|
Nintendo Kid posted:Then Russia's fear is absolutely unjustified, as America can nuke their cities into the ground within the same amount of time no matter where some alternate missile sites are located. This is fact. It seems to me that you don't understand the point behind a second-strike capability... quote:Wrong, we got Putin because Yeltsin was a senile gently caress who got to pick a successor. Way to reinforce my point about you being ignorant. quote:It is you who has a black and white conception of the world. And then you go on to say this... quote:Russia unambiguously undercut neutrality by invading Ukraine. And anything you can possibly claim about the west undercutting neutrality by supporting Maidan, Russia did 10 times over by literally backing and supporting their little Quisling president for years beforehand.  The fact of the matter is, while the Russian government is the "worst guy" in this situation, NATO's mistakes also helped aggravate the situation. Being able to admit that to yourself is a sign of not having a black-and-white view of the world.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
If anything this whole thread is opening my eyes to how disjointed and counterproductive NATO members' policies toward Eastern Europe and Russia have been. That said, however, it was Russia's decision alone to intervene in Ukraine as it has, and just because they feel so threatened, doesn't mean they couldn't have done something else to protect the interests they consider to be at stake.
StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It seems to me that you don't understand the point behind a second-strike capability... America's second strike capability is the fleets of submarines we and our allies have. Land territory close to Russia doesn't help it. You don't have a point here, since you're the one who's ignorant. Why can't you admit that the only people who actually undercut neutrality were the people who literally loving invaded not to mention backed the regime in power until days before the invasion? Not the countries who kinda said "yeah we kinda like the opposition! have a fiver maybe!" The fact of the matter is, NATO has made no mistakes. All the "mistakes" you claim to have happened are literally things you made up, or things Russia made up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:If anything this whole thread is opening my eyes to how disjointed and counterproductive NATO members' policies toward Eastern Europe and Russia has been. That said, however, it was Russia's decision alone to intervene in Ukraine as it has, and just because they feel so threatened, doesn't mean they couldn't have done something else to protect the interests they consider to be at stake. I guess I fail to see where NATO's policy toward Eastern Europe has been disjointed and counterproductive. The former Warsaw Pact and SSRs that joined NATO did so for their own, completely valid, reasons. Their fear of invasion by Russia was valid. I don't see how NATO refusing to let them join, then standing by as Russia consumed them would be a preferable alternative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:America's second strike capability is the fleets of submarines we and our allies have. Land territory close to Russia doesn't help it. I think the U.S. made mistakes, this was very present under the Bush administration. Republicans were extremely eager to paint Russia as a threat when they weren't, at least not explicitly, and it poisoned a lot of goodwill between Russia and US. Obama tried to roll this back but obviously it was unsuccessful. Some critics in their painting of the West though failure lies in they can only depict the West as a monolithic and continuous mindset but that isn't really the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
A friend did point out to me that the Russian economy is so heavily tied to the oil price that it is in Putin's strategic interest to keep things a little unstable and the oil price high. Is this a crackpot theory or do you think it enters into Russian decision making?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:I think the U.S. made mistakes, this was very present under the Bush administration. Republicans were extremely eager to paint Russia as a threat when they weren't, at least not explicitly, and it poisoned a lot of goodwill between Russia and US. Obama tried to roll this back but obviously it was unsuccessful. Some critics in their painting of the West though failure lies in they can only depict the West as a monolithic and continuous mindset but that isn't really the case. But none of those were NATO's mistakes. NATO told the Bush Administration that their suggestions were heard, but NATO wasn't going to go through with it. And thus NATO unambiguously didn't make mistakes there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I guess I fail to see where NATO's policy toward Eastern Europe has been disjointed and counterproductive. The former Soviet block and SSRs that joined NATO did so for their own, completely valid, reasons. They had good reason to fear invasion from Russia. Fair. I think what I meant is that the USSR's collapse resulted in a lot of power vacuums that could have been better filled, and the emergence of a revanchist narrative - that the USSR's power was traded away for either nothing, or far too little. Whether acting through NATO or through some other organ, it feels like it could have played out in a way that left Russia less abruptly defeated. However, I also realize that I'm discussing/thinking about things that I didn't previously know a lot about, and that no one can control Russia's actions better than Russia themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Fair. I think what I meant