War crimes in Ukraine: Just asking questions about both sides

[suzzer99]

Go live in Belarus for a while and tell me how acceptable it is.

[NotBruceZ]

And other people say live free or die.

[suzzer99]

https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1517718028456185861

Several generations of Taiwanese have now lived with Western freedoms. I guess they should have just rolled over to China after WWII. You know, to spare all the bloodshed and heartache that’s coming some day.

[anon10396289]

I mean, not you, you just hammer away at your keyboard. Other people, sure. They say that.

[MrWookie]

Keyboard warriors on the side of telling them to just accept a little light genocide against their will are far more righteous.

[anon10396289]

@NotBruceZ

And other people say live free or die.

Also don’t you despise libertarians?

[NotBruceZ]

Yes, but I like democracy.

[Mendoza]

Remove the name of the Communist Party and China as it is governed by Xi post “reform era” is as close as it gets to Chiang Kai-Shek’s vision.

That Taiwan transformed into a democracy prior to the mainland isn’t a huge shocker in retrospect but it absolutely was not the objective when the call was made to block a PRC invasion of Taiwan.

edit to add: The degree to which Mainlanders dominated Taiwan and Mandarin was enforced as the national language would be considered cultural genocide today.

[eyebooger]

@anon10396289

He says that countries that are right next to great powers need to take great care to not offend those powers. He said that Ukraine needs to find a modus vivendi that Ukraine and Russia both find acceptable.

What a great thesis that totally isn’t victim blaming.

[Mendoza]

End of the day though Taiwan falls into the column of “US backed right-wing dictatorship —> liberal democracy” alongside SK and Chile.

[anon10396289]

Is your criticism that it isn’t true or it isn’t fair?

[eyebooger]

Little of both actually.

It’s not fair because it’s victim blaming the less powerful entity.

It’s not true because the Baltic states joined NATO and didn’t seem to care what Russia thought about that.

[anon10396289]

I’m sure he would agree with you that it isn’t fair. Russia was a mess when the Baltics joined NATO and wasn’t in a position to do anything about it. And from what I’ve read Russia doesn’t view the Baltics the same as Ukraine in terms of being part of Greater Russia but I don’t really know.

[alex]

@anon10396289

He was saying that Russia is going to act in a certain way, wreck Ukraine instead of letting it join the west. This is offensive realism describing how Russia is going to act. His criticism of US policy is for failing to recognize that’s how Russia was going to act or not caring that it would provoke a war. The former is the US foreign policy elites bumbling around the world with Toddler Brain, the latter is cynical cold warriorism that only cares about weakening Russia, who cares about the cost to Ukraine. It seems like he leans towards the Toddler Brain theory but I don’t think you can rule out the latter possibility either.

But Russia doesn’t actually have to act this way. They could you know, just not invade another country. They could use the same “offensive realism” prescribed to the US here and decide it’s a massive mistake to piss off the great powers of Europe by occupying their neighbor. There is no Kantian inevitability here. The betting markets were not at 100% for invasion and you yourself didn’t think it would happen despite already being a Mersh apostle. The whole exercise is just a backwards way of determining fault, blame, or causal relationships. You don’t give the aggressor a fixed set of responses and pin the responsibility on the opposing party to either acquiesce to all demands or (justifiably) face their wrath. It’s a game theoretical catastrophe.

[anon10396289]

Mearsheimer didn’t think Russia was going to invade either!

OK, Russia doesn’t have to act that way? Who cares? It is acting that way, seemingly in accordance to how Mearsheimer said Russia would act according to the descriptive theory of offensive realism. What the US should do in response to that is a totally separate question and is prescriptive.

[MrWookie]

@anon10396289

Mearsheimer didn’t think Russia was going to invade either!

@anon10396289

It is acting that way, seemingly in accordance to how Mearsheimer said Russia would act according to the descriptive theory of offensive realism

So is Mearsh just an idiot who doesn’t take his own brilliant theories seriously?

[alex]

But whyyyy is Russia’s response a given, and the US response something to be debated and prescribed? Isn’t the US a great power who will simply do what great powers do?

And then when US doesn’t do his prescription, Ukraine officially becomes the US’s fault.

[anon10396289]

If you’re looking to just observe what’s happening through the lens of an international relations theory then sure it’s just balls bouncing around a pool table.

You can analyze what any given country should do faced with the other balls bouncing around as well. As US citizens it makes sense to ask what should our policies be. Of course you can do the same thing with any other country as well.

[alex]

1. This abstraction is a far cry from

   

2. My toddler brain belief is that it would be much better to try to persuade Russia to not be imperialist here in the 21st century, than to automatically assume that they will be and consequently deny sovereign nations the opportunity to pursue their own preferred treaties.

[VoteForSocialists]

is “John” still sure russia is a great power? like 95% sure or 65% sure?