Submitted by Available_Hamster_44 t3_10pu3dg in worldnews
frostygrin t1_j6maf5r wrote
Reply to comment by CentJr in Brazil's Lula cold-shoulders Germany's Scholz on Ukraine support by Available_Hamster_44
Are you implying that American imperialism isn't imperialism?
CentJr t1_j6maxlf wrote
No I'm implying that they are fine with imperialism... just as long as it isn't American imperialism.
frostygrin t1_j6mbq01 wrote
I don't see how refusing to support either side means they're fine with one imperialism, but not the other. Do you see an option for them to be even more "anti-imperialist"?
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mcdqa wrote
Except Brazil aligns with imperialist Russia. They might not be sending equipment but the economic alliance fuels the war.
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mh8xv wrote
Yeah Brazil just got rid of a Russia puppet(Bolsonaro, as trump was a big Putin buff), they need to rebuild the country. The neutrality is historical. Brazil don't meddle with regional conflicts.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mhpp4 wrote
Yet lula wants Europe to fund his regional conflict
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mi4cp wrote
No, the money is to help minimize deforestation. Brazil have no regional conflicts. They have internal affairs. Rainforest deforestation is as urgent as the Russian invasion, to the future of the planet.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mjcz2 wrote
The fight for the Amazon is a regional conflict.
He wants help from Europe but isn't willing to help Europe. Which is not only hypocrisy but short sighted.
The Ukraine War has major ripples that negatively impact Brazilians. Just like deforestation in the Amazon has ripple effects that negatively impact Europe.
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mjvbs wrote
No it's not. There is no conflict. Only a bunch of people doing illegal stuff, prompted by said Putin puppet, Wich underfunded every institution that work on the area. That's all. For what I know Lula was able to make great things on this area on his first terms. From my point of view Brazil is right on focus on its own problems that also affect the rest of the world.
SirionAUT t1_j6mkhny wrote
Indigenous people constantly getting killed and probably genocided is no conflict - nice.
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6ml024 wrote
I said it's not a regional conflict, but it's internal affairs, refund the police and ambiental organs and it's over. Anyway, noone is forcing Germany to help.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6ml8bk wrote
You said right here that there is no conflict
Plus, it is regional as the Amazon basin spans multiple counties and Lula has said the region needs to work together on this
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mlfot wrote
No regional conflict. Ok. Thank you for the interaction internet stranger, it was nice. Let's see what happens next.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mkb9x wrote
It not need to be state actors to be a conflict.
Lots of weapons on both sides. Tribes at risk of being wiped out.
Sounds like a conflict to me.
I agree Brazil should focus/take the lead on the Amazon just like Europe should focus/ take the lead in Ukraine.
But this isn't about focus or leadership, no one is asking Lula for that in Ukraine. They are simply asking for assistance like Brazil is asking from Europe
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mkxf4 wrote
Well, Germany is sending the money. So it's like they kinda agree with my pov
flamehead2k1 t1_j6ml23i wrote
Germany is also asking Brazil for help so its like they kinda agree with my pov
Ban-Evader-1233 t1_j6mlaw8 wrote
Lula said he was not sending ammo before the chancellor visit... That was already clear.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mlgyw wrote
That doesn't change the fact that Germany is requesting.
[deleted] t1_j6mcylh wrote
[removed]
frostygrin t1_j6meltx wrote
It's certainly not the primary purpose of Brazil's economic activity to "fuel the war". And Brazil certainly isn't a colony of "imperialist Russia". Plus Brazil's trade with the US is much more significant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil#Exports_and_imports
So what you're saying makes sense only if you make any trade with Russia as intentional support for everything Russia is doing but don't apply this to the US for some reason. This angle surely didn't arise during America's wars. And it's largely the American empire that's behind the sanctions on the Russian economy in the first place. So they don't amount to "neutrality".
Ramboxious t1_j6mgmdo wrote
Just curious, would you say the same thing if Brazil kept trading with Nazi Germany during WW2?
capybara_from_hell t1_j6mh0e2 wrote
But Brazil kept trading with both the Axis and the Allies until German submarines sank Brazilian merchant ships in the Atlantic, leading Brazil to declare war on Germany.
