comment: >
  
  Yes but Russia bad and we're all armchair experts posting from squeaky clean countries that are only led by innocent rational actors. Like America
context: Russia is up for grabs after this, and China will be doing the grabbing >
  
  "Grab them by the Siberia."
  :P >
  
  Not exactly. But China is watching the Csto dissolve and are eyeing up the former Soviet Asian republics and are rubbing their hands. They won’t invade an annex, they’ll just turn them into client states. >
  
  China visited Armenia recently
  It's BRI project is going right through Russia's old sphere >
  
  China, India, and Turkey are vultures circling. >
  
  Imperialism: 2023 Eastern Style 👈😎👉 >
  
  They aren’t going to invade or annex anyone. But many former Soviet republics of the Balkans, Caucasus, and Central Asia are anxious to get out from under Putin’s thumb and with all Ukraine has cost him, they see a chance-and other hungry parties see their opportunity. Turkey has been flexing their diplomatic clout over Sweden and Finland joining nato, over Cyprus, and over Syria. >
  
  
  But many former Soviet republics of the Balkans
  
  At the risk of being "that guy", no Balkan state was ever a member of the USSR but your point still largely stands. All Balkan countries are in NATO bar Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia >
  
  Would you consider Moldova to be "Balkans?" I could see it being argued as such. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  "There is still the same expectation that he can be dealt with," Ukraine's ambassador to the U.K., Vadym Prystaiko, told Newsweek in an interview at Kyiv's embassy in London, just hours before Putin announced a unilateral 36-hour ceasefire-rejected by Ukraine-to mark Orthodox Christmas, which his forces then repeatedly violated.
  "He's still perceived as the reasonable guy to talk to because people want to believe that he's a reasonable guy," Prystaiko said.
  Prystaiko-who led the Ukrainian delegation in negotiating the Minsk agreements, which paused fighting in the east of Ukraine following Russia's 2014 invasion but ultimately failed to peacefully resolve the conflict-said there is no indication Putin is ready to compromise, and little hope he would honor anything agreed in future talks.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Prystaiko^#1 Putin^#2 Russian^#3 Ukrainian^#4 Russia^#5 >
  
  We must stop pretending any autocratic president-for-life is reasonable. >
  
  A very reasonable request I’d think >
  
  When was the last time the west pretended Putin was reasonable? >
  
  Chomsky argues that the entire war could have been averted if the US had only not stepped on Russia's toes and that a diplomatic option may still be possible if only the west withdraws support from Ukraine. Kissinger argues that there it is incumbent on the west to allow concessions to Russia in terms of land to maintain some sort of balance of power. Both of their arguments are predicated on Russia being rational and an honest actor, which is demonstrable not true. Both are highly influential. >
  
  That's not Chomsky's position at all. He tends to speak in positive terms about military support for Ukraine, in the sense that he thinks it's better for Ukraine to be able to defend itself than not being able to.
  He is just critical about the lack of diplomatic efforts and that the U.S. has gotten in the way of diplomatic solutions, both before the invasion and seemingly after it. He also never claims that Russia will do the right thing. He keeps saying that there's only one way to find out whether Russia can be negotiated with, and that is to try. If it fails, that's on Russia. If we don't try it ourselves, then it's also on us. >
  
  Chomsky has blamed NATO for Russias invasion since the outbreak of the war and has said that Ukraine needs to surrender it's territory to Russia. He claims the US continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons so they can fight for their freedom is what is preventing peace because his idea of peace is surrender. >
  
  He has had proper takes on the history of imperialism which makes him averse to organizations like NATO that collectively enforce western interest on the global stage. The irony that he has been avoiding saying anything bad about Russia who is actively engaging in overt imperialism on a sovereign nation that they themselves have a favoring towards the west has been odd to me as a long time fan of his. He is in his 90s, though, so who knows what's going on with him. His subreddit has been taken over by Russian apologists, too, so it could also just be the kind of media outlets covering his quotes since the West has pretty much blacklisted him from their media since the 2000s. >
  
  
  The irony that he has been avoiding saying anything bad about Russia [...] has been odd to me as a long time fan of his.
  
  Some long time fan of Chomsky you were if you completely misunderstood his role as a political dissident:
  
  See, I focus my efforts against the terror and violence of my own state for really two main reasons. First of all, in my case the actions of my state happen to make up the main component of international violence in the world. But much more importantly than that, it's because American actions are the things that I can do something about. So even if the United States were causing only a tiny fraction of the repression and violence in the world-which obviously is very far from the truth-that tiny fraction would still be what I'm responsible for, and what I should focus my efforts against. And that's based on a very simple ethical principle-namely, that the ethical value of one's actions depends on their anticipated consequences for human beings: I think that's kind of like a fundamental moral truism... Again, it's a very simple ethical point: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, you're not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's actions.
  
  
  Noam Chomsky, 1989 >
  
  A read a few of his books a long time ago when I was in college and have checked in every once in a while since. I'm not claiming to have heard everything out of his mouth, but I appreciate the quote. It does make more sense now. >
  
  And stop pretending he's the "ONLY" problem with that country. If he dies any of the thousands of other insane and possibly worse ones may take over. >
  
  Agreed. Russia has experimented with democracy a handful of times, but guys like Putin always come out on top. >
  
  I suspect it is because Russians are so used to corruption that they don't see it as a big deal.
  This leads to weak checks and balances on rulers who can swiftly take power.
  I don't really see a way for them to fix the corruption that has become a part of their DNA. I'm thinking outside the box here, but maybe having a supreme court located in a third-party country could help stifle corruption. >
  
  Peter Pomerantsev once characterised corruption in Russia as a way to “buy into” and become part of the system. It is a desirable goal because with it comes privilege, power and a higher status over others. >
  
  Tldr for gamers: pay2win >
  
  Wait a minute, isn't that everywhere?