Submitted by Available_Hamster_44 t3_10pu3dg in worldnews
frostygrin t1_j6n15nh wrote
Reply to comment by Ramboxious in Brazil's Lula cold-shoulders Germany's Scholz on Ukraine support by Available_Hamster_44
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments