this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
536 points (78.7% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3543 readers
115 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah it's the one thing putting me off the platform. Like I'd describe myself as pretty hard left, and a pacifist. But Russia is a fascist state performing an unprovoked attack on a neighbouring nation. Just because many NATO nations have right wing problems (and tbh I feel a lot of people on the left haven't heard the expression "don't make the good the enemy of the perfect" - shit is bad in the West but it's nothing compared to life in Russia) doesn't undo that fact and Ukraine has the right to defend itself and it's right that we support that.
The fact that some may consider NATO's support to be hypocritical given the middle East doesn't mean it's wrong.
100%, my man. Ukraine is a sovereign state defending itself from an unprovoked attack.
If my neighbour was getting attacked, I'd help them too, out of common decency, and common sense to keep the neighbourhood safe.
Yeah that's the weirdest line of thinking of seen on this. "If we aren't always the ones doing evil things then we're being hypocritical!" Like we should never do the right thing because occasionally being on the right side is worse than being hypocritical? Or maybe it's that doing something wrong in the past means you should never try to do the right thing? Or maybe if someone has done something wrong in the past it's simply not possible for them to ever do something that's right? What is the logic here?
I believe this is part of the "don't make the good the enemy of the perfect" thing. Because we're not good in all ways it is assumed that everything we do is for evil. You see it even some of the responses to my post - that we're only providing support because it fuels our military industry profits. And to be honest, that is probably true. But like it's still doing the right thing, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
It's really astounding. But to cheer you up, enjoy some supremely based ancoms
Just because Russia is wrong doesn't make supporting Ukraine right. The only reasons US turned on the money tap for Ukraine is so that is can be funneled through Lockheed Martin & Co, essentially injecting cash straight into the MIC pulsing veins.
Hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians and Russians be damned- shareholder value is going up.
Now it doesn't take much imagination to think of scenarios where the money tap turns off - just let Trump win next year and watch him speed run turning it off - and then what? What if Ukraine ends up being overrun anyway by Russia?
What was the point of all the dead young men? For a territory that is primarily ethnic Russians who primarily speak Russian. For a territory like Crimea who has been part of Russia proper for hundreds of years until handed over arbitrarily by a premier in the 1950s.
You want me to be honest? I don't give a shit which corrupt Eastern European government is the legitimate sovereign over Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Russia or Ukraine, makes zero difference to me. Not worth potential nuclear war. Not worth dangerous global inflation. Not worth pushing Russia away from Europe and towards China.
We are making a big mistake which everyone will pretend is "obvious" like Iraq 20 years ago. Of course jingoists can't see anything other than war in front of their noses. Anything else seems almost absurd
Nope. Setting the precedent that stronger nations can take territory from weaker nations by force would mean an immediate end to the post WW2 rules-based international order and would bring an end to the most peaceful era in human history.
Xi is watching Ukraine very closely as he has made nearly identical claims about Taiwan and much of the South China Sea. So are the Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese. This is not a path that ends well.
Taiwan isn't really identical to Ukraine. China is nearly a magnitude larger while Russia is only about 4~5x bigger. Taiwan is also infinitely more important to the global economy and US foreign policy than Ukraine.
Ukraine doesn't matter. Russia controlled it for the entirety of the Cold War and it never mattered. This whole thing is essentially a Ukrainian independence war starting in 2014.
I'd say the US invasion of Iraq was dramatically worse for the "rules-based international order" since US had very little reason to be in Iraq, a country halfway across the world.
Having said all that, US support of Ukraine has nothing to do with the rules based order. I re-iterate - it's to a) pump money straight into Lockheed Martin & friends b) test out a bunch of new military tech (sort of like Spanish Civil War before WW2) and c) an attempt to make Russia bleed for every inch of territory
I wish people would take ideology out of these discussions.
I wish people would take batshit conspiracy theories out these discussions.
The US doesn't need external reasons for defense spending. Trump (nor anyone else in the GOP) is going to cut defense spending. So that's all just something you made up in your head, but isn't at all a real thing.
The Soviet control of Eastern Europe actually was a big thing in the Cold War. It's actually what the cold war was mostly about. So what are you talking about Soviets controlling Ukraine was no big deal?
And you should read up on the Helsinki Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords
That agreement (and many more that followed on from that) countries in Europe agreed to respect each other's sovereignty. Mostly because they didn't want another World War. Putin has violated those agreements.
This isn't just ideological, though when a fascist invades a neighbouring country on the grounds that people of their ethnicity lives there, it raises some concerns doesn't it? But at any rate, Russia invaded a sovereign democracy. It's only right that all of the democracies of the world oppose this.
All you are doing is arguing in favor of realpolitik over the many other possible incentive structures that political theorists have proposed as informing the ecology of international relations. While I think realpolitik certainly plays a role, I also think it's stupid not to recognize that there are many other forces at work as well, at least some of which really are based on good intentions, no matter how far awry they may have gone.
Are you honestly saying that if Trump wins he's going to cut defense spending? Like really? You actually think the GOP is going cut defense spending? Reaaaaalllllly?
If so I got some NFTs I want to sell you LOL.
Cut defense spending? No. Stop sending weapons to Ukraine? Almost certainly.
So it follows that the whole conspiracy theory about Ukraine being a scheme to justify defense spending is all bullshit. The US doesn't actually need external reasons to justify defense spending.
I mean, yeah, the conspiracy theory is bullshit. Just pointing out that if Trump wins, turning off the tap of support to Ukraine is very much a possibility.
Well yeah, Trump is Putin's puppet.
Yes it actually does. Congress can't just pass a bill randomly and send $100 billion to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. It needs a big seemingly groundbreaking reason. Which is partly why this war has been so hyped up and Russian is depicted as a major threat to Europe when realistically they are so weak they can't even properly conquer the poorest country in Europe right next to their borders.
I say partly because it actually is a fairly important war being the largest war in Europe since WW2. But absolutely, just like Cheney & co took advantage of 9/11 to funnel money into war, our modern day politicians are doing the same thing. It's not a conspiracy theory. Or at least, in 20 years from now people will talk about it as if it's obvious.
Where is this $100 billion to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin? Is this real legislation or just something you made up?
20 years from now people will be talking about how obvious it was that Glavset was pumping propaganda on the internet. How could people have been silly enough to believe their obvious bullshit?
But here we are. Russia brazenly invades a sovereign democracy and a legion of people on the internet think "this is fine" simply because the internet told them to think this way. Ah you can be contrarian to all logic and reason (be a rebel!) by supporting foreign authoritarians!
Money to Ukraine. Not defense spending. Try reading more slowly next time. That helps me sometimes.
We're discussing the billions of dollars going to a) prop up the Ukrainian budget and b) "military aid" which goes through our favorite defense contractors.
It's very likely should Trump win that this fountain is getting closed. He's said as much fairly explicitly.
Uh no definitely not the only reason.
US is buying russia's defeat and demiliterisation on the cheap.
EU and US are not always on the same page but on this they are.
Starting shit in Europe is very personal and very symbolic to western nations as well having the massive precedent of WW2.
Cold war is great for stable economic MIC growth. Actual war is the opposite especially when other goods and trade is harmed causing inflation and all other economic shenanigans that one would want to avoid outright or from escalating.
Ukraine and other eastern Europe countries now looking to seek protection of nato with which there are mutliple requirements and conditions for said joining and few of which are core liberal democractic based.
Its never one thing. Politics is like a never ending game of dominoes where pieces fall and right themselves anywhere and everywhere
It's never one thing but more like a pie chart. If we looked at the biggest chunks on the pie chart, they would be the things I outlined and take up the majority of the chart. Hurting Russia is nice, you're right, but Russia is not a real threat. Other countries don't need to join NATO. Russia does not have the capacity to properly invade Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe right next to their border. The only real threat Russia has is nuclear weapons, and should Russia start nuking non-NATO countries I don't think Article 5 is going to matter - the US is going to respond.
I view Ukraine war a lot like the Spanish Civil war in 1936. Nice playground to test out new military tech. Nevermind the hundreds of thousands of young men who are going to die or be permanently maimed, Ukraine having their demographics crippled for the next century, and the hundreds of millions of poor across the world who are suffering under rising inflation due to things such as food supply
I agree war in Europe is very "symbolic" but that doesn't matter in a geopolitical sense. It's only useful as a propaganda tool in order to justify the eternal prolongation of the above mentioned destruction
"It’s never one thing but more like a pie chart. If we looked at the biggest chunks on the pie chart, they would be the things I outlined and take up the majority of the chart. Hurting Russia is nice, you’re right, but Russia is not a real threat. Other countries don’t need to join NATO. Russia does not have the capacity to properly invade Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe right next to their border. The only real threat Russia has is nuclear weapons, and should Russia start nuking non-NATO countries I don’t think Article 5 is going to matter - the US is going to respond."
