How Russia will benefit from hunger in Global South

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

7 hours ago, Economy said:

I haven't disputed any of these things u said or disagreed with any of it neither have I excused any of Russia's actions or blamed any of these Nations u mentioned so ur clearly still missing my point completely.

 

So I will just leave it at that

You said

"That being said I do think it's a little more grey than just West is good and Russia is bad."

"I think the slippery slope is thinking our Nation's are always Infalable and do nothing wrong and think we never provoke others"

"In that sense NATO and the West have not always been perfect with diplomacy and the way the West at times has handled International conflicts can give non Westerners legitimate reasons to distrust that the West is a perfectly peaceful coalition that can be trusted to do right at all times".

Meaning you believe Russia doesn't trust NATO expanding into Eastern Europe because it sees it as a provocation. Which in itself places the blame both US and especially in said countries in the Eastern flank that wanted to join. Forgive me if I misunderstood, but this is the logical conclusion I draw from these sentences. 

[Economy 53,168]

9 hours ago, FfFfFfFF said:

 

Meaning you believe Russia doesn't trust NATO expanding into Eastern Europe because it sees it as a provocation. Which in itself places the blame both US and especially in said countries in the Eastern flank that wanted to join. Forgive me if I misunderstood, but this is the logical conclusion I draw from these sentences. 

I'm talking about everything combined. The way the West has handled conflicts with other Nations. U say that's not relevant to Russia but I disagree. If u see an entity dealing a certain way with others it's not unreasonable to project the potential they won't deal with u well either

 

The tone in which Presidents have spoken before, the failure to use as much de-escalation speech as possible etc

 

It's not just expanding East Word although that adds to it. It's everything

 

Again my point isn't that Russia has any justifiable reasons for doing this. Heck it's clearly not even just about NATO they obviously want land back into the Federation

 

All I'm saying is we in the West haven't always been perfect and in subtle ways you can aggravate mistrust. Can we at least acknowledged that? Anyone that can't even acknowledge that I think is far too brainwashed with patriotism that tends to biasely think of ourselves as Infalable and everyone else always the exclusive problem if u want my honest opinion

 

I'm not saying the blame is usually 50-50 in most conflicts whether it's personal between 2 people or diplomatically between 2 Nations. But it is rarely 100% and 0% either

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

I'm talking about everything combined. The way the West has handled conflicts with other Nations. U say that's not relevant to Russia but I disagree. If u see an entity dealing a certain way with others it's not unreasonable to project the potential they won't deal with u well either

 

The tone in which Presidents have spoken before, the failure to use as much de-escalation speech as possible etc

 

It's not just expanding East Word although that adds to it. It's everything

 

Again my point isn't that Russia has any justifiable reasons for doing this. Heck it's clearly not even just about NATO they obviously want land back into the Federation

 

All I'm saying is we in the West haven't always been perfect and in subtle ways you can aggravate mistrust. Can we at least acknowledged that? Anyone that can't even acknowledge that I think is far too brainwashed with patriotism that tends to biasely think of ourselves as Infalable and everyone else always the exclusive problem if u want my honest opinion

 

I'm not saying the blame is usually 50-50 in most conflicts whether it's personal between 2 people or diplomatically between 2 Nations. But it is rarely 100% and 0% either

So now you are saying you believe NATO eastern expansion also played a role. In reality, NATO expansion loosened Russia's grip on Eastern European countries that might have targeted the same way Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine were. Not to say, NATO expansion happened according to the sovereign will of the nations at Russia's periphery, so to claim it was a mistake or something that contributed to things the West did wrong is not right.

Also, all of this implies you think Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine (or Georgia, Moldova) if the West acted differentely in some ways. Which is clearly false, as Russia invaded Moldova in 1991, long before Iraq and Afganistan.

Russia was and remains an irredentist regime that seeks foreceful expansion, in the 90s, 2000s, 2010s and the 2020s. Russia also only understands the Language of  force and sees diplomacy as something unuseful that can only be used as pretence to find new concessions. You cannot negociate over something you don't have authority over - which is, another country's territory. As I said, my country doesn't claim northern Mozambique so we are not negociating under foreign assistance to get some concessions from it. Because this country is foreign to mine, and we have no business being there. The world doesn't own Russia a backyward outside of its territory.

[Economy 53,168]

47 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

 

Also, all of this implies you think Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine (or Georgia, Moldova) if the West acted differentely in some ways. Which is clearly false, as Russia invaded Moldova in 1991, long before Iraq and Afganistan.

 

I didn't say this at all nor do I think it. U think I'm implying more than I really am

 

49 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Russia was and remains an irredentist regime that seeks foreceful expansion, in the 90s, 2000s, 2010s and the 2020s. Russia also only understands the Language of  force and sees diplomacy as something unuseful that can only be used as pretence to find new concessions. 