Ramboxious t1_j6mht5k wrote
I’m asking you if you agree with that stance, that Brazil should’ve kept trading with both Axis and Allies?
capybara_from_hell t1_j6mlvzk wrote
Yes, in the same way that Brazil kept trading with the US after they invaded Iraq in 2003.
Fun fact, the Brazilian president in 2003 was...Lula.
Ramboxious t1_j6mmnes wrote
So you are saying that the countries should have continued trading with the US, or Nazi Germany during WW2?
capybara_from_hell t1_j6mngof wrote
Mate, I'm afraid you don't understand what neutrality means.
Also, Brazil's Constitution mandates that the country's foreign policy must follow non-interventionism and peaceful resolution of conflicts. If there's a call for a peaceful settlement of the war, Brazilian diplomats are expected to be in the first row.
Also, your question is super loaded, since many European countries keep trading with Russia.
Ramboxious t1_j6mnrgn wrote
I don't mean to stop trading completely, but to reduce trading in the form of sanctions. Would you support sanctioning Russia in this case?
capybara_from_hell t1_j6moh1f wrote
Brazil's bilateral trade with Russia is already relatively small (compare it to China, US or Argentina and you'll get what I mean), and joining sanctions would hurt agricultural production since the most important type of import from Russia are fertilisers.
So, having crop failures leading to famine just to please some other country's foreign policy? No, thanks.
Ramboxious t1_j6mqoi6 wrote
Brazil's imports from Russia grew by 89% in the 3 months from the start of the war. So I guess not increasing the imports would be ideal? But I understand importing fertilizer, I don't think that would need to be part of the sanctions.
> just to please some other country's foreign policy? No, thanks.
What foreign policy are you talking about? The 'stop countries from annexing other countries' policy?
[deleted] t1_j6mtvo3 wrote
[removed]
frostygrin t1_j6mjyf2 wrote
Godwin's law, eh? Would you even attempt to invoke this comparison with any of America's wars?
Ramboxious t1_j6mk9m8 wrote
Yes I would where the US tried to annex other countries. Your turn now.
EDIT: also, not sure how much of an own you think invoking Godwin's law was supposed to be, when analogies to wars naturally arise during discussions about wars lol
frostygrin t1_j6mknax wrote
If you think Nazi Germany was especially bad - and an appropriate comparison - just because it annexed other countries, that's laughable and entirely arbitrary on your part.
Ramboxious t1_j6mktgr wrote
Fine, feel free to bring up any other conflict where a country tried to annex another country.
frostygrin t1_j6mpgvk wrote
Then of course I'd say the same thing. I don't think invasions are somehow OK if they don't result in annexations. More importantly, voluntary economic activity is self-justifying and mutually beneficial. When you boycott a country or a company, you're doing it to harm them, yes. Doesn't mean that when you're buying something from them, you're doing it to help them. When you're buying an iPhone, it's not an act of charity towards Apple (or China, where the phone is made).
Ramboxious t1_j6mr3rw wrote
If Apple was doing something bad, then buying an iPhone would support them continuing doing the bad thing, right?
frostygrin t1_j6n15nh wrote
No, not really. It's actually a common fallacy - "You're posting this from an iPhone, therefore you can't possibly oppose anything Apple does".
That's just not how it works. Sometimes boycotts work, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they do harm. But I specifically brought up China because, while Apple is relatively popular on Reddit, China is less so. And yet it would be ridiculous to argue that every person with an iPhone supports everything the Chinese government does.
Ramboxious t1_j6n448q wrote
I don't understand what you mean by fallacy. If China would start a war, and you would oppose the war, then it would be hypocritical of you to continue buying products that are produced and/or owned by China if alternatives are available.
frostygrin t1_j6n6ouo wrote
No, not really. It would only be hypocrisy if I opposed all wars, regardless of the causes, and, crucially, if I normally believed in boycotting people and companies for the actions of their government. Then it would be hypocrisy. The fallacy is you imposing a moral imperative on people.
But if we look at how people actually react to wars - America's wars or other recent wars - no, people generally didn't boycott American companies. So it's calling for total boycott of trade with Russia that's what's hypocritical. And it's driven largely by the US and allies in the first place, not "the world" in general.