is that the USSR's collapse resulted in a lot of power vacuums that could have been better filled, and the emergence of a revanchist narrative - that the USSR's power was traded away for either nothing, or far too little. Whether acting through NATO or through some other organ, it feels like it could have played out in a way that left Russia less abruptly defeated. I don't think this part is really possible. The breaking away of certain "republics" was going to be abrupt unless the Soviet Union was provided outside military force to keep them locked up - and with them gone the legitimacy of the Union was clearly void. Plus, Yeltsin's power plays couldn't be stopped, again, without outside military force to back up Soviet forces versus Russian/Yeltsinite forces - and really, who in the West would have stepped up to take that job? After years of being ready to crush both? Also a reminder that even though it was so long ago, the 91 coup attempt and similar events in the dissolving soviet union were live covered on the internet: http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/irc2.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But none of those were NATO's mistakes. NATO told the Bush Administration that their suggestions were heard, but NATO wasn't going to go through with it. And thus NATO unambiguously didn't make mistakes there. I agree. I still feel that a lot of NATO-CHAT is kind of a red herring. Even with Bush belligerence they were utterly non-committal to getting involved in Georgia. At this rate Putin will be invading Belarus to test Clinton's resolve post-2016. The failure of Russia to reassert itself economically though continues to drive revanchism adventures like this though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:America's second strike capability is the fleets of submarines we and our allies have. Land territory close to Russia doesn't help it. I'm talking about Russia's second strike capability, actually. Russia is afraid that, as more Eastern European countries join NATO, they will start having ABM sites and nukes deployed there - both things that could impact Russia's second-strike capability. quote:You don't have a point here, since you're the one who's ignorant. LOL, you're the one who can't even possibly envision anybody but Russia playing a role in bringing about this crisis. quote:Why can't you admit that the only people who actually undercut neutrality were the people who literally loving invaded not to mention backed the regime in power until days before the invasion? Not the countries who kinda said "yeah we kinda like the opposition! have a fiver maybe!" Because Russia sees Ukraine going into the West's sphere of influence as undercutting neutrality. Which you can't exactly blame them for, given that NATO is the U.S.' sphere of influence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:LOL, you're the one who can't even possibly envision anybody but Russia playing a role in bringing about this crisis. Hmmm, am I going to blame the country that invaded another country or the country who asked to be raped because it's skirt was too short? Edit: Oh wait, it was talking to other boys so it deserved it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm talking about Russia's second strike capability, actually. Russia is afraid that, as more Eastern European countries join NATO, they will start having ABM sites and nukes deployed there - both things that could impact Russia's second-strike capability. Russia's second strike capability is not affected by having countries closer to them, either. Because Russia straight up did cause the crisis of Russia literally invading and annexing chunks of a sovereign country. Nobody else but Russia did this. I'm sorry that you hate facts so much, but thye do exist and they're right here. Without Russia stealing Crimea and straight up giving out free military equipment to "rebels" there would be no crisis. So Russia had to destroy the village to save the village? Is that what you're trying to say? They absolutely had to steal huge chunks of Ukraine and support the murder of thousands of ukrainians to keep Ukraine neutral? This didn't even work you realize, they actually made Ukranians more virulently pro-West anti-Russia than they ever had been before. But no! As soon as Russia's pet leader gets kicked out for shooting his people, they need to roll in and start stealing things literal days later. Come the gently caress on. PS: America's sphere of influence is the planet Earth not merely NATO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Let's be real here: The "crisis" before Russia invaded Crimea: Ukraine in a bit of disarray trying to sort out who should lead now that ol trigger happy mcgee was booted from being President. It was questionable if the final new government after elections could be held would even oppose Russia. The "crisis" after Russia invaded: Russia supports rebels killing thousands and stealing vast swathes of territory. But that's not Russia's fault. Somehow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Hmmm, am I going to blame the country that invaded another country or the country who asked to be raped because it's skirt was too short? You have seen that I've said Russia is the bad guy, right? If not, you might want to go back and read my posts.  Nintendo Kid posted:But that's not Russia's fault. Somehow. You too!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You have seen that I've said Russia is the bad guy, right? If not, you might want to go back and read my posts. But you refuse to admit the fact that Russia is solely at fault for invading territory and annexing it! Absolutley no one else forced them to do this covertly and then make medals up to celebrate publicly. None of it was justified. Russia created this crisis out of whole cloth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But you refuse to admit the fact that Russia is solely at fault for invading territory and annexing it! Absolutley no one else forced them to do this covertly and then make medals up to celebrate publicly. Actually, I've been pretty clear about that as well! I think Russia acted tremendously underhandedly, illegally, and immorally. It bears complete responsibility for how it reacted to the overthrow of Yanukovych. The point that you can't seem to grasp, though, is that the US and NATO do bear some responsibility in the twenty-odd year lead-up to this situation. To you, that's inconceivable - either Russia is responsible, or it isn't. It's like if you were to jump on somebody for saying, "The Treaty of Versailles was a real fuckup," because in your mind, that would be justifying Hitler's actions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Actually, I've been pretty clear about that as well! I think Russia acted tremendously underhandedly, illegally, and immorally. It bears complete responsibility for how it reacted to the situation. The point that you can't seem to grasp, though, is that the US and NATO do bear some responsibility in the twenty-odd year lead-up to this situation. To you, that's inconceivable - either Russia is responsible, or it isn't. It's like if you were to jump on somebody for saying, "The Treaty of Versailles was a real fuckup," because in your mind, that would be justifying Hitler's actions. So if Russia bears complete responsibility than you admit the West actually had nothing to do with it. Great. You can stop trying to claim that now. The US and NATO do bear no responsibility by the way, NATO especially has been extremely cautious in all parts of eastern europe. All responsibility lies with Russia, for loving up and grabbing poo poo, thereby permanently making sure Ukraine is anti-Russia at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
While NATO bears no responsibility I do believe that the former opposition (and current government supporters) in Ukraine bear quite a bit of it. I hate the idea that a Democratically elected leader can be overthrown by a mob while still retaining sizable, if not majority, support in the country as a whole. Countries should not be held hostage to the whims of their capital city's populous alone. If they'd voted Poroshenko in via an election I don't think that this would have ended any differently than it did after the post-Orange Revolution elections. Crimea would still be de facto Ukrainian and the uprisings in the east would not have been created.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Actually, I've been pretty clear about that as well! I think Russia acted tremendously underhandedly, illegally, and immorally. It bears complete responsibility for how it reacted to the overthrow of Yanukovych. The point that you can't seem to grasp, though, is that the US and NATO do bear some responsibility in the twenty-odd year lead-up to this situation. To you, that's inconceivable - either Russia is responsible, or it isn't. It's like if you were to jump on somebody for saying, "The Treaty of Versailles was a real fuckup," because in your mind, that would be justifying Hitler's actions. Presumable if NATO tried harder to allow membership for Ukraine this might not have been a conflict.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So if Russia bears complete responsibility than you admit the West actually had nothing to do with it. Great. You can stop trying to claim that now. In the short term, Russia bears complete responsibility. In the long-term lead-up, the West bears some. quote:The US and NATO do bear no responsibility by the way, I've given you specific examples of how they do bear responsibility, actually. e: Read the Mearscheimer piece, if you're having trouble remembering. Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
NATO was never going to try harder to allow Ukraine and Georgia membership because it operates by consensus and there was always going to be at least one country that would prefer reliable gas supplies to having more eastern members. Last time, if I remember correctly, it was Germany (and possibly some others.) This time it almost certainly would have been them again, plus Hungary, Slovakia, etc. One thing that Fishmech hasn't messed up is his memories of the last NATO conference. Georgia and some other nations pushed for a faster track/steps toward acceptance and none of them got it. Macedonia because of Greece's usual stupidity and the rest because of Russia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:While NATO bears no responsibility I do believe that the former opposition (and current government supporters) in Ukraine bear quite a bit of it. I hate the idea that a Democratically elected leader can be overthrown by a mob while still retaining sizable, if not majority, support in the country as a whole. Countries should not be held hostage to the whims of their capital city's populous alone. If they'd voted Poroshenko in via an election I don't think that this would have ended any differently than it did after the post-Orange Revolution elections. Crimea would still be de facto Ukrainian and the uprisings in the east would not have been created. The people have no obligation to accept a leader that orders snipers to shoot protesters, no matter the process by which he was elected originally. He escalated the situation and lost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:NATO was never going to try harder to allow Ukraine and Georgia membership because it operates by consensus and there was always going to be at least one country that would prefer reliable