|
Sekenr posted:everone should support that not Putin's bullshit which they cant back up in any case. I guess we'll find out. I mean hey I'm an American and would rather live in a world with American hegemony than Russian hegemony, so if pushing a hard line with Russia at every opportunity works out for everyone, great. I think there's been some pretty clear negative blowback in the past, but I'm sure this time will be different.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Sinteres posted:I think the best solution to the crisis is recognizing Russia's sovereignty over Crimea, Russian withdrawal from the Donbass, normalizing relations, and maybe saying Ukraine won't join NATO for 20 years or something to kick the can long enough that Putin won't view it as his problem anymore. The US pretends not to believe in spheres of influence, but imagine how much we'd freak out if China started establishing bases in the Western Hemisphere and transferring arms to Mexico while refusing to rule out a full on military alliance. Turkey also obviously views its near abroad as part of its sphere of influence, as it's occupying portions of two of its neighbors (one of which the US is also partially occupying), with regular incursions into the territory of a third, so this NATO solidarity against the concept of great powers having interests outside their borders is absurd. Recognizing Crimea as Russian would be more generous to Russia than NATO has been with Turkey on Cyprus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Grape posted:Recognizing Crimea as Russian would be more generous to Russia than NATO has been with Turkey on Cyprus. Okay, maybe outright recognition is too far, but finding some way to climb down from the ever-escalating sanctions regime while maintaining the stance in principle might be a good face-saving measure for both parties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:So are you seriously suggesting the US would have no problem with Mexico joining a military alliance with China as long as it was voluntary? Or that Syria and Cyprus voluntarily agreed to have their territory occupied by two and one NATO members respectively? Lemme highlight a big problem with the way you keep framing this right here. When a Greek Cypriot looks at the Ukraine situation what do you think they're seeing? Do you think they're seeing things through BIG POWER SPHERE LENS like you an American? Or do you think they're maybe just maybe seeing it through the eyes of Ukraine, the weaker hopelessly outmanned and outgunned country put up against an unstable unpredictable neighbor ruled by a strongman?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
Grape posted:Lemme highlight a big problem with the way you keep framing this right here. Okay but Greek Cypriots aren't the ones making the decisions, other Americans like me are, so I wish they'd be a little more honest about their motivations, or at least that we here could be a little less credulous about them. The US doesn't give a poo poo about Ukraine, not really. The US sees Ukraine as an opportunity to gently caress with Russia, one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
That's enough clancy-chat out of you Sinteres
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:That's enough clancy-chat out of you Sinteres Not sure you understand what clancy-chat means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Budzilla posted:Ukraine wants it back. Yeah I know about the "referendum vote" but if you have been around in this thread long enough you would see stuff like this. Russia cannot service the peninsula and this was one of the primary reasons control was transferred to Ukraine. Ukraine stopped the power and literally dammed the canal that provides most of the fresh water there. Russia cannot provide effectively provide services even if they want to. Oh yeah for sure. I'm just not sure what they would actually do if they got it back. Would they launch a humanitarian effort and open the water source? Would they come in and invest in fixing the infrastructure? Can they? Budzilla posted:I don't understand why you think Ukraine has to justify getting back its territory when it us Russia that has to justify why it annexed it. I never said any of that. Re-read my post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
NATO didn't move east, Eastern Europe moved west.
Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jan 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:NATO didn't move east, Eastern Europe moved West. That's nicely said. spacetoaster posted:Oh yeah for sure. I'm just not sure what they would actually do if they got it back. Would they launch a humanitarian effort and open the water source? Would they come in and invest in fixing the infrastructure? Can they? steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jan 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Okay, maybe outright recognition is too far, but finding some way to climb down from the ever-escalating sanctions regime while maintaining the stance in principle might be a good face-saving measure for both parties. Problem is Russia took Crimea on a whim, and so any drawing down by NATO or Ukraine in the name of de-escalation both hurts their internal political stability by seeming weak, and is putting trust in the overt aggressor in this situation. De-escalation in principle is always preferred, but honestly, even on a practical level I don't see how it's viable for anyone here. It really doesn't matter how aggressive NATO expansion has been, Russia's actions in 2014 confirmed that Europe's fears were exactly correct. Russia's concerns are understandable, but joining an alliance doesn't break any laws or compromise anyone's sovereignty, taking chunks off of Ukraine does both. Shooting down a civilian airliner also puts a damper on any third party showing sympathy for one's plight. The ball is entirely in Russia's court to not invade, and thus de-escalate. Or invade, which will likely lead to further NATO expansion with Sweden and Finland, further cementing the justified fears on both sides. And then who knows where the next escalation point will be after that, but it will happen somewhere, and not be good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Sinteres, in the timeline you jumped from, did Neville chamberlain avert WW2 through appeasing Hitler and securing a lasting peace in their time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Sinteres, in the timeline you jumped from, did Neville chamberlain avert WW2 through appeasing Hitler and securing a lasting peace in their time? Sinteres posted:Hey, there's the Munich analogy after all. I'm begging you, find another analogy. Surely you can appreciate the irony of all the interventions the US has justified by repeatedly pointing to that example. I'd be more sympathetic to the Western perspective on all of this if the American interlocutors weren't so blatantly dishonest and hypocritical every single time they opened their mouths: Secretary Blinken: Governments and citizens everywhere should care about what's happening in Ukraine. This is not a distant regional dispute or yet another example of Russian bullying. The principles at stake have made the world safer and more stable for decades
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Okay but Greek Cypriots aren't the ones making the decisions, other Americans like me are Yeah except you're using them as a whataboutism tool to defend the kind of actions they suffer from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
Grape posted:Yeah except you're using them as a whataboutism tool to defend the kind of actions they suffer from. I think the proposed diplomatic solution I offered would genuinely be better for Ukraine than the surrender not an inch maximalist approach the West is encouraging Ukraine to take. The West doesn't give a poo poo if Ukraine takes losses if diplomacy falls through, because getting the chance to punish Russia is just as good for them as preventing conflict in the first place (and after all, as Blinken points out, this is about defending principles, not Ukraine). Personally I think de-SWIFTing Russia would be extremely bad for long-term American economic hegemony, because it would make a whole bunch of other countries look for the exits, but this is what decades of increased reliance on sanctions have been leading to, so some American policymakers must feel like what's the point of having this power if they don't ever get to use it. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Jan 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I'm begging you, find another analogy. Surely you can appreciate the irony of all the interventions the US has justified by repeatedly pointing to that example. Accusing the West of hypocrisy for accusing Russia of imperialism and unfounded invasions is perfectly apt, but there are 2 points I'd like to bring up: 1) Ukraine has nothing to do with what the US has been doing elsewhere, but they are the victims of this aggression by Russia 2) There is almost no way NATO will be directly involved in this conflict. They have and will continue to supply weapons to Ukraine, which isn't nothing, but that won't win this war for Ukraine. So concerns of this becoming another Iraq for the US are unfounded, this is a different scenario in almost every way. So again, the concerns from Russia's side are understandable, but their actions in Ukraine remain completely illegal and immoral. It sucks that there is no neutral party that could provide the support that Ukraine needs in the face of this aggression, but that's just how the world stage is at this time. And for as long as we have countries, it will be the strongest and most aggressive countries that will be able to make the real difference in any conflict, so there will always be this baggage attached whenever they decide to intervene.