I both agree and disagree, but you are blaming the US/West far too much. Russia was not a US colony, and there is no manual on how to fix a country when it collapses. It’s not entirely clear how we could’ve helped, especially in a manner that didn’t just look like enriching private corporations or wealthy Russian oligarchs.
What happened in the end is a very common story – a place is having economic hardship and struggle, a strongman leader restores stability, the strongman rules as a tyrant. The tyrant longs for old days of glory, and so forth.
I disagree with the commenter above that we should relish the thought of Russia’s defeat because they were a former adversary. I wish things had happened far differently. My disdain is largely for Putin, not for Russia itself. We can learn from the past, but the fact remains – Putin and Russia must fail in Ukraine for peace to be established, innocent lives to be saved, and sovereignty to be respected. Ukraine is not Russia’s colony, and Putin needs to be punished for forgetting that.
Say Russia loses and Putin is deposed. What do you think the US and West should do in that situation? This isn’t some gotcha question, I’m genuinely interested in what you think would be the best path forward for the Russian people to thrive and have a peaceful democracy.
There is a manual on how to fix a country when it collapses and it was written after world war 2. We saw how Germany was punished after world war 1 and how it didn’t solve the underlying problems. The problem was solved when Germany got proper support instead of being let to fester in economic misery. It takes a village to raise to raise a child and a world to raise a country. Instead, the US sought to exploit the fall of the USSR with “free market” BS and laundering money for the wealthy to maximize wealth extraction.
When this war has ended, my hope is that the world extends a hand to help Russia diversify its economy and become more stable. We should also dismantle cold war era organizations like NATO, whose only goal is to act as an adversary. We need to emphasize cooperation.
That’s the thing though, proper support and enriching the wealthy aren’t mutually exclusive here. Whatever aid we provide, some big companies will benefit and oligarchs will get richer. Either way though, I think we can agree that while the West was not obligated to do more, they should have done more. And I am completely with you on a global effort to rebuild and stabilize Russia as a liberal democracy. We need to make sure the country doesn’t fall into ruin again and give us Putin 2.0.
I will have to disagree on NATO though, largely because countries like Ukraine are going to want defensive assurances for a very long time after this. It provides peace of mind to the smaller nations that we won’t allow them to be conquered by neo imperialist upstarts. What I do think though is NATO needs to expand into a general defensive pact. Perhaps it should become an agreement by the largest military powers that they will defend all democracies from attack, or something.
Things like NATO will naturally die when they are no longer relevant. People really didn’t care as much about it before the Ukraine invasion, and much of the left questioned why we even had it. Russia has made it relevant again. In a hundred years, it may exist only on paper, if Russia and the West have jolly cooperation.
NATO was no longer relevant when the USSR collapsed and the cold war supposedly ended. It took over a quarter of a century of irrelevance for this war to happen and it’s not unreasonable to think that NATO played a role of escalation in order to ensure job security.
NATO is application only. It’s growth is because Russia sought to exert power through punishment instead of cooperation. It drove people to NATO for safety.
It is not definitively stated that it didn’t help the situation. The article provides just as much evidence that it was decisive in Yugoslavia capitulating.
At the end of the day, we can agree that the civilian casualties were unacceptable, and upon discovering unexpected conditions, NATO should have called off the attack and reconsidered their approach.
It’s intellectually dishonest however to make a condemnation either way with certainty. It’s a disputed event without consensus. It’s perfectly valid to say that it’s unclear if it actually helped the situation or made it worse, but it’s incorrect to suggest a historical consensus on its judgment. As with pretty much every modern conflict, you’ll have academics who condemn US intervention and who condemn US inaction.
The one thing I can definitely say though is it was unconscionable to use cluster bombs, and that was incredibly fucked up.
I both agree and disagree, but you are blaming the US/West far too much. Russia was not a US colony, and there is no manual on how to fix a country when it collapses. It’s not entirely clear how we could’ve helped, especially in a manner that didn’t just look like enriching private corporations or wealthy Russian oligarchs.
What happened in the end is a very common story – a place is having economic hardship and struggle, a strongman leader restores stability, the strongman rules as a tyrant. The tyrant longs for old days of glory, and so forth.
I disagree with the commenter above that we should relish the thought of Russia’s defeat because they were a former adversary. I wish things had happened far differently. My disdain is largely for Putin, not for Russia itself. We can learn from the past, but the fact remains – Putin and Russia must fail in Ukraine for peace to be established, innocent lives to be saved, and sovereignty to be respected. Ukraine is not Russia’s colony, and Putin needs to be punished for forgetting that.
Say Russia loses and Putin is deposed. What do you think the US and West should do in that situation? This isn’t some gotcha question, I’m genuinely interested in what you think would be the best path forward for the Russian people to thrive and have a peaceful democracy.
There is a manual on how to fix a country when it collapses and it was written after world war 2. We saw how Germany was punished after world war 1 and how it didn’t solve the underlying problems. The problem was solved when Germany got proper support instead of being let to fester in economic misery. It takes a village to raise to raise a child and a world to raise a country. Instead, the US sought to exploit the fall of the USSR with “free market” BS and laundering money for the wealthy to maximize wealth extraction.
When this war has ended, my hope is that the world extends a hand to help Russia diversify its economy and become more stable. We should also dismantle cold war era organizations like NATO, whose only goal is to act as an adversary. We need to emphasize cooperation.
That’s the thing though, proper support and enriching the wealthy aren’t mutually exclusive here. Whatever aid we provide, some big companies will benefit and oligarchs will get richer. Either way though, I think we can agree that while the West was not obligated to do more, they should have done more. And I am completely with you on a global effort to rebuild and stabilize Russia as a liberal democracy. We need to make sure the country doesn’t fall into ruin again and give us Putin 2.0.
I will have to disagree on NATO though, largely because countries like Ukraine are going to want defensive assurances for a very long time after this. It provides peace of mind to the smaller nations that we won’t allow them to be conquered by neo imperialist upstarts. What I do think though is NATO needs to expand into a general defensive pact. Perhaps it should become an agreement by the largest military powers that they will defend all democracies from attack, or something.
Things like NATO will naturally die when they are no longer relevant. People really didn’t care as much about it before the Ukraine invasion, and much of the left questioned why we even had it. Russia has made it relevant again. In a hundred years, it may exist only on paper, if Russia and the West have jolly cooperation.
NATO was no longer relevant when the USSR collapsed and the cold war supposedly ended. It took over a quarter of a century of irrelevance for this war to happen and it’s not unreasonable to think that NATO played a role of escalation in order to ensure job security.
NATO is application only. It’s growth is because Russia sought to exert power through punishment instead of cooperation. It drove people to NATO for safety.
The NATO bombing killed about 1,000 members of the Yugoslav security forces in addition to between 489 and 528 civilians. It destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses as well as barracks and military installations.
Turns out when a country is commiting genocide and refuses to stop, military action is required.
Plus, wasn’t this a UN sanctioned attack?
Read the article there’s a whole section on why this wasn’t a good idea: Arguments against strategic air power
It didn’t help the situation, and ended up killing a lot of civilians.
It is not definitively stated that it didn’t help the situation. The article provides just as much evidence that it was decisive in Yugoslavia capitulating.
At the end of the day, we can agree that the civilian casualties were unacceptable, and upon discovering unexpected conditions, NATO should have called off the attack and reconsidered their approach.
It’s intellectually dishonest however to make a condemnation either way with certainty. It’s a disputed event without consensus. It’s perfectly valid to say that it’s unclear if it actually helped the situation or made it worse, but it’s incorrect to suggest a historical consensus on its judgment. As with pretty much every modern conflict, you’ll have academics who condemn US intervention and who condemn US inaction.
The one thing I can definitely say though is it was unconscionable to use cluster bombs, and that was incredibly fucked up.