gas supplies to having more eastern members. Right, but I think the Russian perception is that the US has more pull in NATO than it truly does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Which goes to show Russia is operating in a reality detached way. They don't really seem to operate with awareness of things like the French military operating almost entirely separate from NATO command either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Like, in seriousness, Russia has always been encircled since the end of World War II when Japan was forcibly brought into the Western orbit. The only side without continuous "Western" allied countries is the southern part of the Asian segment, which itself presents problems for expansion due to various strong countries and countries that are weak but difficult to invade. Why does this matter in any way when Russia has mobile ICBMs and a fleet of nuclear subs? No one's ever closing any straits, and if they did the world would end shortly after.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Why does this matter in any way when Russia has mobile ICBMs and a fleet of nuclear subs? No one's ever closing any straits, and if they did the world would end shortly after. Well that's the point isn't it? Despite being physically encircled for a very long time, Russia's ability to strike meant and continues to mean encirclement is no real threat to them. Making complaints of having to do things because of encirclement nothing more than paper moons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Why does this matter in any way when Russia has mobile ICBMs and a fleet of nuclear subs? No one's ever closing any straits, and if they did the world would end shortly after. No it wouldn't, just as the world wouldn't end if Russian troops march into Kiev. They'd wail, they'd whine, they'd annex every Russian speaking region they could get at but they would not plunge the world into nuclear war unless foreign armies with nuclear weapons breach Russian territory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Which goes to show Russia is operating in a reality detached way. What it's showing is that they don't have perfect information, and that their worldview is affected by their history and cultural perceptions - just as the US' view is affected by its own history and cultural perceptions. We all see international relations through a glass darkly; it's childish to write their worldview off as "operating in a reality detached way." Nintendo Kid posted:Well that's the point isn't it? Despite being physically encircled for a very long time, Russia's ability to strike meant and continues to mean encirclement is no real threat to them. Making complaints of having to do things because of encirclement nothing more than paper moons. But I've already pointed out to you why they see encirclement as a potential threat to their second-strike capability. Do you have anything to say in response to that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
The more I think about it, the more it seems like the West is treating Russia the same as it would any other propped up colonial despoty. We make sure their wealthy elites enjoy all the comforts of the global elite as long as they squeeze their duped citizenry and provide the resources and/or markets we want. When they annoy us, we squeeze those wealthy elites and when they miss out on enough Paris brunches and their spoiled children miss out on enough designer handbags, they fold. It's not Russia that's interacting with the West, after all, but a few wealthy Russian elites with the kind of desires that all tin-pot elites have: a little glory, a few gaudy symbols of wealth, and the occasional pretension of being relevant on the world stage. None of the signs of a healthy state actor seem to exist with Russia. There's no cultural export, no political ideology, no attempt to frame their actions in a narrative of the Great Game. It's just some short, blonde Idi Amin who thinks that rolling over the shithole next to him makes him more important. In contrast, when China was pulling itself out of being a colonial puppet, it was much less concerned with the trappings of 3rd world dictator success and more focused on tangible state goals. I know that's oversimplifying it, but it's sort of jarring for me to think of Russia as just another lovely 3rd world power that gets easily played by the wealthy nations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:No it wouldn't, just as the world wouldn't end if Russian troops march into Kiev. They'd wail, they'd whine, they'd annex every Russian speaking region they could get at but they would not plunge the world into nuclear war unless foreign armies with nuclear weapons breach Russian territory. Not to say that I am actually in favor of closing the Bosphorus, obviously. That would set a terrible precedent, one even worse than encouraging Kosovar independence was, and it would come back to haunt us time and time again all over the world. I shouldn't have to defend myself preemptively like this but alas, this is D&D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Not to say that I am actually in favor of closing the Bosphorus, obviously. That would set a terrible precedent, one even worse than encouraging Kosovar independence was, and it would come back to haunt us time and time again all over the world. I shouldn't have to defend myself preemptively like this but alas, this is D&D. How dare you stand up for Milosevic you genocide-loving monster? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