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Accusing the West of hypocrisy for accusing Russia of imperialism and unfounded invasions is perfectly apt, but there are 2 points I'd like to bring up: Just for an example of how I think the West is making things objectively worse, shipping arms to Ukraine right now can only heighten tensions, since everyone admits nothing we can (or are willing to) transfer to them can realistically change the strategic calculus. Yeah, in a sense it's punishment for Russia's saber rattling, but it also validates Russia's fears, and tells Russia that this is basically their last best chance to prevent the potential military alliance they have concerns about, because military cooperation is happening whether or not an actual alliance is formed. It also discourages Ukraine from making compromises, whether that would otherwise be a realistic option or not. I think telling the weaker power 'hey we really strongly support you but not in any sense that actually obligates us to defend you' is kind of the worst of both worlds in that sense. But yeah, I agree that Russian intervention in Ukraine isn't ideal, which is why I prefer a compromise where some tacit understanding on Russian control of Crimea is reached (Russia realistically isn't climbing down from that after formally annexing the territory) in return for a return to normal relations and a withdrawal from the Donbass. I don't know if that's a deal Russia would take, but I've been in favor of it since the initial invasion. And since everyone agrees that Ukraine isn't getting NATO membership any time soon, why not make that a formal commitment, even if just for a set number of years? It's a painless concession, so if it can prevent actual harm it seems worth doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:But yeah, I agree that Russian intervention in Ukraine isn't ideal, which is why I prefer a compromise where some tacit understanding on Russian control of Crimea is reached (Russia realistically isn't climbing down from that after formally annexing the territory) in return for a return to normal relations and a withdrawal from the Donbass. I don't know if that's a deal Russia would take, but I've been in favor of it since the initial invasion. And since everyone agrees that Ukraine isn't getting NATO membership any time soon, why not make that a formal commitment, even if just for a set number of years? It's a painless concession, so if it can prevent actual harm it seems worth doing. Russia has in fact given out its demands- you don't have to invent a new arrangement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Russia has in fact given out its demands- you don't have to invent a new arrangement. I think some of Russia's demands are unreasonable, but that diplomacy could and should have been attempted before Russia draw such a hard line. And I don't really believe Russia's demands are as firm a take it or leave it position as they're saying they are, or at least I hope they're not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
Recognizing Crimean annexation, followed by Russian withdrawal from Donbass with some special guarantees of territory status or something for Donbass is the only way I can see this ending with Ukraine still getting to be Ukraine. I agree that's the most likely compromise, and maybe we'll get within a decade if Russia doesn't invade. Unfortunately I don't see any of that moving across the table with the current tension levels. It might be what would lower tensions, but both sides have been rejecting it, which is why we're here. If this is just the next level of sabre rattling there's still some hope for negotiation later. Right now we're just all holding our breath.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Just for an example of how I think the West is making things objectively worse, shipping arms to Ukraine right now can only heighten tensions, since everyone admits nothing we can (or are willing to) transfer to them can realistically change the strategic calculus. Surely this isn’t true though — just by making Ukraine more dangerous to attack and so inflict a higher toll on any potential attacker? Even if ultimately there’s no way they could turn Russia back, it changes the strategic calculus. Isn’t it basically a similar line of reasoning to the whole “porcupine strategy” advocated for Taiwan lately? That said writing it out I’m curious if there actually are many precedents of that kind of relatively minor arms supply actually dissuading a would be attacker. I agree with you that there are definite drawbacks to it too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I'm begging you, find another analogy. Surely you can appreciate the irony of all the interventions the US has justified by repeatedly pointing to that example. If you want people to stop using an analogy then maybe you should think about why they continue referring to it instead of getting mad at being compared to the person whose ideology you are espousing. Also, whataboutism won't work on me because I've been equally criticizing American imperialism in this thread the whole time I've been here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:If you want people to stop using an analogy then maybe you should think about why they continue referring to it instead of getting mad at being compared to the person whose ideology you are espousing. They continue to refer to it because it's been the excuse for every major US intervention for decades, like I said. Pointing out that Munich happened has been how imperialists have punched left at people who prefer diplomatic solutions forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
For the sake of argument then, what are some examples in the last 70 years of giving in to appeasement and things actually (within reason) permanently de-escalating?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:They continue to refer to it because it's been the excuse for every major US intervention for decades, like I said. Pointing out that Munich happened has been how imperialists have punched left at people who prefer diplomatic solutions forever. If Putin was looking for a diplomatic solution, he'd actually need to not be threatening an invasion. It will ultimately be Russian troops doing the invasion. He has already invaded the country before. The best way to keep a country out of NATO is not to prove to them the consequences of not being in NATO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Koramei posted:For the sake of argument then, what are some examples in the last 70 years of giving in to appeasement and things actually (within reason) permanently de-escalating? Well Curtis LeMay considered not bombing Cuba to be appeasement, but I think diplomacy was the right decision there at least. My argument is that the US generally does not prefer diplomacy though, so it's hard to point to examples where we were appropriately diplomatic. US aside, maybe some of the Arab-Israeli peace deals would count?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:If Putin was looking for a diplomatic solution, he'd actually need to not be threatening an invasion. It will ultimately be Russian troops doing the invasion. He has already invaded the country before. Quite like, unfortunately, the situation Ukraine has with nukes. They traded in the nukes they inherited from Russia for a guarantee of independence. Turns out, nukes are any countries' actual guarantee of independence. So that's "fun".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Well Curtis LeMay considered not bombing Cuba to be appeasement, You can't be blind to the irony, can you