It doesn't hurt to try first. In fact I don't ever recall the West trying de-escalation language with any Nation first. It always jumps to agressive talk immediately. Instantly fire with fire. 

 

51 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

. The world doesn't own Russia a backyward outside of its territory.

Obviously not. I never said they do

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

I didn't say this at all nor do I think it. U think I'm implying more than I really am

 

It doesn't hurt to try first. In fact I don't ever recall the West trying de-escalation language with any Nation first. It always jumps to agressive talk immediately. Instantly fire with fire. 

 

Obviously not. I never said they do

You said NATO expansion played a role into why Russia feels provoked. And I showed you how Russia invaded Moldova in 1991.

When the West barely had any interaction with the freshly formed Russian Federation. If you say there were things that provoked Russia, you say that if those things would didn't happen, Russia would not have invaded. 

What should NATO have said in February? To say straight up say Ukraine will never become a member? In handsight that may or may not prove to have been the right thing, but that would have been equal to recognizing Russia ownership of Ukrainian foreign affairs, aka an undermining of Ukraine's souverignity. This is the tactic: demand 100% of something you don't own and get 30% of it through negociations. 

Russia is the clear agressor and playing the both sides are right isn't giving anybody any service. Give Putin Ukraine and we will then ask for Poland, the Baltics and Moldova. Seeking the middle ground everytime can lead to damage.

[Economy 53,168]

57 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

You said NATO expansion played a role into why Russia feels provoked. And I showed you how Russia invaded Moldova in 1991.

When the West barely had any interaction with the freshly formed Russian Federation. If you say there were things that provoked Russia, you say that if those things would didn't happen, Russia would not have invaded. 

What should NATO have said in February? To say straight up say Ukraine will never become a member? In handsight that may or may not prove to have been the right thing, but that would have been equal to recognizing Russia ownership of Ukrainian foreign affairs, aka an undermining of Ukraine's souverignity. This is the tactic: demand 100% of something you don't own and get 30% of it through negociations. 

Russia is the clear agressor and playing the both sides are right isn't giving anybody any service. Give Putin Ukraine and we will then ask for Poland, the Baltics and Moldova. Seeking the middle ground everytime can lead to damage.

There's no middle ground. I didn't say anything that is a middle ground

 

And I didn't say the invasion would have been prevented. It's totally possible for someone to be 100% in the wrong but u still not have acted the best way u could have. And again I'm talking about NATO and the West history in general not just about Russia specifically

 

Ur responses seem to keep implying that I'm somehow excusing Russia or suggesting that words would have prevented this which for the millionth time I'm not saying any of that

 

U don't get what in saying cuz every single one of ur responses ur saying stuff I dont even disagree with. My comment was never "let's excuse Russia cuz if the West was less agressive this never woulda happened"

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

16 minutes ago, Economy said:

There's no middle ground. I didn't say anything that is a middle ground

 

And I didn't say the invasion would have been prevented. It's totally possible for someone to be 100% in the wrong but u still not have acted the best way u could have. And again I'm talking about NATO and the West history in general not just about Russia specifically

 

Ur responses seem to keep implying that I'm somehow excusing Russia or suggesting that words would have prevented this which for the millionth time I'm not saying any of that

 

U don't get what in saying cuz every single one of ur responses ur saying stuff I dont even disagree with.

You are a smart, pro-social user and we both probably generally like each other. So it's also clear to me you are trying to seem like we agree when we don't in order to move on from this conversation

But I can't say we agree only to call it a day. You said we should move on from the view that Russia is fully in the wrong, that NATO did things to provoke Russia (ie if those didn't happen Russia would have acted differently). I'm curious, to what extend would you say the Allies were at fault when Germany launched WW3? You said in any given conflict both sides are at fault in different degrees.

[Economy 53,168]

9 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

You are a smart, pro-social user and we both probably generally like each other. So it's also clear to me you are trying to seem like we agree when we don't in order to move on from this conversation

But I can't say we agree only to call it a day. You said we should move on from the view that Russia is fully in the wrong, that NATO did things to provoke Russia (ie if those didn't happen Russia would have acted differently). I'm curious, to what extend would you say the Allies were at fault when Germany launched WW3? You said in any given conflict both sides are at fault in different degrees.

Like I said, a side can be 100% in the wrong or at fault and the other side still be guilty of not being the best they could of been at de-escalation or provocation. Im not saying different sides are always both necessarily at fault for a conflict.

