Let’s say that the US could have prevented this war by saying it would no longer supply weapons to Ukraine, that Ukraine would never enter NATO, that it supported the political independence of Donbass and recognized Crimea as part of Russia. May or may not be true that the previous would have forestalled a war, but let’s assume that’s the case. Should the US have done this?
Similar question, should the Soviet Union have mirrored US ballistic missile deployments in Turkey with their own missiles in Cuba in 1962?
I guess logic falls back on the “you don’t negotiate with terrorists” idea. Why should anyone do anything to appease Putin to not invade a sovereign county? The not doing it is the default behaviour assumed of all countries.
I am no expert on this at all so could totally be wrong. Just looking for more informed opinion.
Does a country like Ukraine deserve self determination? Why or why not? Forget about the US as a horrible military actor(they are) and answer the question. This whole squabble seems to ignore that aspect.
Keed I am not a hater but what do you think should have happened here? The West stands down and Ukraine just gets occupied within days? I guess the US/NATO ignores Eastern Europe and things play out differently? Then what?
I don’t entirely agree with your definition of proxy war, but let’s just go with your definition for a second. A large part of the case you make about why Russia invaded is about concerns regarding possible admission of Ukraine into NATO and Russia wanting to have a buffer zone between NATO and Russia. So, isn’t arming Ukrainian separatist as a means of destabilizing Ukraine and making it a less attractive candidate for NATO membership a way of fighting “The West over there so we don’t have to fight them here?”
As my man Mearshiemer says, absent US support Ukraine needs to find a modus vivendi with its more powerful neighbor. Just as Cuba and Mexico and Honduras have had to come to a modus vivendi with USA#1. So I’d expect Ukraine would implement Minsk, conceding the Donbas and Crimea to Russia. Or whatever “limited autonomy” for Donbas would mean. If the US hadn’t supported Ukraine at all maybe Ukraine would fight but maybe they’d negotiate. I don’t know.
So does Cuba deserve self determination? Yeah sure. Do they have it? Sort of. As long as they don’t piss off the US too much.
I guess you could say that but it seems convoluted to me. Certainly the Russians were aware that the active conflict in Donbas would make Ukrainian entrance into NATO impossible. But that’s one of the direct goals of the conflict: prevent Ukrainian NATO membership.
But hopefully you understand my position and understand why I think the Russians were wrong to deploy those missiles in Cuba? And what that has to do with the US actions in Ukraine?
An indirect conflict between the Ukrainian government and separatists who received large amounts of Russian support, support which extended the conflict and caused more violence and death.
In either case 1 or 2 calling it simply a civil war seems like a way of downplaying Russian involvement in and responsibility for the conflict. Even if “proxy war” isn’t a perfect fit either, the point I’m trying to make is that Russia was stirring up the pot and stoking war in Eastern Ukraine in 2014 and that should be acknowledged as part of any discussion regarding moral culpability in this conflict.
I also don’t really understand Putin’s end game now. He basically isn’t taking Ukraine now right? So what is the point of continuing? Does he think he can take it still?
Honestly, I think you do something you (and a lot of people) do when they are trying to win a debate. You will take one or two sentences to say something like, “Sure, Russia did X. I never said they didn’t” but then follow those two sentences with paragraph after paragraph explaining why that Russian action was a predictable and justifiable response to something the US did. Or you explain how this whole thing could have been avoided if the US/NATO/Ukraine etc had just given into every Russian demand.
It doesn’t seem like you actually think Russia is culpable here because the core of all of your arguments still seems to collapse back into a framework that paints some other party as the malign actor and the one that has agency over the ultimate outcome.
Heck, let’s just say your only concern is stopping the war The war might possibly (probably) get shorter if the US pulled it’s support tomorrow.
Russia could definitelty end the war tomorrow by unilaterally withdrawing it’s troops. Who’s the more important actor here?
I’m responsible for what the US does. I have no responsibility for what Russia does.
See, I focus my efforts against the terror and violence of my own state for really two main reasons. First of all, in my case the actions of my state happen to make up the main component of international violence in the world. But much more importantly than that, it’s because American actions are the things that I can do something about. So even if the United States were causing only a tiny fraction of the repression and violence in the world-which obviously is very far from the truth-that tiny fraction would still be what I’m responsible for, and what I should focus my efforts against. And that’s based on a very simple ethical principle-namely, that the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated consequences for human beings: I think that’s kind of like a fundamental moral truism… Again, it’s a very simple ethical point: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, you’re not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else’s actions.
Russia is brutally slaughtering Ukrainians in captured territory and kidnapping their children to be raised as Russians by strangers. But hey, maybe these people should just let their kids be taken so that you can score points against forum enemies?