|
Majorian posted:
If you think this is remotely possible then you need to do some more reading about the relations and history between these two countries.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I've already shown you how it's having the opposite effect from what was intended. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why. How is this? NATO's expansion is very well the only thing keeping the baltic states from being invaded too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Peel posted:My objection isn't sophisticated, it's just the invocation of uncertainty. Saying 'Russia would have X' depends too much on speculation about how people and institutions we don't have enough detailed information on would have acted in the fact of some complexly different stimulus. 'What if Russia became antagonistic anyway' is a serious possibility, even if we think not expanding NATO would have reduced the probability of such, and I don't think we can come to a very good judgement of the probabilities involved and so whether it was worth it or not to expand into Russia's percieved sphere. I understand, and that's a fair point. I can't say for certain that Russia wouldn't have been aggressive without NATO expansion eastward. But I do think there's a good possibility that it wouldn't have been this bad. There isn't much point in discussing counterfactuals at this point anyway - NATO expanded, Ukraine has tried to join (for good reason), the US backed them, Russia took umbrage, and here we are. What matters most at this point is what can be done to defuse this situation while keeping Cold War II from happening and keeping Ukraine an independent, sovereign nation. HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:If you think this is remotely possible then you need to do some more reading about the relations and history between these two countries. I'm pretty sure I've done more reading on the history between these two countries than you have. I understand that it has been a history of Russian aggression and domination over Ukraine. What you need to understand is that Ukrainian neutrality is, at this point, the best thing Ukraine can hope for. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:Are those the anti-semitic scholars already mentioned, or different ones? Majorian posted:I think it's hard to argue that Stephen M. Walt, who is proudly Jewish, is anti-Semitic. Moreover, I posted a slew of expert-written articles in Warbadger's direction a couple posts ago. Check those out. I was not aware Walt was Jewish, "proudly" or otherwise. All I can find is that according to Mondoweiss, Walt says he's married to a woman with "a culturally Jewish extended family." It would not vindicate Walt even if it were true- Atzmon and Israel Shamir are also Jews. I don't know if Mearsheimer or Walt are consciously or unconsciously anti-Semitic, but I do know that Mearsheimer read The Wandering Who? and concluded that Atzmon was not an anti-Semite, and Walt assented to that interpretation by both failing to condemn him, and allowing Mearsheimer to address critics on his FP blog. None of this discredits any argument the men have made, but it does make them profoundly wrong on one particular issue, to the extent that I question their judgement in other things. e: gave Israel Shamir's full name for people who aren't familiar Dilkington fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Here's an idea: Ukraine joins the EU but not NATO, in return Russia can station missiles in Kalingrad pointed at Germany and Germany is forbidden from using anything but Russian gas, oil and uranium for its energy needs 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I understand, and that's a fair point. I can't say for certain that Russia wouldn't have been aggressive without NATO expansion eastward. But I do think there's a good possibility that it wouldn't have been this bad. There isn't much point in discussing counterfactuals at this point anyway - NATO expanded, Ukraine has tried to join (for good reason), the US backed them, Russia took umbrage, and here we are. What matters most at this point is what can be done to defuse this situation while keeping Cold War II from happening and keeping Ukraine an independent, sovereign nation. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they tried to join NATO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I understand, and that's a fair point. I can't say for certain that Russia wouldn't have been aggressive without NATO expansion eastward. But I do think there's a good possibility that it wouldn't have been this bad. There isn't much point in discussing counterfactuals at this point anyway - NATO expanded, Ukraine has tried to join (for good reason), the US backed them, Russia took umbrage, and here we are. What matters most at this point is what can be done to defuse this situation while keeping Cold War II from happening and keeping Ukraine an independent, sovereign nation. Cite some souorces on Ukraine trying to join NATO before this conflict please? Remember, this whole shitshow kicked off because Ukrainians wanted a trade agreement with the EU.