Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

putsch80 t1_ixxmlzt wrote

Reply to comment by BazilBroketail in Returning to normal relations with Russia would be a mistake, says Lithuanian president by hieronymusanonymous

Lots of politicians absolutely will be once the war in Ukraine dies down. Some will be paid Russian puppets trying to drum up support for Russia in their home countries. Some will have constituents who want their business interests in Russia to re-normalize or to have access to Russian natural resources. But make no mistake: there will be a sizable chorus of people seeking a normalization of relations to the pre-2022 level.

256

pm_me_your_pay_slips t1_ixy6we8 wrote

Don’t forget to add the people who got into the war and will want to pull out when it gets too expensive.

11

h3ron t1_ixylvs7 wrote

Why the downvotes? This is a valid concern. It has happened very recently to Kurds and Afghans. West countries just said:

"We got bored with this war, so we'll pull the plug. I guess all you will just die. Goodbye and good luck".

The only difference now is that there are NATO and EU countries that don't want to be the next Chechnya/Georgia/Crimea/Ukraine so they're now pushing for curbing Putin's aggressivity.

23

anti-DHMO-activist t1_ixyxiu2 wrote

> "We got bored with this war, so we'll pull the plug. I guess all you will just die. Goodbye and good luck".

Please don't act as if "the west" was a single bloc. Letting the kurds die was primarily a US-thing, heavily criticized by everybody else.

"The west" is something that only seems to be seen as a real thing by americans (who think everybody is culturally just like them) and those trying to build a "counter-west".

17

aig_ma t1_ixzb9pk wrote

>Letting the kurds die was primarily a US-thing, heavily criticized by everybody else.

It was a Trump thing, not a US thing. He made the order on a Sunday night after all his advisors had gone home. Previously when he had tried to do it, he was blocked, because anyone who saw what he was doing knew it would undermine US interests. After he did it, even his Republican "allies" were shocked.

As far as I can tell, no one in the US supported this decision.

11

PubliusDeLaMancha t1_ixzf24i wrote

It's an everybody thing.

Do you actually believe "the world" would have accepted the US forcibly decreasing Iraqs borders to establish an independent Kurdistan? The entire cause of the enmity between Saddam and the West was his desire to conquer Kuwait.. Changing Iraqs borders even in favor of Kurds would have undermined the Western intervention entirely.

If you want to blame someone historically, blame the British for not guaranteeing a Kurdistan out of the former Ottoman Empire (Arabs got like 12 states remember)

Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran all presently administer territory with Kurdish majorities.. They are free to establish a Kurdistan at any point in time.. Why haven't they?

If anything, supporting an independent Kurdistan is primarily a US-only thing (not of their government but popular support of their people)

4

anti-DHMO-activist t1_ixzfnbp wrote

I meant that more narrowly.

To my knowledge, the situation was that a massive amount of kurds helped cut down ISIS. Then, after the deed was done, they got abandoned.

I think the minimum here would have been to make sure the active fighters and their families are safe. That doesn't neccessarily include an own country, even offering refuge would have been at least something.

The overall politics in that area regarding statehood of minorities are completely fucked up, it's far too complicated and nuanced for me to understand even half of it. So not commenting on that.

6

TigerKingz t1_iy2catn wrote

The afghans nationalists werent fighting , indifferent on average to the Taliban (or were Taliban). The Kurds, unfortunately, straddle 4 countries so not much can really be done there (including a NATO country).

1