The Sandman - Episode 5, 24/7

One man's idea of a better world slowly and horrifyingly comes to life in a diner.

Do you even follow the conversation? We were talking about Crimea in the 90s, "in a newly independent country", where, as you were claiming, Russia was playing mind games to suppress the pro-Ukrainian sentiment among the sympathetic pro-Russian population. Except I haven't seen any examples of that.

> Ukraine can't do that if they want to maintain their sovereignty, Russia can do that while maintaining their sovereignty.

Well, they aren't equally situated in the situation that you're trying to resolve. Apples and oranges. You're mixing up what's happening and what you find justifiable. If your plan is to keep telling Putin to end the war - it doesn't seem very productive.

> How would it be an unpopular quagmire?

The way it is now, Ukraine is getting support without Americans and allies suffering casualties or spending too much. Ukraine is basically getting surplus equipment. Escalating that can make things less popular, and make the war seem more necessary from the Russian perspective.

> The reason that NATO troops aren't in Ukraine is that they don't want to potentially trigger MAD, that's it.

So why are they supporting Ukraine at all then? Did anyone told them that there's zero risk of triggering MAD? They probably made a calculation that the risk is low enough. So they can keep escalating things little by little.

> All that is especially easy in a newly independent country, where political structures and norms are not well established.

I haven't seen any examples of that actually happening in Crimea. You even acknowledge that people might have been sympathetic - making it less nefarious.

> Parliamentary votes aren't coups.

What's leading to them surely can be.

> In December 1991, Ukraine held a referendum and Ukrainians voted for independence. This essentially marked the end of the Soviet Union.

I said as much - it was a choice between independent Ukraine and the Soviet Union, not a choice between independent Russia and independent Ukraine. Then Ukraine stripped the autonomous status.

> True, but only half the story. Russia was working just as hard to suppress pro-Ukraine sentiment. You forgot that part.

Haven't seen any sources. How could Russia do that, exactly, in a newly independent country?

> Ukraine won that battle by political means (the pro-Ukraine parliament ousted the pro-Russian president).

Coups aren't exactly political.

> They can discuss a whole bunch of different things once Russian troops leave Ukraine.

Again, what would they be, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything? Why would Putin willingly give up his leverage for nothing?

> The answer is obviously yes, an attack from Ukraine would trigger MAD. Why do you think NATO is not sending troops to Ukraine right now?

I don't think there's just one reason. It can quickly become an unpopular quagmire, for example. And it's not actually clear that Russia would use nukes at the first sight of NATO troops in Ukraine. Fundamentally that was my point about Cuban missile crisis. The point wasn't that the situation is exactly the same. The point was that MAD doesn't give you peace of mind. Or any kind of certainty.

> What is there even to talk about? Russia doesn't have any right to Ukrainian land, you're making it seem like Russia had a reasonable justification for invading Ukraine.

Well, this line of thinking is exactly why it's ridiculous for you to pretend that Zelensky's "preconditions" are actually preconditions to anything. And even more ridiculous for him to pretend that.

> Wait, you're talking about conventional warfare after Ukraine joined NATO? That would trigger MAD, no?

Who knows? Like, I said, if Russia is suddenly getting attacked by the US from Ukraine, is Russia going to nuke its own border? Or the US - and trigger MAD for itself too? I don't know - this is brinkmanship. Maybe we'd see some other tactic - like economic sanctions intended to make Russia give up the nukes. Or attempts at political regime change.

> But Zelensky's preconditions are reasonable, to respect the sovereignty of their country, while Russia's aren't.

They're not especially reasonable when that's the point of contention. Especially, like I said, there is a history of talks and agreements going nowhere. So Putin leaves Ukraine - what would they talk about, and why wouldn't Zelensky just say no to everything?

> Ukraine did want to join NATO, but their membership action plan was declined in 2008 in Bucharest. Joining NATO is a long process and is not guaranteed, look at Sweden and Finland.

After the Iraq war, I don't think Putin wanted to take chances. Especially as the US was getting increasingly hostile towards him. And Ukraine's action plan being declined doesn't necessarily constitute principled objections.

> Cuban missile crisis is not analogous, since Russia sent nukes to US borders. There were no plans to do this in Ukraine, if NATO wanted to put nukes at Russia's borders, they could do it already in the Baltic countries.

They could have done the opposite. Ramp up conventional warfare, then what exactly is Russia going to do? Nuke Crimea, at a great cost to itself? Nuke the US and actually trigger MAD?

> Like every province, Crimeans voted on that exact question in a fair and open election. A majority voted to be part of Ukraine.

No, that didn't happen. The referendum was on the fate of the USSR. They weren't given a choice between being part of independent Ukraine and part of independent Russia. Since then there is a history of Crimea trying to get some form of independence or autonomy from Ukraine, and Ukraine suppressing it. Even before Putin became Russian president.

> He wouldn't have allowed democratic elections to occur, right?

He might have done the same thing as the US did in Iraq. Clear the field, then allow democratic (?) elections among what's left.

> Plus, I'm pretty sure he would've annexed parts of Ukraine that are currently being fought over.

He probably would have left it to referendums. I don't think he actually wanted to control a territory that's largely hostile to him.

