Ukraine’s Forces and Firepower Are Misallocated, U.S. Officials Say - eviltoast
  • MultigrainCerealista [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I see a lot of geopolitical calculus in your response - to what extent is the influence of the US over Europe and European markets limited by a Russian victory. You present something of a US-centric point of view but sure it’s a valid one. If Russia wins then yes likely the geopolitical influence of the USA will be knocked back to where it was in the 1980s with true multipolar politics, and it’s also true that if Europe wasn’t sanctioning Russian energy then they’d likely be buying that much cheaper energy, thereby reducing the geopolitical influence of the USA over Europe.

    So I think I agree with most of what you say. But your perspective leaves something very important out of the equation:

    Where does the will of the people who live in Donbas and Lubansk and Crimea factor into your math? Do we respect their right to self-determination? If not, why not?

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well my answer was in reference to why it was in the US’ interest to pump money into Ukraine so it will invariably be US centric. I’m not American by the way.

      The right of self-determination is important but it is not sacrosanct and unassailable. Catalonia, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Quebec, Åland, Greenland - there are many areas around the world, where there is disagreement about where a region should belong. These are hard problems to solve, in some cases there’s been votes, in some places violent, minority resistance movements have arisen.

      In no case has a region unilaterally declared independence and been invaded by a large neighbour. This just isn’t how we should play.

      So if you’re hoping to use “the right to self-determination” as a justification for Russia’s actions, then I definitely reject that argument.