Hypocrisy isn't even the worst aspect, I think. With Russia and China there's the added aspect of these countries being less democratic - yet the people being punished for the actions of the government. If you were a Russian who never voted for Putin, how would you feel if you suddenly were under more sanctions for being Russian than George W. Bush and Tony Blair for their role in the Iraq war?
Ramboxious t1_j6n7eup wrote
So do you oppose the current conflict in Ukraine?
I’m not sure if you answered my previous question, would you continue doing trade with Nazi Germany?
frostygrin t1_j6n8rzz wrote
> So do you oppose the current conflict in Ukraine?
Yes, I oppose it. All involved parties need to stop the war and talk it out.
> I’m not sure if you answered my previous question, would you continue doing trade with Nazi Germany?
I already told you that you don't have a good reason to bring up Nazi Germany.
Ramboxious t1_j6n9cpg wrote
But the only party that can stop the war is Russia, and they are unwilling to negotiate.
frostygrin t1_j6na36i wrote
It's not true. The war wouldn't keep going without support from the West - and it's Zelensky who refuses peace talks.
Also it's the American military expansion in Europe that bothers Putin. It's not a random invasion. So the peace talks would need to involve the US and possibly their allies.
Ramboxious t1_j6nazcf wrote
Without Western support, Ukraine would be taken over by Russia. I trust that you oppose that outcome, yes?
Russia is the one who is not willing to negotiate, Zelensky was desperately trying to contact Putin to talk with him at the start of the war only to be ignored by him.
NATO expansion is not a justification for the war, since NATO does not pose a threat to Russia.
frostygrin t1_j6ndeqd wrote
> Without Western support, Ukraine would be taken over by Russia. I trust that you oppose that outcome, yes?
I don't wish it, that's for sure. I also don't think Putin intended to annex the entire Ukraine. He might have intended a regime change.
> Russia is the one who is not willing to negotiate, Zelensky was desperately trying to contact Putin to talk with him at the start of the war only to be ignored by him.
We're not at the start of the war, are we? Right now it's Zelensky that rules out peace talks. Plus it's not like things started at the start of the war. There was a long history of Minsk agreements going nowhere.
> NATO expansion is not a justification for the war, since NATO does not pose a threat to Russia.
NATO surely can be used as a shield for American military expansion. The US would be able to fill Crimea to the brim with military bases and missiles, and Russia would be unable to do anything up until the very moment of attack.
Ramboxious t1_j6ned0l wrote
>I don't wish it, that's for sure. I also don't think Putin intended to annex the entire Ukraine. He might have intended a regime change.
He wouldn't have allowed democratic elections to occur, right? Plus, I'm pretty sure he would've annexed parts of Ukraine that are currently being fought over.
>We're not at the start of the war, are we? Right now it's Zelensky that rules out peace talks. Plus it's not like things started at the start of the war. There was a long history of Minsk agreements going nowhere.
Zelensky is ruling out peace talks with Putin because Ukraine tried to have talks with Putin only for them to be ignored. Russia said that Ukraine must acknowledge annexed territory as Russian, so they are not willing to negotiate.
>The US would be able to fill Crimea to the brim with military bases and missiles, and Russia would be unable to do anything up until the very moment of attack.
Ukraine was nowhere near to joining NATO, there were no plans of putting military bases in Crimea, and NATO wasn't going to attack Russia due to MAD.
frostygrin t1_j6nge6r wrote
> He wouldn't have allowed democratic elections to occur, right?
He might have done the same thing as the US did in Iraq. Clear the field, then allow democratic (?) elections among what's left.
> Plus, I'm pretty sure he would've annexed parts of Ukraine that are currently being fought over.
He probably would have left it to referendums. I don't think he actually wanted to control a territory that's largely hostile to him.
> Russia said that Ukraine must acknowledge annexed territory as Russian, so they are not willing to negotiate.
You could say the same about Zelensky's preconditions - give us what we want, then we'll have peace talks.
> Ukraine was nowhere near to joining NATO, there were no plans of putting military bases in Crimea, and NATO wasn't going to attack Russia due to MAD.
Ukraine did intend to join NATO, specific plans don't take much time to make, and MAD surely never prevented tensions between countries. See: Cuban missile crisis.