 

Ur still viewing my comments from a lens like I'm laying partial blame on both sides for all conflicts which I'm not

 

My point since the beggining has been about understanding the other point if view on why thoughts of mistrust may arise from things one side may do that isn't fully diplomatic or well done historically. That does not mean the other side isn't still at fault

 

Ur interpreting my comments a few degrees off here as if they are almost sympathetic to Russians or other regimes like them. Once again they are not

 

Basically in a nutshell I'm saying without ultimately having any of the blame you can still be guilty of doing things that in subtle ways make a distrust worse even if ur not at fault per say

 

As for WWII I'm not gonna comment as I'm not qualified. I only know about the war and events afterwards. I don't know enough details leading up to it

 

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Like I said, a side can be 100% in the wrong or at fault and the other side still be guilty of not being the best they could of been at de-escalation or provocation. Im not saying different sides are always both necessarily at fault for a conflict.

 

During our exchange you said the following: I do think it's a little more grey than just West is good and Russia is bad;                      I think the slippery slope is thinking we never provoke others;                      Is far too brainwashed with patriotism to biasely think of ourselves as Infalable and everyone else always the exclusive problem;                           the blame is rarely 100% and 0% in a conflict

Moreover, the sentence in my first reply that started our conversation is This is important also because leftist spheres in US and abroad are already blaiming NATO and Ukraine instead of Russia. Given that you quoted me, it's fair to say you do not completely agree with it.

This is not me misinterpreting what you say, these are your ideas and it's in your replies that you believe that Russia is not 100% wrong. 

1 hour ago, Economy said:

 

My point since the beggining has been about understanding the other point if view on why thoughts of mistrust may arise from things one side may do that isn't fully diplomatic or well done historically. That does not mean the other side isn't still at fault

 

You are speaking in general terms about a specific issue. Russia is not launching the war because of thoughts of mistrust. Russia is launching the war because of imperialism, the desire to expand its sphere of influence, to keep the former ex-Soviet space in check, counter American influence and undermine the sovereignty of the ex-communist nations. 

I gave you an exemple: in 1991 Russia invaded Moldova. You said NATO didn't do its best when it comes to negociations and de-escaladation, what I am showing to you is that Russia attacks when it feels like it. In 1991 Russia, as a new republic, had basicaly no relations with ''The West''.

The topic in this conversation is the Ukraine crisis, so even though you are speaking about a general, resonable perspective on how foreign relations might work, you believe it applies to the specific instance of Ukraine.

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Like I said, a side can be 100% in the wrong or at fault and the other side still be guilty of not being the best they could of been at de-escalation or provocation.

 

You are talking about NATO missing the mark when it comes to negociations. We had some very public negociation attempts at the forefront of the news in February, my question is, what NATO/Ukraine should have done or said then? 

[Economy 53,168]

26 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

During our exchange you said the following: I do think it's a little more grey than just West is good and Russia is bad;                      I think the slippery slope is thinking we never provoke others;                      Is far too brainwashed with patriotism to biasely think of ourselves as Infalable and everyone else always the exclusive problem;                           the blame is rarely 100% and 0% in a conflict

Moreover, the sentence in my first reply that started our conversation is This is important also because leftist spheres in US and abroad are already blaiming NATO and Ukraine instead of Russia. Given that you quoted me, it's fair to say you do not completely agree with it.

This is not me misinterpreting what you say, these are your ideas and it's in your replies that you believe that Russia is not 100% wrong. 

You are speaking in general terms about a specific issue. Russia is not launching the war because of thoughts of mistrust. Russia is launching the war because of imperialism, the desire to expand its sphere of influence, to keep the former ex-Soviet space in check, counter American influence and undermine the sovereignty of the ex-communist nations. 

I gave you an exemple: in 1991 Russia invaded Moldova. You said NATO didn't do its best when it comes to negociations and de-escaladation, what I am showing to you is that Russia attacks when it feels like it. In 1991 Russia, as a new republic, had basicaly no relations with ''The West''.

The topic in this conversation is the Ukraine crisis, so even though you are speaking about a general, resonable perspective on how foreign relations might work, you believe it applies to the specific instance of Ukraine.

You are talking about NATO missing the mark when it comes to negociations. We had some very public negociation attempts at the forefront of the news in February, my question is, what NATO/Ukraine should have done or said then? 

