[diggan]

That sounds scarily familiar to how Russia sees Ukraine today, and I'm unable to see how it could justify what happened in the past or justify what is happening now.

From a HN commentator in 2054:

> I think Russia was very concerned at the time that Ukraine under Zelensky would become a client state or a vassal of the US. Russia still upholds the "No outsiders" Doctrine which states that any intervention in the politics of the Russian World by foreign powers is a threat to Russia. Russia does not want any foreign interference or potential military bases in its 'backyard'.

[SSJPython]

Yes, it's pretty much identical to Russia-Ukraine. And I'm not justifying it, I am just explaining how the US sees it.

There is no morality in geopolitics. In the anarchic international system, there is no global enforcement mechanism, so states will always try to maximize their security at the expense of others. In short, might makes right in this system.

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides

[keybored]

That’s right. It’s only us normal human beings that have an aversion to war and killing.

[IncreasePosts]

Basically everyone has an aversion to war and killing. Until something happens that they think is worth going to war for, or killing for.

[keybored]

The unnormal humans are the architects of these events who do it just for the sake of money and power.

[IncreasePosts]

Isn't that exactly what the poor 18 year old from Kentucky is doing when he signs up for the army?

[keybored]

That’s not a good way to get neither money nor power.

[diggan]

> And I'm not justifying it, I am just explaining how the US sees it.

Yeah, I guess it's a thin line between "providing neutral historical context and reasoning" and "implicitly suggesting that the reasoning makes the actions acceptable or understandable". I'll trust what you're saying though and assume you're not actually trying to justifying it.

> states will always try to maximize their security at the expense of others

I don't think this is true for every single country in the world, especially those more concerned with their own well-being above their "global security status". That's the kind of black and white view that leads to more division and separation rather than humans trying to work together.

[SSJPython]

> I don't think this is true for every single country in the world, especially those more concerned with their own well-being above their "global security status". That's the kind of black and white view that leads to more division and separation rather than humans trying to work together.

For some countries, maximizing their security simply means trying to survive and not get taken over. These are typically smaller countries such as Armenia. They can't afford to focus on their economic well-being or working with other nations if their existence is threatened. For other countries that are established powers, maximizing security can mean anything from securing the territory it currently holds (India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea) to expanding its territory (Russia, Azerbaijan) to getting or maintaining a sphere of influence (US, Russia, China).

[dtquad]

The "Russia is just defending their geographical sphere of interest" argument for Russia's invasion of Ukraine only comes from Western isolationists and pro-Russia activists.

The actual internal political communication within Russia makes it clear that they don't consider Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity as legitimate. That is why they want to annex Ukraine. Putin launched the invasion in a speech where called Ukraine a fake nation that shouldn't exist.

[jampekka]

And Bush launched the Iraq invasion on the totally false pretexts of WMD and 9/11 involvement.

The stated reasons for starting a war are rarely the true reasons. Although Putin did, among other "reasons", say NATO expansion is a critical factor.

[realpolitik123]

The key difference being the Cold War is over

But more importantly, from a "realpolitik" International Relations perspective, the biggest problem with the invasion of Ukraine is that Russia couldn't win it as swiftly as it believed it could. If they were not a paper tiger and had in fact succeeded in taking Kyiv shortly after the start of the conflict, the rest of the world would have had to accept it. Because they failed, they get the US and other Western allies supporting a resistance for the stated goal of defending Ukraine's sovereignty but for the true goal of not allowing Russia to grow stronger.

[freilanzer]

> If they were not a paper tiger and had in fact succeeded in taking Kyiv shortly after the start of the conflict, the rest of the world would have had to accept it.

Not at all true.

[realpolitik123]

Show me one instance in which a permanent member of the UN security council successfully invaded another country and suffered any real repercussion other than political backlash.

Downvoting me and saying "not true" doesn't make it less true.