Ramboxious t1_j6nhtbo wrote
>You could say the same about Zelensky's preconditions - give us what we want, then we'll have peace talks.
But Zelensky's preconditions are reasonable, to respect the sovereignty of their country, while Russia's aren't.
>Ukraine did intend to join NATO, specific plans don't take much time to make, and MAD surely never prevented tensions between countries. See: Cuban missile crisis.
Ukraine did want to join NATO, but their membership action plan was declined in 2008 in Bucharest. Joining NATO is a long process and is not guaranteed, look at Sweden and Finland.
Cuban missile crisis is not analogous, since Russia sent nukes to US borders. There were no plans to do this in Ukraine, if NATO wanted to put nukes at Russia's borders, they could do it already in the Baltic countries.
frostygrin t1_j6njc6v wrote
> But Zelensky's preconditions are reasonable, to respect the sovereignty of their country, while Russia's aren't.
They're not especially reasonable when that's the point of contention. Especially, like I said, there is a history of talks and agreements going nowhere. So Putin leaves Ukraine - what would they talk about, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything?
> Ukraine did want to join NATO, but their membership action plan was declined in 2008 in Bucharest. Joining NATO is a long process and is not guaranteed, look at Sweden and Finland.
After the Iraq war, I don't think Putin wanted to take chances. Especially as the US was getting increasingly hostile towards him. And Ukraine's action plan being declined doesn't necessarily constitute principled objections.
> Cuban missile crisis is not analogous, since Russia sent nukes to US borders. There were no plans to do this in Ukraine, if NATO wanted to put nukes at Russia's borders, they could do it already in the Baltic countries.
They could have done the opposite. Ramp up conventional warfare, then what exactly is Russia going to do? Nuke Crimea, at a great cost to itself? Nuke the US and actually trigger MAD?
Ramboxious t1_j6nkjqx wrote
>So Putin leaves Ukraine - what would they talk about, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything?
What is there even to talk about? Russia doesn't have any right to Ukrainian land, you're making it seem like Russia had a reasonable justification for invading Ukraine.
>After the Iraq war, I don't think Putin wanted to take chances.
Take chances from what? The US wasn't going to attack Russia because of MAD.
>They could have done the opposite. Ramp up conventional warfare, then what exactly is Russia going to do? Nuke Crimea, at a great cost to itself? Nuke the US and actually trigger MAD?
Wait, you're talking about conventional warfare after Ukraine joined NATO? That would trigger MAD, no?
frostygrin t1_j6nmav8 wrote
> What is there even to talk about? Russia doesn't have any right to Ukrainian land, you're making it seem like Russia had a reasonable justification for invading Ukraine.
Well, this line of thinking is exactly why it's ridiculous for you to pretend that Zelensky's "preconditions" are actually preconditions to anything. And even more ridiculous for him to pretend that.
> Wait, you're talking about conventional warfare after Ukraine joined NATO? That would trigger MAD, no?
Who knows? Like, I said, if Russia is suddenly getting attacked by the US from Ukraine, is Russia going to nuke its own border? Or the US - and trigger MAD for itself too? I don't know - this is brinkmanship. Maybe we'd see some other tactic - like economic sanctions intended to make Russia give up the nukes. Or attempts at political regime change.
Ramboxious t1_j6nn3yw wrote
>Well, this line of thinking is exactly why it's ridiculous for you to pretend that Zelensky's "preconditions" are actually preconditions to anything. And even more ridiculous for him to pretend that.
They are preconditions for diplomatic negotiations to take place. They can discuss a whole bunch of different things once Russian troops leave Ukraine. But Russia's preconditions that annexed territories, which is what this conflict is about, be recognized as Russian is preventing negotiations.
>Who knows? Like, I said, if Russia is suddenly getting attacked by the US from Ukraine, is Russia going to nuke its own border? Or the US - and trigger MAD for itself too?
The answer is obviously yes, an attack from Ukraine would trigger MAD. Why do you think NATO is not sending troops to Ukraine right now?
frostygrin t1_j6ntj3k wrote
> They can discuss a whole bunch of different things once Russian troops leave Ukraine.
Again, what would they be, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything? Why would Putin willingly give up his leverage for nothing?
