I mean look at them, they started a war! Better not piss them off further!)

Crimea is a great point. That's where NATO and 'the west' failed and where I agree in hindsight that they're responsible. That was the line that should not have been crossed. When Putin said he doesn't know who the 'the green men' were and he lied they weren't state actors, that's when 'the west' should have sent a peacekeeping mission to figure out who the 'green men' were, right then and there. Allowing the russians to take Crimea in 2014 is what created 2022.

The trend I'm seeing is the edgy 14 yo sounding contrarians who think that condemning Russia is too mainstream and boring. So, there's definitely more to it, right? Proxy wars, conspiracies, western coups, russia is cornered by 'the west' and has no other option, etc.. It's all part of the regular 'firehose of bullshit' which is a Soviet tactic to influence discourse away from reality. The boring tragic and stupid reality of an old school invasion driven by an insane authoritarian with WW1 trenchlines and WW2 soviet tactics of sending meat into the grinder until the enemy submits.

> - Ukraine has no agency

What do you mean by agency here? It's clear by now that at least some Ukrainian men aged 18 are kept captive in their own country and that they've no agency over their natural right to make decisions for themselves (whether to leave the country or to fight for the land they might care about) as they are being physically coerced into trenches of war by their own government. If you assume that the government has the right to deprive its citizens from their agency to decide on that matter and if you believe that projecting state power over the lives of common folks who think otherwise is justified as long as it serves your political viewpoints in this war, I see no reason why you'd complain when Russia projects its military power over Ukraine's agency when it fits Russia's geo-political goals. It's the same principle of might making it right, after all.

Nice strawman - whatabout hybrid, I have to admit I'm impressed. I mean agency at the state-level, whatever that means. As to what the government does during wartime, that's something already decided by the people a priori, democratically. The current leadership didn't invent the procedures right now, on the spot, they were already the law or the law allowed for them. I would extend the same logic to the citizens of Russia and their 'agency' to elect a new leader.

The only people who complain about whataboutism are the ones who want to get away with being hypocrites. Your displeasure won't help you in evading the fact of your double-standard application of the notion of agency. Individual agency is a prerequisite property for every state that wants to claim its sovereignty, as otherwise you'd be describing a slave state controlled by illegitimate rulers of the land according to their preffered modus operandi. As to whether the current Ukraine government's decision to close the borders for its entire adult male population is a token of people's democratic decision, I rest the case: you've just openly admitted that physical coercion of individuals is justifiable and lawful as long as the end goals serve the purpose of the side who holds a preferential stance in power imbalance of the given situation. The might's making it right in its purest textbook form, coming straight out of your typing fingertips. So let the same moral principle of yours guide the current foreign relations between Ukraine and Russia.

Better check your nation's laws. I bet they're the same of not similar to what's going on in Ukraine right now. I wonder what happens in the US if you try to evade a draft?

Actually, please show me a country in which an able bodied individual eligible for the draft in time of war can evade the draft without the help of corruption or legal loopholes.

> Actually, please show me a country in which an able bodied individual eligible for the draft in time of war can evade the draft without the help of corruption or legal loopholes.

Most countries don't draft women, presently including America. This may change of course, there are those who are trying to change it.

I'm not disagreeing with your broader point. On the whole, across this conversation, you are right.

> What you're trying to do is extend this to nation states to provide a justification for a war of conquest and honestly, it's not really working. A bit of a stretch. Very weak strawman..

What you’re trying to do in your turn is pretend that nation states operate by their own code of values devoid of the interests of particular individuals. So as long as the interests align with your political stance you see no problem in coercing other individuals into dying for your goals. I bet you won’t volunteer into trenches of Bakhmut any time soon, but you’ll happily accept the fate of those who are being beaten and sent there by force by the Ukrainian government at this moment.

> Better check your nation's laws. I bet they're the same of not similar to what's going on in Ukraine right now.

Note how quickly your arguments shift from being based on ethics (the virtue of agency) to interpretations of jurisprudence (state laws allowing to deprive people from the virtue of agency if self-preservation of the ruling class is at risk). In other words, you’ve got no ground for a moral objection if one day there’s a side to hold the power over Ukraine’s agency and sovereignty, as long as there’s a lawful declaration of Ukraine’s territorial and political subjection to that side.

> Are you a 'sovereign citizen' or something? This is literally how law enforcement works pretty much all over the planet.

You’d better address this question to the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Mr Danilov, who happens to think that he’s sovereign enough to receive a preferential treatment from his employer that allows him to hide his adult male children in the US during the forced conscription of his fellow citizens. All in the name of the sovereignty that he and his family benefits the most, as you’ve demonstrated with your arguments.

Not sure what your trying to accomplish with this pseudo-philosophical word salad. You've went through whataboutism, strawman, continuum fallacy and still haven't stated any sort of conclusion while topping it off with some example of corruption. It would be fun if it wasn't sad.

<< You’d better address this question to the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Mr Danilov, who happens to think that he’s sovereign enough to receive a preferential treatment from his employer that allows him to hide his adult male children in the US during the forced conscription of his fellow citizens.

This is a pretty heavy claim ( though I admit I cynically would expect the same from average US politician ). Do you have anything to support that claim ( I was not able to find any information that would )?

<< Were are you from?

Former satellite, but does it really matter? Argue your point and it will be judged on its own merits.

This is not the place to appeal to emotion or use talking points ( you can, but you will be called out on it like I am about to do ).

<< My problem is with this narrative that Putin had his hands tied (by NATO) to invade.

I am not going to go after characterizing it as narrative ( in a sense, everything is ), because it can be classified as that. I personally would argue that this is version of risk control. He lost control over Ukraine as aftermath of Orange Revolution and he wants it back. NATO may have not actively participated in said revolution, but you can't honestly tell me western powers had no stake in it ( or no reason to participate in some manner ).

<< Because it implies that >>what follows is an actual Ukrainian propaganda/talking points<<

I don't mind propaganda, but the agency line is a bad line AND a bad argument ( and, as a result, even worse propaganda; propaganda should be effective ). TBH, I am not sure where it originated, but I read it before and I assume it made more sense in original, but lost something in translation.

If you read it on your own and adopted it as your own, I would ask you that you explain to me what you think it actually means, because, logically, it does not follow what I wrote at all. If you can do that, we can continue this discussion in good faith. Otherwise, this is my last post in this section.

<< Allowing the russians to take Crimea in 2014 is what created 2022.

I am resisting the urge of connecting some event in a distant past to show how it could be traced to today. As in, you are not completely wrong, but that moment has long passed AND it was just one of the causes ( and you choose to just ignore them ).

Shoulda woulda coulda is fun, but unlikely to be productive at this stage ( may make for a good history lesson at some point in the future though ).

<< The trend I'm seeing is the edgy 14 yo sounding contrarians who think that condemning Russia is too mainstream and boring.

I hate to invoke Thiel, but this is one of those few times, where his quote is actually relevant and apt. The most contrarian thing you can do is to think for yourself. It is very true.

I have zero problem condemning Russia. Hell, from the beginning I outright stated I want Russians to fail in this campaign. There is a benefit for US ( and frankly EU ) should that come to pass, but repeating talking points is not furthering your cause. Here, it might undermine it.

I will take it one step further and offer a piece of advice: know your audience.

<< It's all part of the regular 'firehose of bullshit' which is a Soviet tactic to influence discourse away from reality.

For once, we can agree on something. It is a known tactic and does work surprisingly well and it is the bane of the internet. The good news is that, on the internet these days, shit is everywhere so gold is much, much easier to spot.

minor edit: personally, I am an admirer of Ukrainian propaganda. It is usually very competent. The 'no agency' line is just bad though. It is definitely not great for US. It is silly for HN.