Russia not a threat? Im sure ukraine disagrees, as with other border nations.
Russia actual capabilities wernt truly known to be this terrible until they invaded and even what was known wasn't universal and apparent to everyone.
Others dont need to join nato? Sure. Until they do. WW3 and European wars seem like a silly concept and then it happens all of a sudden nato looks to be a great deal to get back to that sense of security as well as having a gurantee of that security.
I view Ukraine war a lot like the Spanish Civil war in 1936. Nice playground to test out new military tech. Nevermind the hundreds of thousands of young men who are going to die or be permanently maimed, Ukraine having their demographics crippled for the next century, and the hundreds of millions of poor across the world who are suffering under rising inflation due to things such as food supply
Its more like the Korean war with old tech and surplus being used up. While im sure there is new technology to be had the majority of it is all old stuff. From 1960's to 2000's
I agree war in Europe is very “symbolic” but that doesn’t matter in a geopolitical sense. It’s only useful as a propaganda tool in order to justify the eternal prolongation of the above mentioned destruction
It does matter to every European indvidual. Their personal cognition of history and current values is one where starting WW3 was not a reality they had but now the potential is very real. Im assuming you are american so maybe you dont understand what it means to have a neighbouring country at anytime can roll over your border as well as not having the worlds largest military or police which a single american city can have more then some countries entire armies.
People do have genuine feelings and reactions. Its not all calculated Patriots string pulling
Russia is not able to, with some of the highest military spending on the planet, properly invade a weak country right on their borders. Again, we're talking about the poorest country in Europe. Whereas if we look at the American invasion of Iraq - within a month the Iraqi government had collapsed. Now, let's see what other countries Russia could presumably invade.
The only real options are
the baltic states which are already in NATO. So no need for NATO to spread there.
poland - who has a military budget more than 3x Ukraine's along with a more modern air force and air defense system. Not to mention they are also in NATO. Even if Poland wasn't in NATO, Russia would stand no chance.
finland - this is probably Russia's best bet - they were spending about 20% less on their military as Ukraine in 2020. however Ukraine and Finland have drastically different geographies. Ukraine is mostly open plains so Russia historically wants to control Ukraine as it's an easy way to invade Russia (~~both Napoleon and~~ (edit: i refreshed my memory on French invasion and was incorrect. They went through Belarus) Hitler exploited this in order to invade Russia). However Finland is dense forest and the winters are harsh. The USSR even tried to invade Finland right around WW2 and failed miserably. And back then Finland was a poor backwater relative to what it is today.
So, Finland I think is justified in wanting to join NATO but realistically it's not necessary. Should Finland get invaded, they would end up getting support from the US and Europe just like Ukraine is getting now. In 1939 they didn't get that support and they still held back the Russians. Now with them being much richer relatively and Russia being weaker - it just isn't realistic
Do you see what I'm saying? Russia isn't a real threat. The only card they hold is nuclear weapons, and that's a last resort option because they know it would very likely signal the end of the regime.
Yes, both Ukraine and Russia are bringing out relics in this fight. Russia is burning through old Soviet tanks from the 1950s. But modern air defense systems, cruise missiles, drones, and modern satellites have never been used in this capacity. This is great for the US. They are able to use their satellites and communicate real time information to the Ukrainians. They learn what's best to pay attention to, what are the limits of their tech.
All parties have learned just how useful drones can be. They've been used in many ways. As recon, as ways to attack people in trenches by simply dropping grenades on them, as suicide drones, etc. US military engineers are taking this massive treasure trove of data and reinvesting their work and money into places that have been shown to be most effective.
Not to mention all the behind the scenes cyber warfare / intelligence gathering that is going on. I'm telling you - a lot of people in the MIC are very happy about this war. And of course our defense contractors are getting tens of billions of dollars which can conceivably become hundreds of billions before this war is finally through.
Obviously people have genuine feelings. But governments don't have feelings. They practice realpolitik and that involves lots of educated smart people making cold calculated decisions. Feelings mean nothing to deciding whether to go to war or even when talking about internal policies. There's that famous quote said to Yanis, that minister from Greece. "Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy" by the German finance minister in a Eurogroup meeting.
I was born in South America. Although I concede there is very little risk of nations invading each other in South America just like in the USA.