> The answer is obviously yes, an attack from Ukraine would trigger MAD. Why do you think NATO is not sending troops to Ukraine right now?
I don't think there's just one reason. It can quickly become an unpopular quagmire, for example. And it's not actually clear that Russia would use nukes at the first sight of NATO troops in Ukraine. Fundamentally that was my point about Cuban missile crisis. The point wasn't that the situation is exactly the same. The point was that MAD doesn't give you peace of mind. Or any kind of certainty.
Ramboxious t1_j6nvmof wrote
>Again, what would they be, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything? Why would Putin willingly give up his leverage for nothing?
The point is that both parties set up pre-conditions for diplomatic negotiations, which the other party is not willing to meet, hence the military conflict. However, Russia, as the aggressor, is the only party that wants to continue the conflict, and has no justifiable reason to be in the conflict, so it is their responsibility to end the war if they want to negotiate.
Ukraine can't do that if they want to maintain their sovereignty, Russia can do that while maintaining their sovereignty.
>It can quickly become an unpopular quagmire, for example.
How would it be an unpopular quagmire? Support for Ukraine is at an all time high, and vice versa for Russia, especially in Europe. NATO troops in Ukraine would help out a great deal in kicking out Russians out of Ukraine, judging by the pace that Ukrainians were able to retrieve territory.
The reason that NATO troops aren't in Ukraine is that they don't want to potentially trigger MAD, that's it.
>The point was that MAD doesn't give you peace of mind. Or any kind of certainty.
Exactly, that's why NATO doesn't want to attack Russia, because they don't want to risk the chance of triggering MAD.
frostygrin t1_j6o0s1l wrote
> Ukraine can't do that if they want to maintain their sovereignty, Russia can do that while maintaining their sovereignty.
Well, they aren't equally situated in the situation that you're trying to resolve. Apples and oranges. You're mixing up what's happening and what you find justifiable. If your plan is to keep telling Putin to end the war - it doesn't seem very productive.
> How would it be an unpopular quagmire?
The way it is now, Ukraine is getting support without Americans and allies suffering casualties or spending too much. Ukraine is basically getting surplus equipment. Escalating that can make things less popular, and make the war seem more necessary from the Russian perspective.
> The reason that NATO troops aren't in Ukraine is that they don't want to potentially trigger MAD, that's it.
So why are they supporting Ukraine at all then? Did anyone told them that there's zero risk of triggering MAD? They probably made a calculation that the risk is low enough. So they can keep escalating things little by little.
Ramboxious t1_j6oivkz wrote
>You're mixing up what's happening and what you find justifiable.
The issue is that you are the one mixing things up. Your presenting Ukraine and Russia as equally being able to stop the war. But stopping the war for Ukraine would mean losing their sovereignty, while stopping the war for Russia would have no impact on their sovereignty.
>If your plan is to keep telling Putin to end the war - it doesn't seem very productive.
We can keep telling Putin that while we send military aid to Ukraine and sanctioning Russia, if Ukraine keeps being successful then Putin is more likely to listen.
>Escalating that can make things less popular, and make the war seem more necessary from the Russian perspective.
Support for sending troops to Ukraine was around 35-40% at the start of the war. It seems pretty obvious that main reason NATO troops aren't in Ukraine are due to Russia's nuclear weapons (as noted here and here).
Doesn't this also show Putin that NATO doesn't want to attack Russia, since this would be the perfect opportunity to perform such an attack?
>They probably made a calculation that the risk is low enough.
You hit the nail on the head. The risk of conflict escalation is low when sending aid, because NATO is not directly involved. Sending troops to Ukraine would massively escalate the conflict, as pointed out by the Biden admin.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mg77i wrote
Lula said he was getting brazil back in the world stage abs closer to Russia to end hunger and promote peace.
Yet Russia is the invader who blocked grain exports.
His position is nonsensical.
frostygrin t1_j6mjo6y wrote
Russia surely allows grain exports from Ukraine, and exports grain, fertilizer etc - so it's certainly important for him, and the world to keep this going. Even the EU doesn't intentionally target this area with sanctions (though the overall climate still hampers trade).
