• kava@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    How was Ukraine “destabilized” compared to other comparable ex-USSR states until 2014?

    see below. Ukraine was in a special position. most similar to Belarus, although much more important. US pumped money in a lot of ex-soviet states, that’s true.

    If a country being in US orbit is a reason for Russia to attack it, why didn’t they attack Finland? Or the US directly in Alaska? What’s the significance with Ukraine?

    Ukraine was under the Russian orbit since the 1700s. It was a fifth of the economic output of the USSR. In the Russian nation-state mythology Kiev is the mother city of all Russians. They share one of the largest borders in the world of mostly plains.

    There’s a lot of reasons. Russia views Ukraine as theirs. Neither Finland or Alaska hold a fraction of the ideological, historic, and strategic importance to the Russians

    The same memorandum btw granted Ukraine non-military aid from the US and France

    go and re-read the 1994 agreement. it does not promise any help at all beyond promising to “seek immediate [UN] Security Council action”.

    i don’t really think it’s relevant to the discussion though. international law (aka treaties) are used as justifications when convenient and ignored when not convenient.

    • Laser@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Ukraine was under the Russian orbit since the 1700s. It was a fifth of the economic output of the USSR. In the Russian nation-state mythology Kiev is the mother city of all Russians. They share one of the largest borders in the world of mostly plains.

      There’s a lot of reasons. Russia views Ukraine as theirs. Neither Finland or Alaska hold a fraction of the ideological, historic, and strategic importance to the Russians

      Right, what I was getting at was that all the other claims are bullshit, this is a war because winning it would grant Russia strategic advantages, and they thought they’d win the conflict, probably not even expecting a full war; just a three day special operation.

      go and re-read the 1994 agreement. it does not promise any help at all beyond promising to “seek immediate [UN] Security Council action”.

      That’s why I wrote “granted”, I know this is more of a political intentions paper, my point was that nobody can act surprised when a signatory actually follows through later.

      One could ask the question why states are choosing to align with countries other than Russia. The answer is that most of Russia’s allies get screwed. Look at Armenia’s situation with the CSTO.

      • kava@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Russia is a terrible ally and an even worse overlord I’m not arguing against that. It has a brutal history and a brutal people whose cultural DNA goes all the way back to the Mongol hordes pillaging and raping for tribute

        Right, what I was getting at was that all the other claims are bullshit, this is a war because winning it would grant Russia strategic advantages, and they thought they’d win the conflict, probably not even expecting a full war; just a three day special operation.

        yes, they expected Ukraine to fold. So did US intelligence, at least ostensibly.

        although at this point, anybody paying attention sees the writing on the wall. Russia has been slowly inching forward all year. They will win unless there is some sort of dramatic change in battlefield dynamics

        and US has no intention of allowing Ukraine to win. this is why I see US involvement as cynical. It was never meant to actually help Ukraine. Ukraine has been under Russian orbit for centuries. Throughout the entirety of the Cold War, it was under Russian control.

        It does not meaningfully alter the power balance between US and Russia. US is just taking advantage to extract as much as they can out of this war and then when the juice is squeezed out of the lemon, Ukraine will fall under Russian control.

        So if Ukraine losing was the point the entire time - what “help” was our help? It wasn’t to help the people, prolonging a destructive war only kills more people, destroys more homes, hamstrings economic output for a longer period of time. it will cost over $500B to reconstruct Ukraine (and I guarantee there won’t be any lively debates in congress on approving that aid) and Ukrainian demographics are ruined for a century

        This is sort of my entire point - the US interests in this war don’t line up with the Ukrainian citizen. We want

        a) Russia to bleed as much as possible for every inch

        b) as much public $$$ as possible to be transferred to private hands

        c) battlefield intelligence, both on new technologies and capabilities and on new Russian doctrines (for example drones & EW have been game changers) in preparation for the real war on the horizon

        those goals mean the best way to play it is to hurt Ukraine as much as possible. Keep the war going on as long as possible. But never invest enough for Ukraine to win - that would likewise end the war.

        It’s a very cynical and misanthropic position