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.
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.