And it seems like many people want him to "promote peace" by arming Ukraine. No, that's not how you promote peace.
flamehead2k1 t1_j6mlx6f wrote
>And it seems like many people want him to "promote peace" by arming Ukraine. No, that's not how you promote peace.
Yes it is. Allowing them to defend themselves and push the invaders back is the only way to a lasting peace.
Capitulation to Russia is not peace
choose_an_alt_name t1_j6mn4t4 wrote
Not every peace treaty is a capitulation
420trashcan t1_j6nnizz wrote
Will you trade Brazilian territory to end the war?
choose_an_alt_name t1_j6nordt wrote
This war? No. A war of Brazil and someone else? It may prove necessary. We wouldn't want to do like paraguay and lose half our population due to stubborness
420trashcan t1_j6npada wrote
No I think Brazil should lead my example. Cede territory to Russia. Accept the boot. Peace at any price, right?
choose_an_alt_name t1_j6nt9eu wrote
I never said peace at any price, i said negotiations are needed and that total victory or defeat aren't the only opitions and that you may need to conceed something to avoid excessive bloodshed, Brazil could have continued to conscript men and take more loans to buy weapons in order to not let Uruguay be independent, but we didn't, it simply wasnt worth it. Solano Lopes did it, he keept not surrendering untill he died, and that ruined his country untill this day, had he started negotiations after being pushed back into his land paraguay would be on much better shape going foward
420trashcan t1_j6ntm1x wrote
So you agree that Russia should give up and respect the right of Ukraine to be independent. Too bad your government is neutral on a currently occuring colonial genocide.
frostygrin t1_j6mq2e6 wrote
So what would have been the way to a lasting peace in Afghanistan - for Russia to arm the Taliban when the US was there? :)
More importantly, you can't act like the invasion is the only obstacle to a lasting peace in Ukraine. How about the majority ethnic Russian Crimea on one hand, and Ukraine aiming to be an ethnostate, suppressing other languages and cultures? What if many Crimeans don't want to be part of Ukraine?
Postcocious t1_j6nh2x7 wrote
>What if many Crimeans don't want to be part of Ukraine?
Like every province, Crimeans voted on that exact question in a fair and open election. A majority voted to be part of Ukraine.
Russia reneged on its sworn obligation to respect the borders that resulted from that election. Instead of honoring the borders chosen by the people of Crimea (Donbas, etc) they launched a war of aggression to steal the land for themselves.
When a schoolyard bully reoratedly beats up on a smaller, weaker kid and refuses to stop, standing by because "neutrality" is just moral cowardice.
frostygrin t1_j6nhq1a wrote
> Like every province, Crimeans voted on that exact question in a fair and open election. A majority voted to be part of Ukraine.
No, that didn't happen. The referendum was on the fate of the USSR. They weren't given a choice between being part of independent Ukraine and part of independent Russia. Since then there is a history of Crimea trying to get some form of independence or autonomy from Ukraine, and Ukraine suppressing it. Even before Putin became Russian president.
Postcocious t1_j6nld0c wrote
>The referendum was on the fate of the USSR.
That was the January 1991 referendum, which was never implemented because the USSR imploded before its reorganization (including Crimea) could be completed. That implosion mooted the results of the January 1991 Crimea referendum - you can't enforce something that no longer exists.
>They weren't given a choice between being part of independent Ukraine and part of independent Russia.
In December 1991, Ukraine held a referendum and Ukrainians voted for independence. This essentially marked the end of the Soviet Union. 54% of Crimean voters opted for Ukrainian independence, with the turnout in Crimea placed at 60%. Thus Ukraine became independent, and Crimea remained part of the newly independent Ukraine, retaining its autonomous status.
>Since then there is a history of Crimea trying to get some form of independence or autonomy from Ukraine, and Ukraine suppressing it. Even before Putin became Russian president.
True, but only half the story. Russia was working just as hard to suppress pro-Ukraine sentiment. You forgot that part.
The only free expression of Crimean desires that's still actionable was that December 1991 referendum. Russia and Ukraine both sought to leverage the results in their favor. Ukraine won that battle by political means (the pro-Ukraine parliament ousted the pro-Russian president).
