If the point of supporting Ukraine is to support the international order of respecting borders, then an absolutist interpretation would mean you stop at your border when repelling invaders.
On the other hand, that would certainly result in invaders loading up on personnel and materiel on their side of the border until they reached some critical mass for a re invasion.
A lot of people might not remember the first Gulf War where the international community defending Kuwait stopped at the Iraq border. I think it could be argued that was a mistake on multiple levels, even ignoring everything we know that came after.
It’s simply not credible for a group of countries responsible for constant invasions of other countries to claim to be defending borders or supporting any sort of international law. The US at this very moment is occupying a larger percentage of Syria than Russia is of Ukraine.
Nah it’s not just whataboutism, this is a conflict between NATO and Russia. NATO is claiming to have some moral superiority in this conflict, but it’s very obvious that NATO is fighting an imperialistic war for control of Ukraine.
Ah, yes of course. How could I miss how supplying the people of a sovereign nation with weapons and intelligence in a defensive ground war against a foreign invader is building an empire. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Ah yes, NATO is just altruistically helping the right wing regime that the west installed in Ukraine after overthrowing the legitimate democratically elected government. 🤡
Even if that were true (and I don’t think even Putin is still pretending that this is what his special operation is about), you think the right recourse is to invade that country and attempt to annex it into your empire? Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition? Really amazing peaceful moves from the certainly democratically elected leftist Russian president, bravo.
You don’t have to take Putin’s word for it, the head of NATO has already admitted this publicly:
The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.
However, if you don’t trust a renowned political scientist like Mearsheimer, RAND published a whole study titled “Extending Russia” that explains in detail why the US wanted to provoke a conflict in Ukraine https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition?
The war could’ve been over within a month, but the west sabotaged negotiations. Pretty clear who wants this war to keep going. The war could’ve been avoided entirely if the west didn’t insist on NATO expansion and didn’t overthrow the government in Ukraine.
That is a nice big quote you got there. But it doesn’t say anything about right-wing governments, coups or anything the like. And I said, for the sake of the argument I’ll pretend with you it is true.
Of course, surrendering is a great defensive strategy. I’m sure WW2 would have been a whole lot shorter if Stalin just capitulated right away. But I’ve got another brain tickler for you. The aggressor can end a war immediately, by not even starting it :)
What on earth are you talking about occupying Syria?
Edit: they’re misconstruing the 32-country military coalition that’s been trying to degrade Da’esh since 2014 as the US military by itself occupying sovereign territory.
Some may remember the breathless daily & weekly map updates on the news showing areas controlled by Da’esh changing. Might remember the coalition partnering with various groups of differing militancy & reliability. I think including us (the coalition) fucking over Iraqi Kurds…? I believe because Syria hated them? Or loved them?
So, y’know, absolutely nothing like Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine because Putin was afraid of Ukraine getting too chummy with NATO countries, possibility even considering joining NATO.
The US is in Syria against the will of the legitimate government of Syria that’s recognized by the UN. This is an invasion and a violation of the sovereignty of Syria. Period.
The fact that you rushed in to try and paint it as something other while bleating about Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine says everything we need to know about you.
I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree as I see a fundamental difference between a multi national joint military operation targeting international terrorists and a unilateral military operation aimed at reconstituting the USSR.
There is no fundamental difference. International law states that countries are sovereign and cannot be invaded by other countries. Just because a bunch of bandits, who are currently involved in a literal genocide I might add, get together to do it in no way legitimizes it. The fact that you think might makes right is legitimate in one case and not the other shows that your position is hypocritical, and can be safely ignored.
then an absolutist interpretation would mean you stop at your border when repelling invaders
Amusingly, that was the interpretation I’ve heard some years ago over at reddit from poles malding about USSR marching to Berlin and kicking nazis out of their country in the process.
I would say an absolutist would be justified in crossing the border if they offer that land back at the end of hostilities in exchange for other concessions.
Even if Ukraine doesn’t reclaim all of their land they could offer Russia kursk for some other equal amount of Ukrainian land in any peace talks.
Otherwise if Russia refuses Ukraine is justified in keeping that land.
“The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten”
Napoleon Bonaparte
Not only do you need to strike at the enemy’s territories and hold it to win, you need to threaten to keep it if you want to restore your original borders. Going to the peace table with enemy cities your pocket is a classic way to negotiate for your own land back. The more Russian land the Ukranians take, the more likely we will see a restoration of old borders.
Funnily enough you quote the dude that first planned to ally with Russia but get swept into the prototype of modern geopolitics and attacked it, not staying within his fortifications, and that led to him and his empire being utterly and completely crushed. Though unlike current followers of the evolution of the same geopolitical strategy, he at least didn’t had ample historical precedence for this madness.
If the point of supporting Ukraine is to support the international order of respecting borders, then an absolutist interpretation would mean you stop at your border when repelling invaders.
On the other hand, that would certainly result in invaders loading up on personnel and materiel on their side of the border until they reached some critical mass for a re invasion.
A lot of people might not remember the first Gulf War where the international community defending Kuwait stopped at the Iraq border. I think it could be argued that was a mistake on multiple levels, even ignoring everything we know that came after.
It’s simply not credible for a group of countries responsible for constant invasions of other countries to claim to be defending borders or supporting any sort of international law. The US at this very moment is occupying a larger percentage of Syria than Russia is of Ukraine.
That is just what-about-ism. The US doing bad things is no reason to allow other nations to fight imperialistic wars.
Nah it’s not just whataboutism, this is a conflict between NATO and Russia. NATO is claiming to have some moral superiority in this conflict, but it’s very obvious that NATO is fighting an imperialistic war for control of Ukraine.
Ah, yes of course. How could I miss how supplying the people of a sovereign nation with weapons and intelligence in a defensive ground war against a foreign invader is building an empire. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Ah yes, NATO is just altruistically helping the right wing regime that the west installed in Ukraine after overthrowing the legitimate democratically elected government. 🤡
Even if that were true (and I don’t think even Putin is still pretending that this is what his special operation is about), you think the right recourse is to invade that country and attempt to annex it into your empire? Killing hundreds of thousands in a war of attrition? Really amazing peaceful moves from the certainly democratically elected leftist Russian president, bravo.
You don’t have to take Putin’s word for it, the head of NATO has already admitted this publicly:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
That’s not what the war is about. https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war
However, if you don’t trust a renowned political scientist like Mearsheimer, RAND published a whole study titled “Extending Russia” that explains in detail why the US wanted to provoke a conflict in Ukraine https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
The war could’ve been over within a month, but the west sabotaged negotiations. Pretty clear who wants this war to keep going. The war could’ve been avoided entirely if the west didn’t insist on NATO expansion and didn’t overthrow the government in Ukraine.
That is a nice big quote you got there. But it doesn’t say anything about right-wing governments, coups or anything the like. And I said, for the sake of the argument I’ll pretend with you it is true.
Of course, surrendering is a great defensive strategy. I’m sure WW2 would have been a whole lot shorter if Stalin just capitulated right away. But I’ve got another brain tickler for you. The aggressor can end a war immediately, by not even starting it :)
What on earth are you talking about occupying Syria?
Edit: they’re misconstruing the 32-country military coalition that’s been trying to degrade Da’esh since 2014 as the US military by itself occupying sovereign territory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_the_Islamic_State
Some may remember the breathless daily & weekly map updates on the news showing areas controlled by Da’esh changing. Might remember the coalition partnering with various groups of differing militancy & reliability. I think including us (the coalition) fucking over Iraqi Kurds…? I believe because Syria hated them? Or loved them?
So, y’know, absolutely nothing like Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine because Putin was afraid of Ukraine getting too chummy with NATO countries, possibility even considering joining NATO.
Do you live in a cave? https://www.barrons.com/news/damascus-says-us-occupation-of-syrian-territory-cannot-continue-e97c5e5a
Updated
proceeded to further embarrass yourself
The US is in Syria against the will of the legitimate government of Syria that’s recognized by the UN. This is an invasion and a violation of the sovereignty of Syria. Period.
The fact that you rushed in to try and paint it as something other while bleating about Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine says everything we need to know about you.
I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree as I see a fundamental difference between a multi national joint military operation targeting international terrorists and a unilateral military operation aimed at reconstituting the USSR.
There is no fundamental difference. International law states that countries are sovereign and cannot be invaded by other countries. Just because a bunch of bandits, who are currently involved in a literal genocide I might add, get together to do it in no way legitimizes it. The fact that you think might makes right is legitimate in one case and not the other shows that your position is hypocritical, and can be safely ignored.
Amusingly, that was the interpretation I’ve heard some years ago over at reddit from poles malding about USSR marching to Berlin and kicking nazis out of their country in the process.
I would say an absolutist would be justified in crossing the border if they offer that land back at the end of hostilities in exchange for other concessions.
Even if Ukraine doesn’t reclaim all of their land they could offer Russia kursk for some other equal amount of Ukrainian land in any peace talks.
Otherwise if Russia refuses Ukraine is justified in keeping that land.
“The side that stays within its fortifications is beaten”
Napoleon Bonaparte
Not only do you need to strike at the enemy’s territories and hold it to win, you need to threaten to keep it if you want to restore your original borders. Going to the peace table with enemy cities your pocket is a classic way to negotiate for your own land back. The more Russian land the Ukranians take, the more likely we will see a restoration of old borders.
Funnily enough you quote the dude that first planned to ally with Russia but get swept into the prototype of modern geopolitics and attacked it, not staying within his fortifications, and that led to him and his empire being utterly and completely crushed. Though unlike current followers of the evolution of the same geopolitical strategy, he at least didn’t had ample historical precedence for this madness.