Ukraine was a friendly nation to Russia since 1991 (not to mention centuries of coexistence as part of the same country). It became hostile twice: first after 'color revolution' in 2004, when USA put their first puppet on Ukrainian throne, and the second one in 2014, when Nuland and K baked a bloody coup there to bring Ukraine into NATO. Crimea annexation was a response to it (new puppet government declared that Russia will be kicked out of Sevastopol base), Donbass war started in 2014 and reignited in 2022 when USA and other NATO countries started to pump more weaponry to the country, constructing naval base and refusing to sign a deal with Putin that Ukraine won't join NATO.

> Crimea annexation was a response to it (new puppet government declared that Russia will be kicked out of Sevastopol base)

This is likely the root of it. Russia had what they perceived to be a rational and pressing military need to control Ukraine. Any talk of higher causes is nothing but propaganda. The legitimacy [or lack thereof] of the Ukrainian government was never relevant, one way or the other. Whether or not the present Ukrainian government is a legitimately elected democratic government representing the Ukrainian people, or a puppet government controlled by America makes literally no difference. Russia invaded Ukraine to serve Russian interests, not to liberate Ukraine from a NATO puppet government.

First, allow me to address the bad-faith re-interpretation of my post. Where, exactly, do I claim it is US's fault?

I said the decision has had clear strategic consequence that effectively makes you think of WW2 and you have to wilfully not want to see them to claim otherwise.

I get that some people think history started yesterday. It did not.

Eh, and that is before we get to the more amusing part that include vagaries of international law. I don't want to sound too cynical, but annexation is apparently only wrong when done by Russia[1]. I guess it all depends on who is doing the annexing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation

> uhh, we are moving into a very bad place I predicted few years ago

According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next. But because modern Russia is so bad at war, a Nato-Russia confrontation would be like 1:1000 casualty ratio in conventional war. So nuclear weapons wold be Russian's only option. In conclusion, the safest option is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not let them win, not let then proceed to next target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A79uneUEfjM

It's an absolute nonsense. Russia tried its best to avoid a war in Ukraine for 8 years, there's absolutely no reason to go to Poland or any other NATO state. Just a reminder, that this war would never reignited if in January 2022 USA agreed to sign a document and guarantee that Ukraine won't join NATO and remain a neutral state. As to nuclear weapons, once again, you have no clue what you're talking about. If Russia's intention was to conquer Poland or whatever other country, nuclear and conventional strikes on Poland territory would've happened months ago, as it's a major logistics hub for all the weaponry that's pumped in Ukraine.

If Russia didn’t invade in 2014 this would all have been avoided, don’t you think?

If the Ukrainian revolutionary government didn't get to work on the Sunday morning of 23rd Feb 2014 just to vote to abolish the law on language policies that had given the Russian, Romanian, and Hungarian languages the official status of regional languages in Eastern Ukraine, this might all have been avoided indeed. Crimea had only got annexed after 4 days of this stupid move against their own citizens of the "untrustworthy regions".

And according to me that's sensationalist bullshit - the Ukraine crisis is clearly a local one, one that has been brewing for a very very long time. And incidentally one that the US has been keen on nurturing due to its detrimental effects to Russia, but western propaganda portrays Russia as wanting this (for imperialistic reasons or whatever).

Russia doesn't want this? Which is why they invaded their sovereign neighbor and refuse to leave?

Why would they want a costly conflict like this?

If they didn't enter to begin with the Donbass would've gotten run over. And if they would leave now the same thing would happen. And nothing would've changed with their NATO dilemma (and you can shout "defensive alliance" all you want, Russia is not going to buy that).

The Donbass would have gotten run over how, when, and by whom?

How: By force (as opposed to achieving a peaceful resolution through adhering to the Minsk agreements which admittedly was just a ploy on Ukraine's side to buy time to build up for an offensive)

When: OSCE reports show increased activity in the area (the majority of it on the Donbass side of the neutral zone) during the two weeks leading up to the invasion. From that perspective it looks like it was in the process of happening when Russia stepped in.