Instead of continuing the battle by political means, Russia reverted to raw force - taking Crimea whether Crimeans wanted it or not. Nobody in Crimea ever voted for that.
frostygrin t1_j6nuroy wrote
> In December 1991, Ukraine held a referendum and Ukrainians voted for independence. This essentially marked the end of the Soviet Union.
I said as much - it was a choice between independent Ukraine and the Soviet Union, not a choice between independent Russia and independent Ukraine. Then Ukraine stripped the autonomous status.
> True, but only half the story. Russia was working just as hard to suppress pro-Ukraine sentiment. You forgot that part.
Haven't seen any sources. How could Russia do that, exactly, in a newly independent country?
> Ukraine won that battle by political means (the pro-Ukraine parliament ousted the pro-Russian president).
Coups aren't exactly political.
Postcocious t1_j6nvyku wrote
>How could Russia do that, exactly, in a newly independent country?
The same way they do in every other country: inserting agents, propaganda, misinformation, sabotaging (and sometimes murdering) people who disagree with them.
All that is especially easy in a newly independent country, where political structures and norms are not well established.
Doubly so when many people speak Russian and/or are sympathetic.
Crimea being newly independent made them more vulnerable to outside influences, not less.
>Coups aren't exactly political.
Parliamentary votes aren't coups.
frostygrin t1_j6nwy7o wrote
> All that is especially easy in a newly independent country, where political structures and norms are not well established.
I haven't seen any examples of that actually happening in Crimea. You even acknowledge that people might have been sympathetic - making it less nefarious.
> Parliamentary votes aren't coups.
What's leading to them surely can be.
Postcocious t1_j6nxdvl wrote
>You even acknowledge that people might have been sympathetic - making it less nefarious.
Nothing about an unprovoked military invasion that murders civilians is "less nefarious". It is fully nefarious.
frostygrin t1_j6o19rb wrote
Do you even follow the conversation? We were talking about Crimea in the 90s, "in a newly independent country", where, as you were claiming, Russia was playing mind games to suppress the pro-Ukrainian sentiment among the sympathetic pro-Russian population. Except I haven't seen any examples of that.
Postcocious t1_j6o498n wrote
> Except I haven't seen any examples of that.
How did Russian troops disguised as independent mercenaries manage to invade and conquer Crimea in 2014 with hardly any resistance from the local defence forces?
If they'd believed the invaders were independent, they'd have fought. No army surrenders their country to nameless bandits.
That they didn't fight is evidence they knew the invaders were backed by Moscow. Which is evidence that Moscow suborned them before the invasion began.
MoonManMooner t1_j6mtl1j wrote
Let’s wait and see what happens to Brazil when they want to pull another Cuban missile crisis with the US.
frostygrin t1_j6mzyzx wrote
Are you arguing that the US is justified in reacting to another country's missiles getting closer to its borders, but Russia isn't?
MoonManMooner t1_j6n1rpm wrote
No, just that it’s part of the game and that Brazil doesn’t have the capability to defend against a cornered Pentagon.
It’s just a matter of fuck around and find out.
I have no issues with south/Latin American countries in the slightest. They just need to be realistic and realize that the United States just isn’t going to put up with Russia or China trying to establish a military stronghold down there.
It’s a million times more productive to just be happy trade partners.
That being said, putting Nuclear capable ICBMs 90 miles off the coast of a country is far different than the purported 1300 mile difference between Turkey and Russia (Moscow) or the 750 miles to the Soviet Ukrainian border from Turkey by air.
frostygrin t1_j6n21dg wrote
> I have no issues with south/Latin American countries in the slightest. They just need to be realistic and realize that the United States just isn’t going to put up with Russia or China trying to establish a military stronghold down there.
Would you say the same to Ukraine then?
[deleted] t1_j6n3i44 wrote
[removed]
J__P t1_j6mqwww wrote
being neutral only benefits the oppressor.
frostygrin t1_j6n0c0u wrote
No, not really. It also benefits the other side. You can't possibly believe that neutrality is exactly as beneficial as enthusiastic support. It's just senseless.
J__P t1_j6o7ayr wrote
supporting russia would be supporting the oppressor too, just to a greater extent.
420trashcan t1_j6nn9lk wrote
Are you implying that Russian imperialism isn't imperialist?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments