Is self defense immoral for nations or individuals?

[The Young Maester]

2 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

The politics are pretty simple: Ukranians wanted to be closer to the EU- Putin bought their corrupt president so he wouldn't allow that- Ukrainians protested- The crook begun murdering his own people- the people overthrew him- Putin invaded Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk- Ukrainians rejected him even more- Putin invaded the whole country- Ukraine fought back.

Politics are never simple. Its simple in the way that you always expect them to be self serving.

Corruptions and politicians doing the usual. A neutral Ukraine wouldve been best, either by joining eu and staying out of nato or whatever was acceptable. Putin obviously fucked it up with crimea, and from that point on it was only one end in site.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This seems very… familier:

 

[A wilding]

Personally I think that the closest parallel is with Czechoslovakia in 1938, Of course on that occasion the UK sold out the Czechs with the "peace in our time" deal, so we have already diverged from it.

[The Young Maester]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This seems very… familier:

 

I mean if we’re all willing to get involved in a nuclear war. Either way our planet is fucked in the long term, might as well make it painless and end it now so our future generations don’t have to suffer the damage we done to our world.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

I mean if we’re all willing to get involved in a nuclear war. Either way our planet is fucked in the long term, might as well make it painless and end it now so our future generations don’t have to suffer the damage we done to our world.

So… if a Nation State has nuclear weapons it may abuse and invade its neighbors at will…

[The Sunland Lord]

No, it's not.

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I have said several times that the US should have accepted  "neutralizing" Ukraine (i.e. guaranteeing that it won't join NATO) - if the Ukrainians also agreed, that is.
Ukraine joining the EU in exchange was always a decent compromise imho (since 2016 at least, the EU can be considered a military alliance - now that Germany is re-arming, this should be a decent guarantee of safety for Ukraine).

Assuming that Russia (pre current war) would accept Ukraine joining the EU is a major assumption.  The 2014 conflict began because the Ukrainian President suddenly decided he wouldn't sign the EU/Ukraine Association agreement and would look to closer ties with Russia instead.  Russia never wanted Ukraine to move out of its orbit.  People keep saying that Putin's is determined to keep Ukraine there and you respond by saying there are mysterious other parties involved?  Seriously?  

Ironically, the chances of Ukraine actually joining the EU were previously very small but Putin wasn't happy with even these closer ties.  Maybe as a result of this conflict, Russia will accept it.  But maybe not.

It really seems like you have done some research but it is all veers towards the conspiracy angle.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I don't know what the Azov battalion did exactly (information is scant), but I assume it wasn't pretty, and Putin being ex-KGB would probably have blamed the CIA for it anyway (even if it had nothing to do with it).

If anything they did was so dreadful, you don't think Putin would have ensured we'd all know about it by now?  At worst, both sides got involved in ugly activities.  Not that the Azoz battalion hasn't changed since 2014.

Quote

So no, the Biden administration did not "seek" the conflict. It found itself in a position where the threat of escalation could only be deemed acceptable. 

From the outside, we don't exactly see the difference.

You don't see a difference between seeking a conflict and reacting to a conflict?  That's silly.

[The Young Maester]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So… if a Nation State has nuclear weapons it may abuse and invade its neighbors at will…

Lets not play stupid here. Neither I encourage twisting other peoples words into your own narrative. All you’ll achieve is alienate the other user and never come to a conclusive end.

Nato getting involved is nuclear war. Whether we like or not, that is the only end we would see.

[Maithanet]

45 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

The politics are pretty simple: Ukranians wanted to be closer to the EU- Putin bought their corrupt president so he wouldn't allow that- Ukrainians protested- The crook begun murdering his own people- the people overthrew him- Putin invaded Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk- Ukrainians rejected him even more- Putin invaded the whole country- Ukraine fought back.

This is a pretty reasonable summary, except I would add that at the beginning, Ukraine reaching out out to join EU (not NATO, which is a separate issue) was broadly popular and Ukrainian President Yanukovich was on board with this and promised that he would continue down that path by signing the European Union Association Agreement.  Then Putin called him in for a meeting and he did a complete 180, stating that Ukraine joining EU would no longer be allowed.  This broken promise made many Ukrainians very upset about Russian interference in Ukraine, and began the protests which eventually led to Yanukovich's downfall. 

[Winterfell is Burning]

52 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Politics are never simple. Its simple in the way that you always expect them to be self serving.

Corruptions and politicians doing the usual. A neutral Ukraine wouldve been best, either by joining eu and staying out of nato or whatever was acceptable. Putin obviously fucked it up with crimea, and from that point on it was only one end in site.

Except the plan was to sign an agreement with the EU, not joining NATO. They weren't even joining the EU yet, and probably would be at the back of the line.