The tariff union membership was something the Ukrainian people in general wanted. Even after this was cancelled the West didn't start to arm a rebellion or similar things. The West didn't change the regime in Ukraine. They were cheerleading one side in this conflict though. Now contrast and compare that to what Russia did and is still doing. And since people are talking about long term responsibilities from past actions: Russia is also more responsible. They had decades to make the Ukrainians their close friends. But they still generally hate them passionately and want to have more to do with the West. And even the small number of people who disliked the regime change still didn't want to become part of Russia. Russia's past actions resulted in pushing away Ukraine. It's Russia's fault this happened, cause the pulling the West did wasn't actually very strong. You might not even consider it pulling but more a mutual embracing of each other. Lucy Heartfilia fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
The pulling the "West" did was literally being people who don't act like Russia. The entirety of Western "threats," their "encircling" "sphere of influence" was to cooperate with other countries and not be dicks.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The pulling the "West" did was literally being people who don't act like Russia. The entirety of Western "threats," their "encircling" "sphere of influence" was to cooperate with other countries and not be dicks. Amusingly, the direct 'western influence' in Ukraine tends to come from "hey look we aren't despots" combined with seeing other ex-soviet countries flourishing. Meanwhile, Russia spent years actively violating the Budapest Memorandum, first by applying economic influence on politics, then by attacking them! But wait, the apologists will say, that was just a memorandum and not a legally binding treaty. To which one shall note: neither are steps to join NATO, at least until their accession into the alliance proper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
How dare Ukraine sign treaties with other countries for mutual protection and cooperation! Who do the think they are?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Amusingly, the direct 'western influence' in Ukraine tends to come from "hey look we aren't despots" combined with seeing other ex-soviet countries flourishing. I think Russians would argue that the West threw the first punch in violating the Budapest Memorandum by supporting the Orange Revolution, though. I'm not saying that's justification for Russia to violate it as well; I just think it's not such a clear-cut case. Discendo Vox posted:The pulling the "West" did was literally being people who don't act like Russia. The entirety of Western "threats," their "encircling" "sphere of influence" was to cooperate with other countries and not be dicks. Well, but you realize that's not exactly self-evident, right? Especially when the US screwed over Russia during the 90's and adopted a neoconservative foreign policy the following decade. Lucy Heartfilia posted:And since people are talking about long term responsibilities from past actions: Russia is also more responsible. They had decades to make the Ukrainians their close friends. But they still generally hate them passionately and want to have more to do with the West. And even the small number of people who disliked the regime change still didn't want to become part of Russia. Russia's past actions resulted in pushing away Ukraine. Relations actually seemed to be pretty good between 1991-2004. Obviously, it helped that they had a notoriously corrupt, pro-Moscow government, but it's not like Russia behaved anything then as it has been since the Orange Revolution. I agree that Russia has long-term as well as short-term responsibility for the crisis, but I think that the West's errors were also a necessary, if not sufficient in and of themselves, factor in the resulting clusterfuck. Sergg posted:How dare Ukraine sign treaties with other countries for mutual protection and cooperation! Who do the think they are?! How dare NATO countries decide not to let a country into their collective security alliance when they don't have much interest in defending that country? Who do they think they are?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Color Revolutions, and not NATO, are the true threat to Russia* and that's why this whole situation went south so quickly the second Sochi was over with and Maidan ousted Yanuk. *Putin and other oligarchs not to benefit from said revolutions
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Color Revolutions, and not NATO, are the true threat to Russia* and that's why this whole situation went south so quickly the second Sochi was over with and Maidan ousted Yanuk. I don't know, a lot of very smart political scientists who have been studying Russia for a very long time are saying Russia saw NATO as a big threat as well, chief among them Mearscheimer and Walt (hell, George Kennan predicted that Russia would react precisely this way in response to NATO expansion). You're definitely right about the Color Revolutions, though, and about Putin and other oligarchs being the hypothetical targets of one in Russia. Of course, the problem there is that Russians don't like anybody overthrowing their leaders but them, so they'd better not catch a whiff of the US and its allies trying to help them. (I never said they weren't a stubborn people)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
Well if that is true then it also must be accepted that bad relations with Russia HAVE to happen, because corruption to the extent that they have is bad for the whole world and cannot be contained within Russia's borders. If the choice is between signing over eastern Europe to corrupt oligarchs and having bad relations with Russia then the choice should be obvious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 08:32
|
|