By whom: The Ukrainian regime (feels a bit weird to even have to answer this question).

>the Ukraine crisis is clearly a local one

Genocide is very rarely a local crisis.

"Russia isn't genoci..." Yes. Yes they are. They are committing genocide against the Ukrainian people by all legal and colloquial definitions of the word "genocide".

Here are several hundred instances where Russian politicians and media figures called for genocide: https://www.justsecurity.org/81789/russias-eliminationist-rh...

If the United States invaded and tried to annex Canada through sham referenda held at the point of a gun after a years-long campaign to vilify them as commies, promised to destroy its national identity, and relocated its children south of the border for Americanization and reeducation, people's tones would be very different.

> but western propaganda portrays Russia as wanting this

In the above link there are several hundred official statements from Russian politicians confirming that they indeed do want this.

With links to the statements.

Genocide... seems like words don't have the same meaning that they used to. Killing soldiers is not genocide. You had people (probably yourself included) calling Russia's actions "genocide" a year ago already, long before the gloves were off in September (after Daria Dugina was murdered and the truck bomb attack damaged the Crimean bridge). What's it been after that, super-mega-genocidal? Give me a break. Genocide is nothing but a buzzword in this context.

> Here are several hundred instances where Russian politicians and media figures called for genocide

By that account Putin is a humanitarian hero, given that the actions of Russia have largely gone against "the wish of the people".

It also makes the shouts for "regime change" quite ridiculous - what's that supposed to achieve if the alternative regime leaders are among those quoted in the article? A more "true Russian" regime?

Should we make this fair, maybe I should put up a collection of what various Ukrainians have been saying about Russians (long before the 2022 invasion)? There is a lot of material there...

> If the United States invaded and tried to annex... [snip] ...people's tones would be very different.

Funny that you would bring that up. In fact people's tones are very different. I don't remember seeing people calling out "genocide!" in any of the war campaigns of the United States (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc) that actually killed a lot of civilians, nor have I seen any calls to ban American athletes from any sports events, nor have I seen any suggestions for sanctions. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing.

> In the above link there are several hundred official statements from Russian politicians confirming that they indeed do want this.

And very few of the quotes are by Putin and the ones that are there are quite mellow. So again, if he's the "tyrannical dictator" that the west tries to portray him as he should instead be seen as a hero for moderating Russia's actions the way he does, wouldn't you say?

>I don't remember seeing people calling out "genocide!" in any of the war campaigns of the United States

Genocide isn’t just “killing” people. Look it up.

And I don’t give a god damn about shit that happened 20 years ago.

I care about now, and the future.

I would call you a fucking idiot but that goes against the rules so instead I’ll call you uninformed.

Since you’re obviously lazy, here:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. Killing members of the group;

b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Russia is doing at least four of those.

Russian government officials have publicly, irrefutably, unquestionably admitted to “e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” on television, in front of the world.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/02/22/ysph-research-reve...

https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/An-Independ...

You disgust me.

What is the difference between war and genocide then?

This is not rhetorical. I am curious.

With plain old war there are usually end goals like "gain control of this piece of land/and or resource". Which is what's happening in Ukraine. They want Ukraine's land and resources.

However, it's completely possible to achieve those goals without taking any of the actions listed by the other commenter except maybe a and b, but I can see arguments made that they're referring to noncombatants, and I think most of us can agree that them being wholesale slaughtered by the invading army isn't something that shouldn't be happening in any circumstances.

In this case Russia has made very loud and public statements making it distinctly clear that in addition to obtaining Ukraine's land and resources, they also intend to fully wipe out the national identity of Ukraine by taking most if not all of those actions, and in fact have already done some of them. That would be the difference.

Thank you. I accept that explanation. From that perspective, the argument makes sense as well.

