Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Josh]

Moldova is not in a Russian sphere of influence and is in intense conflict with Russia, including hosting a frozen conflict zone. Moldova is mostly closely related to Romania in terms of things like language.

There are actual Russian troops occupying the eastern 1/3 of Moldova.

On 25 February 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Moldovan chemical tanker MV Millennial Spirit, which was navigating through the Black Sea at the time, was shelled by Russian military forces.

Moldovan-Russian relations are not particularly warm.

As for Cuba and the western hemisphere? Cuba is a whole topic in itself. The better comparison for Cuba is probably Costa Rica than Haiti. In any event, the three countries in the western hemisphere that are most closely aligned with Russia are Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. I don't think any of them are any great models for either democracy or economic development.

It is obvious that being a client state is not a good model for democracy or economic development. That goes to client states of the past U.S.S.R. and the present-day U.S.A. (very few people think present-day Afghanistan is a good model for democracy or economic development, for example)

[Ken]

Moldova is not in a Russian sphere of influence and is in intense conflict with Russia, including hosting a frozen conflict zone. Moldova is mostly closely related to Romania in terms of things like language.

There are actual Russian troops occupying the eastern 1/3 of Moldova.

On 25 February 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Moldovan chemical tanker MV Millennial Spirit, which was navigating through the Black Sea at the time, was shelled by Russian military forces.

Moldovan-Russian relations are not particularly warm.

As for Cuba and the western hemisphere? Cuba is a whole topic in itself. The better comparison for Cuba is probably Costa Rica than Haiti. In any event, the three countries in the western hemisphere that are most closely aligned with Russia are Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. I don't think any of them are any great models for either democracy or economic development.

It is obvious that being a client state is not a good model for democracy or economic development. That goes to client states of the past U.S.S.R. and the present-day U.S.A. (very few people think present-day Afghanistan is a good model for democracy or economic development, for example)

Moldova is the perfect example of what it means to be part of the Russian sphere of influence. It is an abusive relationship just like a wife who is in an abusive relationship with a violent husband. It is still a relationship but not a pleasant one.

The Moldovans are experiencing what it means to be within the Russian sphere. It means occupying troops. It means you get your ships or cities shelled. It means the Russians intervene in your politics and try to install corrupt autocratic dictators. Just ask the Belarussians, the Georgians, the Armenians, the Kazaks, the Chechens, and now the Ukrainians.

I will be the first to admit that being a US client state is often not a good deal for the people involved. I worked for years in Guatemala after all. And my wife is from Chile. But people should have the right to determine their own future. We can always compare neighboring countries if we want to do direct comparisons.

Cuba vs Puerto Rico
Nicaragua vs Costa Rica
Venezuela vs Colombia

Those would be the three best comparisons between countries within the Russian sphere and neighboring countries within the Russian sphere.

Or you can compare Poland to Belarus, Lithuania to Kaliningrad, Karelia vs Finland, and so forth.

Afghanistan is a country we never had any business being in. We certainly made a mess of things. But I'm not sure it is necessarily a better place now that we are gone and the Taliban have taken over.

[Josh]

Ken,

You do know that I'm not some kind of Russian ambassador arguing for why Russia should take over the world, right? The word realpolitik might be one for you to get acquainted with.

[Ken]

Ken,

You do know that I'm not some kind of Russian ambassador arguing for why Russia should take over the world, right? The word realpolitik might be one for you to get acquainted with.

Sure. Real politik suggests that the west should push back strongly and forcefully against Russian expansionism. Which is exactly what is happening.

There are basically two possible outcomes to this war.

Either the Russians made a huge mistake by resorting to war in Ukraine and will lose economically and politically even if they manage to squeeze out a pyrrhic victory in Ukraine. They will lose because their military will bleed in Ukraine and their economy will atrophy in the face of western sanctions and their geopolitical position will worsen in the face of a rejuvenated NATO and western alliance and countries like Finland, Sweden, Germany, Poland, etc. strengthening their military postures and alliances.

Or the Russians will have made a huge gamble and will win in Ukraine if the Ukrainians fold and the west more or less washes its hands of the whole affair as they did with Crimea in 2014. And Russia will treat such a victory as further proof of Putin's "genius" which will further solidify his power. And such a result will encourage other military adventures both by Russia but also by other countries looking to follow its example. Just as happened in Europe in 1939 when the west appeased Hitler and encouraged similar adventurism beyond the Sudetenland, Austria, and the Rhineland.

Which path this war takes depends both on the Ukrainians and on the response by the west. My guess is that the first outcome is more likely. Because the west seems more unified now than at any point since perhaps the Berlin Airlift. And the Russian military looks to be far weaker and more corrupt than anyone knew (even Putin). But I don't know how this will all end any more than anyone else does.

I'm not personally against Russia. But I do prefer to live in a world in which military aggression is a FAILED policy, not a WINNING policy. And a world in which nations settle their disputes peacefully. So for that reason and that reason alone I favor an outcome in which Russia's resort to military aggression does not succeed.

