[chelical]

It makes sense to punish Russia in the same vein we punished the citizens of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Putin was legitimately elected even if there were discrepancies, he's still extremely popular. The war has elevated his approval within Russia.

The rest of this post operates under the premise that Ukrainians wanting to be a part of the EU/NATO was manipulated by the West. Even if that were the case, the invasion and the ongoing war crimes are committed by Russia.

[blub]

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lost a war and they were punished by the victors. Makes sense and is a well established pattern.

Russia is in a war with Ukraine and it’s getting punished by… the US. Well, technically US allies are also involved but with different degrees of enthusiasm.

This one seems much more arbitrary. The idea that the US is getting involved because of the war crimes doesn’t hold water either, because the US is also supporting perpetrators of war crimes in other conflicts.

The more likely explanation is that the US wants to hurt Russia and NATO & co are tagging along. Anything which hurts Russia is fair game, including hurting citizens, companies, etc. Because that sounds a bit nasty, it’s better to express it as punishment for supporting Putin.

[trasz]

No, Russia is also being punished by the victors, in this case by Ukraine. US is secondary here: they are providing help to Ukraine, like other western (and even not so western) countries. Anything that hurts Russia is fair game, because that's how war works. It's not just in the interests of US, it's in everyone's interests, in particular for countries bordering with Russia.

[blub]

First of all, the destruction of property, the deaths and the displacement of millions of people that Ukraine’s suffering is certainly not winning. They’re also not punishing Russia, as they lack the capability of doing so. They’re fighting for survival.

The US is contrary to what you’ve said essential to this conflict. Without the US, Ukraine would already have a new pro-Russia president and the EU would have folded like a wet towel.

Finally, “everyone” is not really everyone: it’s the US and allies. Countries that are bordering Russia like China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan or Belarus don’t necessarily share those interests or have opposite interests.

[trasz]

Russian losses are several times higher, even without taking into account the money and property confiscated as part of sanctions. And the difference will only grow: Ukraine can be rebuilt, especially with all that Russian money. Russia won’t, simply because there is no reason for anyone to allow for this to happen: the only useful thing Russia got to offer is resources, and they can be obtained much cheaper if Russia is kept under control.

Yes, it is true that without US Ukraine maybe wouldn’t be able to defend. We know what would happen: mass genocide. Russians already demonstrated that in Bucha, Mariupol and others.

As for “everyone”: no, I mean literally everyone. Kazakhstan is leaving Russian “economic union”. China declines to buy from Russia, because that market is worthless and the risk doesn’t justify the price drop for Russian resources.

[blub]

Ukraine will take decades to recover unless they receive massive economical aid from the EU or US. Right now they say they will provide that help, but at least in the case of the EU I don’t see how that’s possible given the big economical and social problems inside the bloc. And in the US it’s not clear how the next elections will turn out and what kind of policies will be implemented.

Anyway your key point was that they’re the victors when they’re clearly not. Even if Russia completely pulled out tomorrow they’d have suffered incredible losses.

[trasz]

Russian frozen reserves were what, 200 billion? Passing it to Ukraine shouldn’t strain EU or US budgets.

As for losses - in war the victor always suffers some losses. The point is: Ukraine will survive this, Russia probably won’t.

[infamia]

> The more likely explanation is that the US wants to hurt Russia and NATO & co are tagging along.

Europe was out in front of everyone issuing sanctions before the US was able to come up with anything. All of Europe was singing the same tune of it's own accord. Watch Prime Minister's Questions (UK) and you'll see all the houses are united in a way I've never seen before. They're all trying to one up each another in proposing sanctions against Russia and the oligarchs. Trying to pawn this off as something the U.S. has somehow architected the almost unprecedented unity you're seeing across Europe beggars belief. It was Putin (not the U.S.) who talked the Fins and Swedes into applying to NATO. Putin is also the reason why Europe is arrayed against him in so many areas. Sadly, the Russian people are suffering for Putin's colossal blunder.

[blub]

Sanctioning and sending weapons has become a (dangerous) game of one-upmanship. But before it reached this point, Europe was very much split on both because it can’t stand up to Russia militarily and was also cautious about hurting Russia economically because that implied hurting itself. Many European countries also had and have connections to Russia.

The US was preparing sanctions around the use of the USD and SWIFT and around Nordstream 2 (despite what Germany might have wanted) in December 2021. And it’s the US which have set a goal beyond helping Ukraine of “weakening Russia”. I.e. more sanctions, more weapons, less possibility for negotiation.

The sanctions game certainly has a life of its own now, especially as Russia’s military stumbled, but I don’t believe it would have reached this intensity without motivation from the US. And who knows what diplomacy could have achieved if given a chance instead of continuous escalation.

[infamia]

> The sanctions game certainly has a life of its own now, especially as Russia’s military stumbled, but I don’t believe it would have reached this intensity without motivation from the US. And who knows what diplomacy could have achieved if given a chance instead of continuous escalation.

Russia had a golden opportunity to stop the invasion before it began when Zelensky indicated that he was willing to forgo NATO membership and keep Ukraine neutral. That was really the only window, which Putin decided to ignore and invade. Almost from the moment the bombs started dropping on Kyiv and elsewhere, the window had closed. Europe has been driving the diplomatic, sanctions, and military aid the entire time, and the U.S. has been following their lead. Putin invaded Ukraine and made Europeans and Scandinavian countries question their economic and national security with his aims of reconstituting the Warsaw Pact. Putin bet big, doubled down, and it blew up in his face for once. The U.S. has been trying to convince Europe to ditch Nordstream 2 for years spanning multiple Presidents and gained absolutely zero traction. I don't see how this supposedly moved the needle in any appreciable way.

[blub]

Disagree on the US following the EU lead. Yes, the EU sanctions have perhaps more bite because of closer relations to Russia, but the EU required a lot of convincing and internal discussions to reach this point. There are important differences of opinion within the EU on how to handle Russia, whereas the US is fully behind its current course.

The seeds of today’s conflict had been planted one by one in the past 22 years and even beyond. What started as a an ambitious goal of an undivided Europe from Vancouver to Vladivostok ended because of inertia, decisions with unforseen consequencss and a level of mistrust into stark divisions between Russia on one side and the EU and US on the other.

This was not inevitable and indeed not the intention. 2011-2012 and the Western support for anti-government and anti-Putin protests in Russia marked a sharp deterioration of relations and the 2014 Maidan uprising, annexation of Crimea and Donbass war cemented the course we see today.

That the president of Ukraine indicated his willingness to forego NATO membership did nothing to change the above. Ukraine was training with NATO, receiving support and fighting an indirect war with Russia, so it seems unlikely that the words of the president were given much weight in Russia.