So let me see if I understand your argument here.

Ukraine wanted to join NATO because it sees Russia as a threat (I dunno, maybe because Russia had just invaded Crimea and "annexed" it).

Russia's response is to invade Ukraine, slaughtering countless civilians, and has stated that it wants to take more territory around other former-soviet states.

And your reaction, to a country exercising its sovereignty, and another country invading it as a result, is "yup, that's just politics for ya"? That countries have the right to invade other countries if they feel disadvantaged by their neighbor's decisions?

▲

mightyham 15 hours ago | parent [-]

No, you clearly don't understand my argument.

Ukraine didn't just disadvantage their neighbor. In international affairs, red lines are a common tool for expressing acceptable bounds of negotiation. Russia made it very explicit that if Ukraine joined NATO there would be conflict. We live in the real world, and "sovereignty" is not real; nations are not unconstrained agents that can do whatever they please. They have to weigh the effects of their actions and be willing and capable of defending the consequences. This has been true for all of human history, has never changed, and likely never will. You simply deluded yourself into thinking otherwise.

I will also add that in the modern world, peace has largely been maintained because the value of international commerce is much greater than the value derived from conflict. Economic integration is the best recipe for enduring tranquility. However, the US has pursued broad economic sanctions against Russia since the annexation of Crimea, all but ensuring that an invasion of Ukraine would be a profitable (or at least not harmful). In other words, the United States miscalculated, overplayed it's hand in pursuing a containment strategy against Russia and ultimately invited violence.

▲

ninkendo 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Please look up "victim blaming" and understand how it applies in this context. If Islamic terrorists say "if you depict Muhammad, we will attack you", and someone depicts Muhammad and are attacked, we don't say "wow, they really shouldn't have depicted Muhammad, this is their fault". We say "wow, those terrorists are awful." Russia's red lines were never acceptable in the first place, and their existence does not justify war crimes.

> However, the US has pursued broad economic sanctions against Russia since the annexation of Crimea

Oh those poor Russians, they can't even violently annex neighboring territory without getting sanctioned. I feel so bad for them. We should have just uttered "tsk, tsk" and kicked them out of the olympics. That'll teach 'em!

No, the "economic tranquility" was the period after the Soviet Union fell and the entire western world was welcoming Russia in with open arms, and the economic integration was well under way. Until Putin came in and decided "no, I like things the way they were" and has been trying to bring back the USSR ever since. He doesn't want any economy he can't directly control by force. You think Putin wants economic integration? He wants his soviet union back.

None of what you're talking about is "politics" unless you think Russia actually has a leg to stand on with any of this. They don't. They never have. They're the aggressor here and none of the "warnings" they gave justify any of this.

▲

mightyham 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I love the example you gave because it is demonstrative of one of the most important distinctions between your moral language and the language of geopolitics. If a Muslim attacks someone in a western country, then they will have violated a law. The recipient of the violence is a victim of an infringement of rights garunteed by the government which has authority through the social contract. On the world stage, there is no higher authority, rights, or laws. What you have are a set of nations, which by definition, are agents seeking to secure prosperity for themselves. Ukraine has certain objectives to secure their prosperity like, procuring a large conventional military or nukes so that they can defend their borders. Russia also has certain objectives that secure their prosperity, like maintaining access to the black sea and building natural gas pipelines into Europe. When these nations have objectives that conflict there are only two options: compromise or war, that's it, that is the reality. In this case neither side wanted to compromise, so there was a war.

It's also important to note that this conflict is not one-sided. Ukraine has dedicedly become a proxy for US and European power projection. This is not a genocide or some other form of needless violence. This is a classic example of powers butting heads and all parties refusing to take de-escalatory actions.

	▲	ninkendo 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I love the example you gave because it is demonstrative of one of the most important distinctions between your moral language and the language of geopolitics. If a Muslim attacks someone in a western country, then they will have violated a law. Lol so we can only pass judgement on something if there exists a law that it violates, and an authority that can prosecute it. If there’s no ability to prosecute something, it must be fine, just fine! > On the world stage, there is no higher authority, rights, or laws. What you have are a set of nations, which by definition, are agents seeking to secure prosperity for themselves. > This is a classic example of powers butting heads I keep imagine you looking at Hitler’s actions in the 1930s and concluding “there’s no higher authority than nation states, so this is all just geopolitics, powers butting heads” and refusing to make a judgement on good vs bad. Maybe a good checksum on your world views is “if it results in what Hitler did being fine, maybe I need to reevaluate”. -- I'll edit this to add: You bring up "distinctions between [my] moral language and the language of geopolitics"... that's what the whole objection to Kagi's founder is about. Confusing geopolitical decision making like "what should U.S. foreign policy be, if we want to maximize the chance of peace", and moral judgements, like "is invading your neighbors to get what you want ok", is the very thing Kagi's founder is doing that I find objectionable. Because you should be able to pass a moral judgement on an action without conflating that with whether the U.S. and its allies made the right strategic moves. It doesn't matter that Russia signaled their actions in advance, it's still not ok to invade another nation. One should be able to clearly see this to be true, and not just sweep it under "it's just politics." Calling it politics is both strictly speaking true, and also a cop-out, because you get to avoid actually making a judgement about whether you think it's right. Kagi's founder did that, and you're doing that here.