If the threat model is to protect against an overt military invasion by the US, geographical features aren't going to matter much either.
Furthermore, national borders do seem to matter very much to many people. Europeans widely condemned the Iraq war, because they saw through its false pretenses. And the borders we're talking about are shared with Europeans.
But regardless, the countries the US has invaded still have intact borders! The US didn't annex part of Iraq to create a new US territory or carve off a chunk to give to Saudi Arabia. Rather it changed out the government wholesale while leaving the nominal country intact. Despite its shortcomings, this is a paradigm that helps these disputes converge over time. "Iraq" is now just a part of the US economic empire, regardless of the immoral actions leading to that. It's not right in the sense that it rewards the aggression, but it is right in the sense that it provides more civilian stability.
If Putin were still just playing the covert/political influence game, most people wouldn't be concerned. He did that, and lost hard. He then tried the surgical strike to change out the government, and lost hard. Since he's a loser by current conventions, he flipped the table and descended into WWII-style razing of civilian infrastructure, exterminating the population, and conquering land area. Then he throws out the justification that other countries might engage in the same, even though nobody has. That is what is grossly unacceptable, and needs to be stamped down hard if we want our era of relative peace to continue.
(Also, given that Putin speaks to play a situation rather than promote consistent ideals, what he's happened to say isn't really relevant)
>If the threat model is to protect against an overt military invasion by the US, geographical features aren't going to matter much either.
The US made the mistake of thinking that geographical features didn't pose them a problem in Afghanistan.
Then they realized how incredibly frail their supply chains could be when geography wasnt in their favor.
That mistake cost trillions.
>But regardless, the countries the US has invaded still have intact borders!
This is the most absurd excuse for American imperialism I think I've ever heard.
>Then he throws out the justification that other countries might engage in the same, even though nobody has.
So, Libya happened. America wants Russia to end up like Libya. Russia doesnt want to end up like Libya, so they invaded Ukraine.
>That is what is grossly unacceptable, and needs to be stamped down hard if we want our era of relative peace to continue.
I mean, if you excuse the wanton destruction of Libya by saying "hey at its a failed state but it has intact borders!" then you were basically begging for Ukraine to be invaded.
Sure, geography matters when your country has so little development that retreating to the mountains is a successful strategy. But that doesn't really say much about a developed country that would suffer significant losses by retreating to natural cover.
> This is the most absurd excuse for American imperialism I think I've ever heard.
I'm not excusing American imperialism. I am against American imperialism - note how I readily described Iraq as becoming part of the US empire, as opposed to the usual rejection of the idea that the US is an empire. However I am against Russian imperialism as well, and this situation is rooted in Russian imperialism.
> So, America wants Russia to end up like Libya. Russia doesnt want to end up like Libya.
Once again you're trying to justify offensive conquest by invoking the necessity of defense. If Russia was/is going to "end up like Libya", this has only been made more likely by Russia invading its neighbor.
It more than matters. It dictates the very shape of humanity.
>But that doesn't really say much about a developed country
It matters as much to developed countries as it does to non developed. Switzerland didn't get wealthy by being easy to invade.
>However I am against Russian imperialism as well, and this situation is rooted in Russian imperialism.
Realistically treating Russian defense concerns as a sheer irrelevance is helping to perpetuate this war.
We can be aggressive imperialists or we can stay out of their neighborhood but we can't be both and not provoke a reaction. You can condemn Russian imperialism all you like but if you threaten the bear it will still claw your eyes out.
>Once again you're trying to justify offensive conquest by invoking the necessity of defense. If Russia was/is going to "end up like Libya", this has only been made more likely by Russia invading its neighbor.
The scary part is that this just isnt true. Control over Sevastopol and the land bridge to crimea puts them in a much better defensive position than before.
Destroying western Ukraine ("demilitarising") as a viable functioning state also renders it much less useful to the west, both as a partner and as a means of threatening Russia, turning it into an expensive and dangerous liability.
> Switzerland didn't get wealthy by being easy to invade.
Yeah, back before modern missiles, satellites, fighter jets, and drones. Back when the physical storage of gold was economically significant. Back before technological infrastructure started creating outsized productivity. In the modern day, what actually creates and protects Switzerland's way of life is their economic and political connections to their neighbors.
> We can be aggressive imperialists
Repeat after me: Ukraine wanting to join the US economic empire is not aggression. Ukraine wanting to join NATO to protect themselves from Russia is not aggression. Now write it on the blackboard 100 times.
> if you threaten the bear it will still claw your eyes out
More like when the bear occasionally comes out of the woods and wanders into yards, it will be tolerated. When the bear starts routinely posing a danger to humans, the bear will be shot.
> Destroying western Ukraine ("demilitarising") as a viable functioning state also renders it much less useful to the west
I agree this has become their open goal. Russia failed at stealing it, so they'll try to destroy it and kill everyone living there. Ultimately the more Russia destroys, the larger Ukraine's IMF loans and other foreign indebtedness will be. That indeed disgusts me, but not as much as genocide.
Furthermore, national borders do seem to matter very much to many people. Europeans widely condemned the Iraq war, because they saw through its false pretenses. And the borders we're talking about are shared with Europeans.
But regardless, the countries the US has invaded still have intact borders! The US didn't annex part of Iraq to create a new US territory or carve off a chunk to give to Saudi Arabia. Rather it changed out the government wholesale while leaving the nominal country intact. Despite its shortcomings, this is a paradigm that helps these disputes converge over time. "Iraq" is now just a part of the US economic empire, regardless of the immoral actions leading to that. It's not right in the sense that it rewards the aggression, but it is right in the sense that it provides more civilian stability.
If Putin were still just playing the covert/political influence game, most people wouldn't be concerned. He did that, and lost hard. He then tried the surgical strike to change out the government, and lost hard. Since he's a loser by current conventions, he flipped the table and descended into WWII-style razing of civilian infrastructure, exterminating the population, and conquering land area. Then he throws out the justification that other countries might engage in the same, even though nobody has. That is what is grossly unacceptable, and needs to be stamped down hard if we want our era of relative peace to continue.
(Also, given that Putin speaks to play a situation rather than promote consistent ideals, what he's happened to say isn't really relevant)