> Russia said that Ukraine must acknowledge annexed territory as Russian, so they are not willing to negotiate.

You could say the same about Zelensky's preconditions - give us what we want, then we'll have peace talks.

> Ukraine was nowhere near to joining NATO, there were no plans of putting military bases in Crimea, and NATO wasn't going to attack Russia due to MAD.

Ukraine did intend to join NATO, specific plans don't take much time to make, and MAD surely never prevented tensions between countries. See: Cuban missile crisis.

> Without Western support, Ukraine would be taken over by Russia. I trust that you oppose that outcome, yes?

I don't wish it, that's for sure. I also don't think Putin intended to annex the entire Ukraine. He might have intended a regime change.

> Russia is the one who is not willing to negotiate, Zelensky was desperately trying to contact Putin to talk with him at the start of the war only to be ignored by him.

We're not at the start of the war, are we? Right now it's Zelensky that rules out peace talks. Plus it's not like things started at the start of the war. There was a long history of Minsk agreements going nowhere.

> NATO expansion is not a justification for the war, since NATO does not pose a threat to Russia.

NATO surely can be used as a shield for American military expansion. The US would be able to fill Crimea to the brim with military bases and missiles, and Russia would be unable to do anything up until the very moment of attack.

It's not true. The war wouldn't keep going without support from the West - and it's Zelensky who refuses peace talks.

Also it's the American military expansion in Europe that bothers Putin. It's not a random invasion. So the peace talks would need to involve the US and possibly their allies.

> So do you oppose the current conflict in Ukraine?

Yes, I oppose it. All involved parties need to stop the war and talk it out.

> I’m not sure if you answered my previous question, would you continue doing trade with Nazi Germany?

I already told you that you don't have a good reason to bring up Nazi Germany.

No, not really. It would only be hypocrisy if I opposed all wars, regardless of the causes, and, crucially, if I normally believed in boycotting people and companies for the actions of their government. Then it would be hypocrisy. The fallacy is you imposing a moral imperative on people.

But if we look at how people actually react to wars - America's wars or other recent wars - no, people generally didn't boycott American companies. So it's calling for total boycott of trade with Russia that's what's hypocritical. And it's driven largely by the US and allies in the first place, not "the world" in general.

Hypocrisy isn't even the worst aspect, I think. With Russia and China there's the added aspect of these countries being less democratic - yet the people being punished for the actions of the government. If you were a Russian who never voted for Putin, how would you feel if you suddenly were under more sanctions for being Russian than George W. Bush and Tony Blair for their role in the Iraq war?

> I have no issues with south/Latin American countries in the slightest. They just need to be realistic and realize that the United States just isn’t going to put up with Russia or China trying to establish a military stronghold down there.

Would you say the same to Ukraine then?

No, not really. It's actually a common fallacy - "You're posting this from an iPhone, therefore you can't possibly oppose anything Apple does".

That's just not how it works. Sometimes boycotts work, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they do harm. But I specifically brought up China because, while Apple is relatively popular on Reddit, China is less so. And yet it would be ridiculous to argue that every person with an iPhone supports everything the Chinese government does.

No, not really. It also benefits the other side. You can't possibly believe that neutrality is exactly as beneficial as enthusiastic support. It's just senseless.

Are you arguing that the US is justified in reacting to another country's missiles getting closer to its borders, but Russia isn't?

So what would have been the way to a lasting peace in Afghanistan - for Russia to arm the Taliban when the US was there? :)

More importantly, you can't act like the invasion is the only obstacle to a lasting peace in Ukraine. How about the majority ethnic Russian Crimea on one hand, and Ukraine aiming to be an ethnostate, suppressing other languages and cultures? What if many Crimeans don't want to be part of Ukraine?

Then of course I'd say the same thing. I don't think invasions are somehow OK if they don't result in annexations. More importantly, voluntary economic activity is self-justifying and mutually beneficial. When you boycott a country or a company, you're doing it to harm them, yes. Doesn't mean that when you're buying something from them, you're doing it to help them. When you're buying an iPhone, it's not an act of charity towards Apple (or China, where the phone is made).

If you think Nazi Germany was especially bad - and an appropriate comparison - just because it annexed other countries, that's laughable and entirely arbitrary on your part.

Godwin's law, eh? Would you even attempt to invoke this comparison with any of America's wars?

Russia surely allows grain exports from Ukraine, and exports grain, fertilizer etc - so it's certainly important for him, and the world to keep this going. Even the EU doesn't intentionally target this area with sanctions (though the overall climate still hampers trade).

And it seems like many people want him to "promote peace" by arming Ukraine. No, that's not how you promote peace.

It's certainly not the primary purpose of Brazil's economic activity to "fuel the war". And Brazil certainly isn't a colony of "imperialist Russia". Plus Brazil's trade with the US is much more significant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil#Exports_and_imports

So what you're saying makes sense only if you make any trade with Russia as intentional support for everything Russia is doing but don't apply this to the US for some reason. This angle surely didn't arise during America's wars. And it's largely the American empire that's behind the sanctions on the Russian economy in the first place. So they don't amount to "neutrality".

I don't see how refusing to support either side means they're fine with one imperialism, but not the other. Do you see an option for them to be even more "anti-imperialist"?