And of course politics usually aren't simple, but sometimes they are. While it's understandable Russia wanted Ukraine closer to them than to the West, Putin didn't want that- he simply denied Ukraine's right of exist at all.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Lets not play stupid here. Neither I encourage twisting other peoples words into your own narrative. All you’ll achieve is alienate the other user and never come to a conclusive end.

Nato getting involved is nuclear war. Whether we like or not, that is the only end we would see.

So… supporting Ukraine in opposing the Russian invasion is positive? 

 

[The Young Maester]

8 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Except the plan was to sign an agreement with the EU, not joining NATO. They weren't even joining the EU yet, and probably would be at the back of the line.

And of course politics usually aren't simple, but sometimes they are. While it's understandable Russia wanted Ukraine closer to them than to the West, Putin didn't want that- he simply denied Ukraine's right of exist at all.

The movement of troops on the Ukrainian border started because Ukraine hinted towards joining NATO. Apparently half the population is keen on joining the alliance.

I know this is what accelerated putins hostility towards Ukraine. I honestly dont know if he would invade if they made a bid to join the EU, part of me says he would.

What putin wants most of all is a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Seeing as that is far from possible I imagine some sort of settlement is more likely. Either the russian speaking part of the country gains independence as a russian puppet or it gets annexed by russia. 

[Alarich II]

I think that one thing often gets overlooked here, is the Budapest Memorandum, where Russia, USA and GB are acting as guarantors of Ukrainian sovereignty in return for Ukraine handing over their nukes. So the question ist not only wether to help Ukraine or not but also: can and will the USA act on its guarantee?

I mean really, what Russia did was not only breaking an international treaty that had once been heralded as an important step in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, but they basically also asked the other guarantors to break it as well by not acting in their guarantee.

So this is not only about the red lines of Russia, but also those of the US and not only wrt NATO membership. Obamas failure to act on self-proclaimed red lines in Syria, declaring a national interest and then ceding it to Russia, and Trumps later failure to articulate any national interest beyond his own ego may have encouraged Putin to think that these red lines weren't all that red. 

[Winterfell is Burning]

28 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

The movement of troops on the Ukrainian border started because Ukraine hinted towards joining NATO. Apparently half the population is keen on joining the alliance.

I know this is what accelerated putins hostility towards Ukraine. I honestly dont know if he would invade if they made a bid to join the EU, part of me says he would.

What putin wants most of all is a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Seeing as that is far from possible I imagine some sort of settlement is more likely. Either the russian speaking part of the country gains independence as a russian puppet or it gets annexed by russia. 

Except even before the invasion of Crimea, Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join it because it had a Russian base in it's territory (the Russian Black Sea.fleet). Putin knew that pretty well. NATO is just an excuse.

[The Young Maester]

1 minute ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Except even before the invasion of Crimea, Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join it because it had a Russian base in it's territory (the Russian Black Sea.fleet). Putin knew that pretty well. NATO is just an excuse.

Essential war was inevitable after 2014, especially when taking crimea painted Russia in a bad light.

Putin wouldve been better off trying to meddle with Ukrainian politics and try to sway the Russian speakers on voting for the pro-Russian government. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Essential war was inevitable after 2014, especially when taking crimea painted Russia in a bad light.

Huh?  Are you claiming that invading and annexation of the territory of a sovereign State is really only an “optics” problem?

[polishgenius]

44 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

 

I know this is what accelerated putins hostility towards Ukraine.

[Werthead]

14 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Putin wouldve been better off trying to meddle with Ukrainian politics and try to sway the Russian speakers on voting for the pro-Russian government. 

This at least is accurate. By removing the pro-Russian voters in Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, and alienating the former pro-Russians in the rest of the country, he essentially made it impossible for the pro-Russian faction in Ukraine to ever regain governance, which would have been possible had he not invaded in 2014. Not invading in 2014 and perhaps a backdoor "quiet word" that Ukraine joining NATO or even starting down the road would trigger an invasion, would have been more likely to have given him what he wanted.

[The Young Maester]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

This at least is accurate. By removing the pro-Russian voters in Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, and alienating the former pro-Russians in the rest of the country, he essentially made it impossible for the pro-Russian faction in Ukraine to ever regain governance, which would have been possible had he not invaded in 2014. Not invading in 2014 and perhaps a backdoor "quiet word" that Ukraine joining NATO or even starting down the road would trigger an invasion, would have been more likely to have given him what he wanted.

Crimea is definitely what made the Ukrainian people want to join NATO. And opinion of Russia fell right off throughout the whole country.

But even if putin didn’t invade crimea its possible that a bid to join EU would still result in something similar. I reckon that putin invading crimea was an emotional reaction towards the revolution. Had they examined the situation correctly they couldve gone the more diplomatic route (obviously with its bribes and corruption). 

[The Young Maester]

15 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Well sorry if you found my comment funny. Now I realised that I worded it incorrectly. English isnt my mother tongue after all.