|
|
|
|
|
by JumpCrisscross
901 days ago
|
|
> Whether that justifies Russia invading parts of Ukraine is the debatable part No it isn’t? When America invaded Vietnam to keep it from going communist, that didn’t make Ho Chi Minh and his backers war mongerers. And it didn’t mean that we were provoked. We went to war to achieve the political objective of containing communism. We were the aggressors. With Ukraine, Russia’s political objectives were unclear. The stated ones, about NATO expansion, have backfired. But just because Moscow was stupid doesn’t also mean it was absolutely the aggressor. |
|
I dont think you can stake this claim without understanding the objectives, the resolution of the war, and especially exploring the counterfactual from the Russian perspective.
It is easy to sit and the west and imagine that Russia regrets its actions deep down, but as bad as this outcome is, I think you have to ask if there are even worse outcomes that were considered from inaction.
This is a separate question from those about morality or aggressors, but one of realpolitik incentives.
Conversely, you can ask the same questions about the US failed wars in Vietnam and the middle east. Obviously many or most objectives were not met, but were enough met to better the counterfactual?