[Szdfan]

Realpolitik doesn’t mean that the most powerful country can do whatever it wants with its neighbors without consequences. Other countries can resist.

Realpolitik states that policy and decisions should be based on strategy rather than moral or ideological considerations. In terms of realpolitik, it’s not in the West’s best interests for Russia to invade its neighbors, especially Ukraine.

[Josh]

Realpolitik doesn’t mean that the most powerful country can do whatever it wants with its neighbors without consequences. Other countries can resist.

Realpolitik states that policy and decisions should be based on strategy rather than moral or ideological considerations. In terms of realpolitik, it’s not in the West’s best interests for Russia to invade its neighbors, especially Ukraine.

It’s also not in our best interest to start a hot war with Russia.

[Josh]

Ken,

You do know that I'm not some kind of Russian ambassador arguing for why Russia should take over the world, right? The word realpolitik might be one for you to get acquainted with.

Sure. Real politik suggests that the west should push back strongly and forcefully against Russian expansionism. Which is exactly what is happening.

There are basically two possible outcomes to this war.

Either the Russians made a huge mistake by resorting to war in Ukraine and will lose economically and politically even if they manage to squeeze out a pyrrhic victory in Ukraine. They will lose because their military will bleed in Ukraine and their economy will atrophy in the face of western sanctions and their geopolitical position will worsen in the face of a rejuvenated NATO and western alliance and countries like Finland, Sweden, Germany, Poland, etc. strengthening their military postures and alliances.

Or the Russians will have made a huge gamble and will win in Ukraine if the Ukrainians fold and the west more or less washes its hands of the whole affair as they did with Crimea in 2014. And Russia will treat such a victory as further proof of Putin's "genius" which will further solidify his power. And such a result will encourage other military adventures both by Russia but also by other countries looking to follow its example. Just as happened in Europe in 1939 when the west appeased Hitler and encouraged similar adventurism beyond the Sudetenland, Austria, and the Rhineland.

Which path this war takes depends both on the Ukrainians and on the response by the west. My guess is that the first outcome is more likely. Because the west seems more unified now than at any point since perhaps the Berlin Airlift. And the Russian military looks to be far weaker and more corrupt than anyone knew (even Putin). But I don't know how this will all end any more than anyone else does.

I'm not personally against Russia. But I do prefer to live in a world in which military aggression is a FAILED policy, not a WINNING policy. And a world in which nations settle their disputes peacefully. So for that reason and that reason alone I favor an outcome in which Russia's resort to military aggression does not succeed.

We live in a world where American military aggression is a “WINNING” policy. Sorry, Ken. We don’t live in your ideal world.

I don’t think America could decisively win a war with a great power right now either.

[temporal1]

Realpolitik doesn’t mean that the most powerful country can do whatever it wants with its neighbors without consequences.
Other countries can resist.

Realpolitik states that policy and decisions should be based on strategy rather than moral or ideological considerations.
In terms of realpolitik, it’s not in the West’s best interests for Russia to invade its neighbors, especially Ukraine.

Do you agree? - Russia acted, that can’t be changed. There is choice in response.

1) What other country should Russia have invaded?
2) What do you propose as response to Russia in Ukraine?

[temporal1]

i do not watch the Oscars.
this morning, the internet is blowing up.

Chris Rock was physically attacked. He did not fight back. Not even verbally.

These are 2 sinful men, who are also talented. i appreciate their talents. i grieve their sinfulness.
Chris Rock did not return fire for fire. Sadly, his name, his choice is hardly mentioned, the perp’s name is everywhere.

“Y’all Ghetto” / Busyblu


This is about how personal choice can work to deescalate violence (definitely for Christians).
But, here are sinful people, existing in a sinful world, recognizing the value of turning the other cheek.

i like Chris Rock. i don’t like all his work. i don’t follow him. i pray for his conversion. his response last night encourages me.
i’m sorry for Mr Smith. evidently, he has a lot of problems, the least of which is Chris Rock.

Ukraine was hit. Now what should they do? This is the question. How to respond?

[Szdfan]

Realpolitik doesn’t mean that the most powerful country can do whatever it wants with its neighbors without consequences.
Other countries can resist.

Realpolitik states that policy and decisions should be based on strategy rather than moral or ideological considerations.
In terms of realpolitik, it’s not in the West’s best interests for Russia to invade its neighbors, especially Ukraine.

Do you agree? - Russia acted, that can’t be changed. There is choice in response.

1) What other country should Russia have invaded?
2) What do you propose as response to Russia in Ukraine?

I'm not sure I understand the questions. What's currently happening IS a response. I think it's acceptable for the West to send humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. I think it's acceptable to make Russia pay a price for its actions through sanctions. I think it's acceptable for the Ukrainians to defend themselves

1) Russia shouldn't invade any countries.
2) I think the current response is appropriate. I don't think it's ideal, but I think it's appropriate.