The fact that ur bringing up the 100% vs 0% quote proves to me ur missing my mark there as I was speaking from 2 different angles and contexts. One was about being fully accountable for ur actions as there is no excuse or legitimate reason for taking an action so it's all on you. The part about it being more grey was me talking about how u conduct urself can provocate others. Not the same thing

 

To illustrate my point. A couple fights frequently and both have a tendency to raise their voices too quickly. One day a man looses control over a small thing after already being irritated and he beats the sh*t out of his gf. Who is at fault? Obviously 100% of the blame goes to the boyfriend for the particular situation. He had no reason to lash out or abuse his gf. He was not defending himself and that disproportionate action obviously had no real merit or excusability, the fact that she rais d her voice still doesn't excuse anything. He's fully the guilty one for beating her... Yet the girlfriends tendencies to raise her voice too quickly and be agressive may already set a mood and subtle provokation that does not help the situation and maybe could of been de-escalated if she were calm. Does that excuse anything? Obviously not, he is still guilty and at fault for lashing out. But there is a subtle impact the partner can still have on the situation

 

That's the point I been trying to get at. Russia is guilty. We don't need to dispute that. But I'm saying West and NATO have failed to try to be de-escalators and at times we've made situations worse when we've gotten involved. It still doesn't make us guilty for Russia's actions or any other regime but it does make us guilty of reacting in ways that make trust with us less than stellar and not totally hard to understand from non Western Nations perspective. If we are someone's adversaries (like Russia) those failures can add just a little more flame to international disputes even if they weren't the cause of it. And in that sense we have not always been all that great

 

That's been my point all along I'm not sure how much more clear I can make what I'm trying to say

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

15 minutes ago, Economy said:

The fact that ur bringing up the 100% vs 0% quote proves to me ur missing my mark there as I was speaking from 2 different angles and contexts.

So you think in a conflict blame can rarely be 100% and 0% in some contexts, but in others it can? You either believe this or not, I am not fully understanding how it can relate to contexts.

15 minutes ago, Economy said:

 The part about it being more grey was me talking about how u conduct urself can provocate others. Not the same thing

 

But we have a conversation about the Ukraine crisis. I don't want to sound insulting (btw I obviously hope we continue to interact on the forum, and we're on good terms), but I feel like you are kinda backtracking.

15 minutes ago, Economy said:

 

To illustrate my point. A couple fights frequently and both have a tendency to raise their voices too quickly. One day a man looses control over a small thing after already being irritated and he beats the sh*t out of his gf. Who is at fault? Obviously 100% of the blame goes to the boyfriend for the particular situation. He had no reason to lash out or abuse his gf. He was not defending himself and that disproportionate action obviously had no real merit or excusability. He's the guilty one... Yet the girlfriends tendencies to raise her voice too quickly and be agressive may already set a mood and subtle provokation that does not help the situation and maybe could of been de-escalated if she were calm. Does that excuse anything? Obviously not, he is still guilty and at fault for lashing out. But there is a subtle impact the partner can still have on the situation

 

Or the girl can be stabbed by a man randomly. The man may have a sadistic phantasy, may be schizophrenic, insane. If he wants to kill her, he will. Even if the girl didn't raise her voice, she would end up dead regardless.

[Economy 53,168]

1 minute ago, FfFfFfFF said:

So you think in a conflict blame can rarely be 100% and 0% in some contexts, but in others it can? You either believe this or not, I am not fully understanding how it can relate to contexts.

But we have a conversation about the Ukraine crisis. I don't want to sound insulting (btw I obviously hope we continue to interact on the forum, and we're on good terms), but I feel like you are kinda backtracking.

Or the girl can be stabbed by a man randomly. The man may have a sadistic phantasy, may be schizophrenic, insane. If he wants to kill her, he will. Even if the girl didn't raise her voice, she would end up dead regardless.

I'm not backtracking my opinion is still the same. Im either not explaining myself well enough or u just don't get the distinction I was trying to make. I'm saying one party can be fully at fault but the other still be guilty of contributing to tension in some way even if ur not at fault for an occurence

 

As for the last part, yeah that's a possible scenario but the scenario I was using for my illustration was of a man that lost control in his anger not a guy who has a sadistic fantasy. People like that exist but it would be irrelevant to my point

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

I'm not backtracking my opinion is still the same. Im either not explaining myself well enough or u just don't get the distinction I was trying to make. I'm saying one party can be fully at fault but the other still be guilty of contributing to tension in some way even if ur not at fault for an occurence

 

As for the last part, yeah that's a possible scenario but the scenario I was using for my illustration was of a man that lost control in his anger not a guy who has a sadistic fantasy. People like that exist but it would be irrelevant to my point

I like the allegory, basically the man-Russia, Ukraine-the woman and the stabbing-the invasion, right? In your story the woman does X, and she gets stabbed. But if the man has the goal of "During my lifetime I will eventually stab the girl (to form my empire)", she will get stab regardless. Which is the point I am making, Russia is an irredentist regime that seeks to vassalize its neighbouring countries. With or without provocations, Russia tries to seize its neighbourgs because it feels entitled their territory.