> I don't remember seeing people calling out "genocide!" in any of the war campaigns of the United States (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc)

That proves you weren't paying attention. I don't agree that those wars were genocides, but there absolutely were many anti-war protestors who asserted exactly that.

> the Ukraine crisis is clearly a local one

Most countries are not treating it that way. Because it is not.

> According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next.

Zeihan's predictions have an abysmal track record. He tends to predict the most sensational outcome. I would not take his word on whether or not Russia would invade a NATO country.

There are reasons to support Ukraine that are more grounded in reality.

Any other geopolitical youtubers you'd recommend?

Russia isn't taking on Nato, they just wanted to expand their sphere of influence, and they never thought that Ukraine would stand a fighting chance against them. Hell, we didn't either. It was only after Russia bungled the invasion that nato really started helping them.

Russia attacking nato would be an absolute death sentence for them.

Also for what it's worth, Zeihan tends to talk way beyond his core competencies. Any time you hear him talking about green energy or military matters, take it with a huge grain of salt

Agree on the last part. It's the halo effect, because he talks so well, and is really knowledgeable about Asia (I mean, it's basically 1:1 with my experience of rural China, which is not an experience anybody lives/hear about).

His opinions on other stuff is mostly informed. But it's informed bullshit mostly (does not mean it's wrong, it means that that's like asking ChatGPT about it).

Russia kept saying for years how Ukraine is not a country and they'll help themselves - and the did. Twice now.

Russia kept saying for years how the Baltics and Poland ought to be Russian.

I think it's fair to say Russia is willing to do bonkers crazy things, and the only thing stopping it is sheer power.

>environmentally unsound and unprofessional

Ok, so just a strongly-worded letter in response to a deliberate attack on a USAF aircraft in international airspace?

This USAF aircraft in international airspace was almost certainly indirectly involved in an ongoing military conflict. It's not there for no reason. It's very likely providing intelligence to the Ukrainian military, which will cause deaths in the Russian military.

I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, just that we should not be surprised they are expressing their displeasure with us being there. They avoided using missiles for diplomatic reasons, but given that this is clearly an aircraft aiding a combatant in a war, it's understandable that they could just shoot it down. The only reason they are not is because they're being cautious about expanding the war, but we're already provoking an expansion of the war by using our aircraft in this way.

That "expansion of the war" would be very ugly in multiple ways so both sides trying very hard to avoid it is good.

That this was an unmanned drone also means it's downing is overall less serious.

As opposed to war?

I'll take strongly worded letter.

What would you prefer? An armed strike over the loss of a remote controlled plane?

Wait until you learn about Gary Powers’s “civilian” U-2, or the USS Pueblo, or the USS Liberty, Korean Airlines 007 and Congressman Larry McDonald.

We literally just shot down spy balloons from china. Downing unmanned spy resources is fair game.

Yeah, over our own territory, not over international waters.

Small correction on your first sentence: only one (the huge one shot down off the coast of SC) was confirmed to be a spy balloon from China.

The other three (Alaska, Yukon, Lake Huron) were explicitly referred to as "objects, not balloons" initially. This was later updated to "intelligence agencies believe they were civilian research platforms/balloons" but not from China. That seems to be where the story ends with no further updates. Feds say that no debris was ever located for any of the last three.

Off-topic and/or pedantic but I followed the story pretty closely and don't understand why people lump the first shoot down (of the confirmed spy balloon from China) with the latter three. The circumstances and details emerging in the aftermath were wildly different.

Don't want to offend the folks at eucom.mil, but that reads like childish propaganda. Like when a child tells his mother that his brother was mean to him and spilled the milk on the table. Dumped fuel on it, environmentally unsound, unprofessional, lack of competence? Did an actual person actually write this? Was it AI?

These seem like apt words to characterize dumping fuel onto a drone and then accidentally crashing into it.

They're being generous by saying it was merely a lack of competence. If they were in another mood, they could say that their aircraft was deliberately attacked in an act of war.