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I understand, and that's a fair point. I can't say for certain that Russia wouldn't have been aggressive without NATO expansion eastward. But I do think there's a good possibility that it wouldn't have been this bad. There isn't much point in discussing counterfactuals at this point anyway - NATO expanded, Ukraine has tried to join (for good reason), the US backed them, Russia took umbrage, and here we are. What matters most at this point is what can be done to defuse this situation while keeping Cold War II from happening and keeping Ukraine an independent, sovereign nation. Do you not understand that for Russia a neutral Ukraine is never possible? Ukraine must remain in their sphere of influence and keeps the country dependent on them to maintain this. Imagine for the sake of argument, Belarus manages to get rid of Lukashenko, they elect a president willing to make stronger ties with the west, possibly even sign an EU association agreement like Ukraine has done. How long do you think that president would last with the level of Russian aggression being meted out on Ukraine for doing the same thing? I realize the chances of Lukashenko not being president of Belarus until his natural death are highly unlikely, but Russia's the main reason he manages to hold on to power in the first place. Yanukovych was going to be replaced in the 2015 elections in Ukraine because he just wasn't loyal to Putin enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I was not aware Walt was Jewish, "proudly" or otherwise. All I can find is that according to Mondoweiss, Walt says he's married to a woman with "a culturally Jewish extended family." It would not vindicate Walt even if it were true- Atzmon and Shamir are also Jews. That's not an unfair position to take on them. I kind of get the feeling that Mearsheimer didn't read more than a few selections of Atzmon's book, then backed himself into a corner by defending him without knowing what the rest of the book said. That obviously doesn't change the fact that it was an error in judgment on Mearsheimer's part. But to me, it's eclipsed by the fact that I think he's right on most other things. Bip Roberts posted:Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they tried to join NATO. Yeah dude, it did actually. That was definitely part of it. It wasn't the only reason, but it was one of the reasons. HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Do you not understand that for Russia a neutral Ukraine is never possible? Ukraine must remain in their sphere of influence and keeps the country dependent on them to maintain this. What makes you so sure of this? Why are you so convinced that Russia wouldn't settle for Ukraine as a neutral buffer state? e: Broken Cog posted:Cite some souorces on Ukraine trying to join NATO before this conflict please? Here you go. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
My first example would be everything happening to Ukraine right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Sure, no question. But the genie's already out of the bottle on that one - NATO playing directly into Putin's portrayal of them doesn't exactly disabuse the Russian people of their misconception. Majorian posted:Well, but if he can definitively say he kept Ukraine from joining NATO and stopped the advance of the Western menace, that's a pretty big "W" he can chalk up in his column.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:31
|
|
Majorian posted:You know, it's amazing - you make claims like these, but you don't back them up with expert opinions or anything like that, even when I do. Which is kind of like plugging your ears and going "lalalalala!" when somebody proves you wrong. OK, let's try this then, since you're ignoring my actual arguments. A political theory based on a foundation of predicating action on self-interest is completely unfalsifiable, much like rational actor theories in economics. Any action can be justified as coming from self-interest, particularly if the analysis discounts alternate explanations and treats the country in question as a dehumanized monolithic entity. I know you don't like responding to what people actually posting in the forum say, so here's some credentialed authority. The page for offensive realism on wikipedia has a lengthy, well-cited criticism section, one of the main parts of which is that the school of thought completely ignores the potential role of domestic politics in potentially explaining both perceptions, stated perceptions, and actions. You seem determined to do the same to any post which raises these structural issues.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:My first example would be everything happening to Ukraine right now. That demonstrates opposition to Ukraine entering the West's sphere of influence, not Ukraine being a neutral state. Ukraine being a neutral state hasn't been on the table in this conflict so far. A Buttery Pastry posted:But the fact that it is Putin's portrayal makes NATO's actions up until this point much less important, which is also important to consider going forward. It's neither reality nor perception that is important here, it's portrayal, which essentially puts responsibility for avoiding a second Cold War on Putin's shoulders. (In much the same way avoiding an invasion of Iran is the responsibility of American politicians.) I don't think Putin has that much control over his country's perceptions though. This isn't North Korea we're talking about, after all. He wouldn't be able to take this strategy of aggression towards Ukraine if NATO weren't playing directly into his hands. quote:Yes, Putin has consciously created a situation where he benefits enormously personally from using the might of the Russian state against its smaller neighbor, while not doing so risks undermining his power. That's why I believe it makes sense to be much more careful with how we deal with Ukraine in the future, even if I would have personally preferred for Russian influence to end at their border. Doesn't mean I wouldn't support rolling NATO all the way up to the border if it could be done safely. Yeah, well, I would too. But it doesn't look like that's in the cards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Ukrainian war dead per oblast, as of August 28th:
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A political theory based on a foundation of predicating action on self-interest is completely unfalsifiable, much like rational actor theories in economics. Any action can be justified as coming from self-interest, particularly if the analysis discounts alternate explanations and treats the country in question as a dehumanized monolithic entity. Here's where you're wrong: you mistakenly assume that realist analyses seek to justify anything. Political scientists aren't interested in justifying things. They're interested in explaining things. quote:I know you don't like responding to what people actually posting in the forum say, I'm actually doing a really good job on that front. The fact that I responded to a post like this... quote:Majorian can't or won't distinguish Russian rhetoric surrounding its perception of NATO/EU/anyone who isn't Russia from the reality of their perception. ...with snark is not the same thing as not responding to people's points. You had no point with that post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
This page says that both the last government and the Yatsenyuk government said that Ukraine had no intentions of joining NATO. Of course, this was before Russia invaded Crimea, which NATO also responded that it had no plans of interfering with. Majorian posted:What makes you so sure of this? Why are you so convinced that Russia wouldn't settle for Ukraine as a neutral buffer state? The current situation is a pretty good example. One thing Russia has absolutely guaranteed with their invasion is that Ukraine can probably never be fully neutral now, but that is entirely Russia's fault. Seriously, nobody is "threatening" Russia, as nobody wants to invade that shithole. European countries would prefer a stable Russia that they can buy cheap gas and oil from, and Russia needs the European markets to sustain their economy. I have trouble seeing just exactly how Russians believe the west is a threat at the moment, other than as a threat to their "influence" in the Eastern European countries, in which case gently caress the Russian government and their delusions of grandeur. If they wanted to have more of the old bloc countries on their side, they shouldn't have worked so hard to antagonize every single one of them. Ironically, the best option for both Russia and Europe would probably be Russia joining the EU, since if there's one thing the EU is actually competent at, it's stamping out corruption(since it's usually bad for business). Yes, I know this would never happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:This page says that both the last government and the Yatsenyuk government said that Ukraine had no intentions of joining NATO. This is what you asked me: quote:Cite some souorces on Ukraine trying to join NATO before this conflict please? quote:The current situation is a pretty good example. One thing Russia has absolutely guaranteed with their invasion is that Ukraine can probably never be fully neutral now, but that is entirely Russia's fault. Why can it not be fully neutral, or even "mostly" neutral? quote:Seriously, nobody is "threatening" Russia, I know NATO thinks it's not, and I know you don't think it is. But I've already posted a bunch of articles from experts saying that Russia believes the opposite. Tell me why those articles are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah dude, it did actually. That was definitely part of it. It wasn't the only reason, but it was one of the reasons. I think you will find that to be only a minor reason. A bigger reason would be the general Ukraine leaning to the West and the main reason would be the change of Ukraine government (including the chaos because of it) and the pro-russian sentiment in eastern Ukraine, which was exploited by Russia. I think that's the main problem with your arguments. It feels like you made a conclusion ("NATO did bad") first and only then you are finding arguments which might support your theory and all you do to repeal counter-arguments is repeating your main point how it's all NATO fault. It kinda reminds me of your earlier theory of how the conflict in Ukraine is because US didn't redraw borders of countries after Soviet Union broke apart. All that would be minor issues, but considering the same arguments are repeated for the last two threads, it became kinda tedious...
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Liandar posted:I think you will find that to be only a minor reason. A bigger reason would be the general Ukraine leaning to the West and the main reason would be the change of Ukraine government (including the chaos because of it) and the pro-russian sentiment in eastern Ukraine, which was exploited by Russia. The problem is, rather than starting with a conclusion and working backwards, I actually arrived at my opinion after reviewing what experts have written on the situation, and I've posted those experts' opinions. Those opinions line up with the one I've expressed here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Take this with a pinch of salt since the man is employed by the Cato-institute in the USA, but he's been a economical aide to Putin in 2000-2005 so he might know what he's talking about. Anyway: The Ukranian war has been planned by the brass of the Russian army for 11 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Take this with a pinch of salt since the man is employed by the Cato-institute in the USA, but he's been a economical aide to Putin in 2000-2005 so he might know what he's talking about. Anyway: Goddmanit, why did eesti have to go and grow apart from finnish... Does he talk about whether the current tactics used by the Russians are how they envisioned that would go? Did they plan to use local paramilitaries backed up by Russian little green men from the start or was that something that just came organically?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Valiantman posted:Take this with a pinch of salt since the man is employed by the Cato-institute in the USA, but he's been a economical aide to Putin in 2000-2005 so he might know what he's talking about. Anyway: That's not all that surprising, though. Militaries pretty frequently plan out strategies for invading or intervening in foreign countries a ways in advance. The Pentagon has had plans for invading Iran for years, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
There are Canadian plans for an invasion of the USA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why can it not be fully neutral, or even "mostly" neutral? Foreign invasions tend to swing a country's opinion against you, and that is something that can take a long time to heal. There is already a lot of antagonising towards Russia in old bloc countries, but a lot of younger people I know from there have been less hostile towards Russians. I had hoped that with a shift to a generation that never grew up with the Cold war there could be some reconciliation, but the russian government seems intent on keeping the old scars open. Majorian posted:I know NATO thinks it's not, and I know you don't think it is. But I've already posted a bunch of articles from experts saying that Russia believes the opposite. Tell me why those articles are wrong. I don't have the time to go through all of them, but I read one, and this Stephen Walt article reads like someone trying to pretend to know a lot without saying anything at all. He's incredibly vague, and his "deal" is basically just that All of the rest of his examples are also really vague and basically just says "Thing x is bad, they should try ~something different~". No insight or anything, it feels like a clickbait article. I can't read the other articles you linked from FP, because it's behind a paywall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The problem is, rather than starting with a conclusion and working backwards, I actually arrived at my opinion after reviewing what experts have written on the situation, and I've posted those experts' opinions. Those opinions line up with the one I've expressed here. And it would sound more genuine if your argument was "it happened because Russia feels threatened if Ukraine falls into the Western sphere of influence" rather than "it happened because Russia feels threatened by NATO expansion to the east". I mean, it wouldn't really change your argument, it would sound more realistic and it even might be more palatable to other posters in the thread. Now, you (or experts you read) just sound like you have an axe to grind with NATO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:Foreign invasions tend to swing a country's opinion against you, and that is something that can take a long time to heal. Ah, you're talking about the Ukrainian people's alignment. I'm talking about membership in alliances though. I agree that the Ukrainian people have every right to align themselves with whichever state or faction they like. But I think it would be better for everyone involved if Russia and NATO agreed that Ukraine would remain neutral as far as East-West blocs of power are concerned. No strategic alliances with either the West or Russia, no interfering with Ukrainian internal politics, and ironclad guarantees from both sides of Ukraine's sovereignty. quote:I don't have the time to go through all of them, but I read one, and this Stephen Walt article reads like someone trying to pretend to know a lot without saying anything at all. He's incredibly vague, and his "deal" is basically just that How would what he proposes be giving Russia what it wants? It doesn't seem to me like he's suggesting that Russia be allowed to take over the Donbas. More importantly, though, the reason why I directed you towards those articles wasn't to discuss the solution to the Ukraine situation. It was to back up my claim that Russia acts aggressively towards Ukraine partially because it feels threatened by NATO. The articles from the Arms Control Association, as well as the paper from Princeton, should not be paywalled. Liandar posted:And it would sound more genuine if your argument was "it happened because Russia feels threatened if Ukraine falls into the Western sphere of influence" rather than "it happened because Russia feels threatened by NATO expansion to the east". But the evidence that I've posted indicates that NATO expansion eastward did, in fact, play a significant role. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Ah, you're talking about the Ukrainian people's alignment. I'm talking about membership in alliances though. I agree that the Ukrainian people have every right to align themselves with whichever state or faction they like. But I think it would be better for everyone involved if Russia and NATO agreed that Ukraine would remain neutral as far as East-West blocs of power are concerned. No strategic alliances with either the West or Russia, no interfering with Ukrainian internal politics, and ironclad guarantees from both sides of Ukraine's sovereignty. I'm not sure how much those are worth these days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:Goddmanit, why did eesti have to go and grow apart from finnish... Does he talk about whether the current tactics used by the Russians are how they envisioned that would go? Did they plan to use local paramilitaries backed up by Russian little green men from the start or was that something that just came organically? With my limited grasp on Estonian, no. (If you're Estonian, just click the link. It's in your language.  ) He doesn't go into specifics butMajorian posted:That's not all that surprising, though. Militaries pretty frequently plan out strategies for invading or intervening in foreign countries a ways in advance. The Pentagon has had plans for invading Iran for years, for example. while this is true, he's talking about specifically this invasion, not about plans in general. But yeah, ultimately, there's not much substance in that interview. I suppose it only broke the Finnish news threshold because the same guy has earlier said that, while off the table now and in near future, in the long run Finland will be on the table too since as far as he can tell, Putin isn't going to stop expanding Russia as long as he can get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:There are Canadian plans for an invasion of the USA. They couldn't hold Detroit much less the rest of the country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That demonstrates opposition to Ukraine entering the West's sphere of influence, not Ukraine being a neutral state. Ukraine being a neutral state hasn't been on the table in this conflict so far. I still can't decide if you're trolling or being serious about this insane idea that Ukraine could ever hope to be a neutral country with Russia on it's border. I have already brought this up twice in the Eastern Europe thread about Russia's relationship with Ukraine, and why Russia would never allow Ukraine to develop any ties with the west, even if they were marginal economic ones like they now have through the EU association agreement. I am now going to bring it up a third time. http://zik.ua/en/news/2013/07/29/421528 quote:Russia Pres Putin snubbed Ukraine, its people and president at the weekend celebration in Kyiv of the 1025th anniversary of Kievan Rus going Christian, Baloha wrote in Facebook July 27. Medvedchuk was going to challenge Yanukovych in the presidential election scheduled for 2015 and have Putin's support. Ukraine joining the Customs Union was vitally important for Putin. There was simply no way he would let Ukraine become neutral. Yanukovych was more interested in centralizing his own power and not looking out for Russia's enough. The EU Eastern Partnership was something Putin was not about to allow to happen, no matter what. Your idea that Ukraine could possibly ever be a neutral country without Moscow interfering with their politics and economic trade partners is obtuse. When Putin left Kyiv in July of 2013 and went back to Moscow, a ban on Ukrainian chocolate went into effect immediately. That was a deliberate jab at Poroshenko. HUGE PUBES A PLUS fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:I'm not sure how much those are worth these days. I think they would be worth a lot more if the US publicly gave up pushing for Ukraine's NATO accession. I understand that guarantees of neutrality mean less after the Budapest Memorandum was so flagrantly violated, but both sides claim that the other violated it first. I think guarantees of neutrality and sovereignty would mean a lot more today because both sides would be keeping their eyes peeled for any violation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But the evidence that I've posted indicates that NATO expansion eastward did, in fact, play a significant role. But that thesis does a rather bad job of explaining Russia's behavior. NATO expanded east precisely because all those former client states felt threatened by Russia's imperialistic agenda and were fleeing for protection. Your thesis explains why Russia is doing this in Ukraine, specifically, rather than, say, Estonia or Poland, but does not explain Russia's overall attitude and behavior. "Russia is loving with Ukraine because Ukraine was afraid Russia was going to gently caress with it" isn't a very impressive statement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:I still can't decide if you're trolling or being serious about this insane idea that Ukraine could ever hope to be a neutral country with Russia on it's border. I get that Ukraine being a neutral country hasn't been in the cards up to this point. But the situation has changed dramatically since the piece that you posted came out. Yanukovych is gone now. Ukraine has an anti-Moscow government. The EU has a relationship with Ukraine. Putin and his government know that Ukraine is drifting out of their orbit, and all they can hope to do is slow the process. Time is not on their side, and I guarantee you, they realize this. They would much rather guarantee Ukrainian neutrality, and be permanently assured that NATO will not expand further eastward, than dedicate more of their GDP towards creating a permanent crisis there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:But that thesis does a rather bad job of explaining Russia's behavior. NATO expanded east precisely because all those former client states felt threatened by Russia's imperialistic agenda and were fleeing for protection. But that's not my statement. My statement is, "Russia is afraid of being encircled, and doesn't like seeing Western armed forces creeping up to its borders. It wants a buffer state to make sure it doesn't get overrun by Westerners again." Once again, you and I are in agreement as to why Russia's former client states wanted to join NATO in the first place. I think they were right to want to do that. The mistake was in NATO thinking that expanding eastward would not have negative consequences, when people like George Kennan were warning them that it would.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They would much rather guarantee Ukrainian neutrality, and be permanently assured that NATO will not expand further eastward, than dedicate more of their GDP towards creating a permanent crisis there. But continuous conflict on the border is exactly the road the Kremlin chose to take with Ukraine. Now that it's started, they can't stop. Even if this ceasefire holds, which it's not at all, and Russia gives up on Ukraine, they won't really ever give up on Ukraine and will do everything possible to bring Ukraine back into their sphere of influence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm pretty sure I've done more reading on the history between these two countries than you have. I understand that it has been a history of Russian aggression and domination over Ukraine. What you need to understand is that Ukrainian neutrality is, at this point, the best thing Ukraine can hope for. Ukrainian neutrality would be signing the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement to go with the CIS Free Trade Agreement and being a bridge between Russia and Europe. But our definition of Ukrainian neutrality and Russia's definition of Ukrainian neutrality are two very different things. Do you think that Russia's perceptions in regards to the EU are rational?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:I'm not sure how much those are worth these days. Well, Russian promises towards Ukrainians have been worthless since at least 1654.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But the evidence that I've posted indicates that NATO expansion eastward did, in fact, play a significant role. Except you've completely dodged, except with historically irrelevant data, how NATO expansion has had any effect on this current conflict. Yanukovych scrapped all plans to proceed towards NATO membership as soon as he was elected. He voiced his disinterest in joining NATO during the campaign. This makes a lot of sense given that the historic attitude of Ukraine towards joining NATO is a tepid shrug. But Euromaidan sparked because Yanukovych also backed away from the EU. Even when Yanukovych eventually fled, the interim government announce it had no plans to proceed with NATO membership. This did not stop the Russian invasion. To suggest that NATO had anything to do with Russia's actions is a farce.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:But continuous conflict on the border is exactly the road the Kremlin chose to take with Ukraine. Now that it's started, they can't stop. Even if this ceasefire holds, which it's not at all, and Russia gives up on Ukraine, they won't really ever give up on Ukraine and will do everything possible to bring Ukraine back into their sphere of influence. I don't think that's the case. The Kremlin doesn't want to keep shoveling money into the furnace. The separatists may keep fighting if Ukraine's neutrality is codified, but that won't be Putin's concern at that point. He'll be able to call keeping Ukraine out of NATO a victory, and stop supporting them. Cuntpunch posted:Except you've completely dodged, except with historically irrelevant data, how NATO expansion has had any effect on this current conflict. I've posted a lot of evidence that says it had a profound effect on it, actually. Did you read the Arms Control Association articles, or the Princeton one? If so, and you disagree with them, please tell me how. I understand that you don't want to believe what I'm saying, but if you have a reason for disagreeing with the evidence that I've posted, you need to present it here. quote:Yanukovych scrapped all plans to proceed towards NATO membership as soon as he was elected. And the next president may have continued them, reasoned the Kremlin. Just because one president puts a halt on NATO accession doesn't mean that the next one can't continue it. karthun posted:Ukrainian neutrality would be signing the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement to go with the CIS Free Trade Agreement and being a bridge between Russia and Europe. But our definition of Ukrainian neutrality and Russia's definition of Ukrainian neutrality are two very different things. I do. But I also think that they see the world differently from how we do, so what is rational to them may not line up perfectly with what we would consider rational. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Sep 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Majorian posted:And the next president may have continued them, reasoned the Kremlin. Just because one president puts a halt on NATO accession doesn't mean that the next one can't continue it. So they prematurely invaded a country based on possible foreign policy decisions of the future? A future they had obvious, active plans(via Medvechuk) to control for at least into the 2020's?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 19:45
|
|