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:They continue to refer to it because it's been the excuse for every major US intervention for decades, like I said. Pointing out that Munich happened has been how imperialists have punched left at people who prefer diplomatic solutions forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You can't be blind to the irony, can you I've said I think Russia should make concessions, so there's not as much irony as you seem to think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
just to be clear, Russia’s specific demands to de-escalate are: https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en * No foreign troops or weaponry East of Germany * No short-range or intermediate range missiles within NATO’s territory; * A permanent end to NATO’s “open door policy” * No military activity or cooperation “in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.” * Ukraine formally and explicitly barred from ever being a NATO member in addition to making a mockery of self-determination, i don’t see how any of that suggests good faith on behalf of the russian federation
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:just to be clear, Russia’s specific demands to de-escalate are: https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en As a response to NATO's "our offer is this, nothing" rhetoric, I think it's basically like for like. I hope it's not their final position though, because it's pretty nuts. I think limitations on arms/troops in some sensitive countries could make sense, but a blanket ban on anything in Eastern Europe seems extreme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Well Curtis LeMay considered not bombing Cuba to be appeasement what
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Quite like, unfortunately, the situation Ukraine has with nukes. They traded in the nukes they inherited from Russia for a guarantee of independence. Turns out, nukes are any countries' actual guarantee of independence. So that's "fun". It's great- notice how there wasn't really talk of Finland or Sweden joining NATO until Russia unveiled their newfangled aggressive foreign policy? Even Ukraine was not that interested in NATO membership before Russia invaded and annexed the parts of the country that would have been reliably against joining NATO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Quite like, unfortunately, the situation Ukraine has with nukes. They traded in the nukes they inherited from Russia for a guarantee of independence. Turns out, nukes are any countries' actual guarantee of independence. So that's "fun". This gets bandied about a lot but its not really accurate at all. For a number of reasons it was unrealistic for Ukraine to keep the nukes it had inherited from the Soviet Union. From the cost to maintain them, the cost to take full operational control of them, not to mention most were in ICBM form that couldn't easily target Russia and maybe could only hit the very far east of the country. Not to mention the sanctions they would likey have had to endure from the west. It just wasn't worth it for a small country like Ukraine to keep the nukes and their effectiveness as a deterrent (or lack of) wouldn't have justified the expense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:As a response to NATO's "our offer is this, nothing" rhetoric, I think it's basically like for like. I hope it's not their final position though, because it's pretty nuts. what why would nato offer anything in a crisis that russia has entirely engineered itself? why would nato even dignify demands that would require it to run roughshod over the sovereignty of its members and third parties
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Quite like, unfortunately, the situation Ukraine has with nukes. They traded in the nukes they inherited from Russia for a guarantee of independence. Turns out, nukes are any countries' actual guarantee of independence. So that's "fun". Sinteres posted:I've said I think Russia should make concessions, so there's not as much irony as you seem to think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:what Because it's better than leaving Ukraine to hang while promising to punish Russia over their corpse I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:This implies that Cuba should have conceded something to America, because of America's legitimate concerns, given the rest of your posts. The Soviets did, over Cuban objections, which is what I want the US to do to Ukraine, so this isn't the own you think it is. Castro later admitted that he was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
i still struggle to see what utility "spheres of influence" and buffer regions have in an age of nuclear powers. i wouldn't care about a mexico-china alliance (in a realpolitik sense, i'll leave the right to self-determination out of the consideration for now) because a staging ground for a conventional invasion doesn't mean anything to a country with a robust nuclear triad if the concern is really about russian security, which realistically only concerns the issues of missile defense and staging of intermediate range nuclear weapons, then why didn't russia make any meaningful movement to keep the INF treaty from disintegrating, and why isn't a renegotiated treaty on nuclear weapons and defense the front and center issue?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2022 22:09
|
|
