|
Let's not victim blame here.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:You didn't answer my question. Do you think that Ukraine is a sovereign state that has the right to decide on its policies, including economic and defense coalitions? Or do you think that Moscow makes better decisions for them? If the latter, shouldn't Ukraine be outright annexed by Russia because a puppet state serves no purpose? We accept all kinds of limitations on states' sovereignty as a matter of course. Most aren't allowed to develop nuclear weapons, for example. Depending on the part of the world and who you're friends with, you may or may not be able to get away with civilian massacres since R2P actions have been accepted as a valid reason to violate state sovereignty in some cases. Ukraine's unfortunate enough to be in a rough neighborhood bordering one of the three most powerful countries in the world, and as with nuclear weapons development in some cases elsewhere, if they'd been able to rush into NATO, which is essentially an anti-Russian alliance, while Russia was occupied, maybe they would have gotten away with it as a fait accompli like the Baltics did, but now that Russia's alert and focused on the issue, it does appear that Ukraine isn't permitted to join, whether you want to frame that as a restriction on Ukraine or a rational choice by the members of NATO (who want to contain but not actually fight Russia). I don't think that means Ukraine shouldn't be an independent state any more than not being able to host Soviet nukes in the Cold War meant Cuba shouldn't be independent. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jan 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:We accept all kinds of limitations on states' sovereignty as a matter of course. Most aren't allowed to develop nuclear weapons, for example. Depending on the part of the world and who you're friends with, you may or may not be able to get away with civilian massacres since R2P actions have been accepted as a valid reason to violate state sovereignty in some cases. Ukraine's unfortunate enough to be in a rough neighborhood bordering one of the three most powerful countries in the world, and as with nuclear weapons development in some cases elsewhere, if they'd been able to rush into NATO, which is essentially an anti-Russian alliance, while Russia was occupied, maybe they would have gotten away with it as a fait accompli like the Baltics did, but now that Russia's alert and focused on the issue, it does appear that Ukraine isn't permitted to join, whether you want to frame that as a restriction on Ukraine or a rational choice by the members of NATO (who want to contain but not actually fight Russia). I don't think that means Ukraine shouldn't be an independent state any more than not being able to host Soviet nukes in the Cold War meant Cuba shouldn't be independent. The fact you had to do so much blatantly empty rhetorical tip toeing around the simple question should be more than enough to illuminate the indefensible nature of your position. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jan 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's an impressive amount of tip toeing around saying "I believe some countries deserve to be subservient clients of their imperial masters" Deserve's got nothing to do with it. If I could pick somewhere for Ukraine to be, it wouldn't be next to Russia, but unfortunately for them that's where they are. Literally nobody's willing to fight Russia for them, so if Russia decides to inflict their will on Ukraine, the reality is already that they can, and I don't think after the fact sanctions are going to make any victims of that decision feel any better about the situation. That being the case, nations that care about Ukraine should stop encouraging it to take a hard diplomatic line with Russia by assuring Ukraine with empty promises of support. steinrokkan posted:The fact you had to do so much blatantly empty rhetorical tip toeing around the simple question should be more than enough to illuminate the indefensible nature of your position. In response to your edit, sorry for trying to give a considered response instead of just being flip and concise. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jan 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
The people of Ukraine have a natural and inviolable right to self-determination. Best of luck enforcing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
According to current events no one is on board letting Russia block Ukraine getting into NATO, perhaps less paragraphs need to be written about that and more about what is actually happening
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Aha yes as long as those troops sit on the border Europe and America will continue to trip over their words and eventually accidentally invite Putin to take Ukraine. Like these people's grandparents lived through the loving sufentland crisis and still think that appeasement is helpful with inter European conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:In response to your edit, sorry for trying to give a considered response instead of just being flip and concise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
It seems like the Russian contention is to prevent countries from joining NATO so they can ensure their absolute dominance over them by being able to invade: see, Belarus, so i don't think it's just some nice thing about seeing to their own defense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
More... interesting ideas emerging from Germany: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/open-letter-it-s-time-to-invite-russia-to-join-nato-a-682287.html Check out this one neat trick to solve all of your security issues, Atlanticists hate it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:More... interesting ideas emerging from Germany: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/open-letter-it-s-time-to-invite-russia-to-join-nato-a-682287.html This is actually worse than the "We'll solve the Ukraine/Russia crises by offering them solar panels and windmill tech"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:It seems like the Russian contention is to prevent countries from joining NATO so they can ensure their absolute dominance over them by being able to invade: see, Belarus, so i don't think it's just some nice thing about seeing to their own defense. Use of force is one of the levers Russia has available to compel other nations in pursuit of their interests, and certainly don't want to see their capability to wield it diminished.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:More... interesting ideas emerging from Germany: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/open-letter-it-s-time-to-invite-russia-to-join-nato-a-682287.html It seems to have worked with Greece and Turkey so far! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:More... interesting ideas emerging from Germany: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/open-letter-it-s-time-to-invite-russia-to-join-nato-a-682287.html It's laughable now, but back in the 90's before these patterns were set it's an idea that deserved more serious consideration. I don't think it would have worked out enough for Russia to have gotten anywhere close to full membership, but there was at least some potential to create a NATO that wasn't built around opposing Russia. Russia was even kind of democratic at the time, or at least undemocratic in ways the West approved of like shelling the Duma. By the time Putin took power I think the door was closed, even if he was still talking cooperation for a few years, but a warmer relationship might have led to Yeltsin picking a different successor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is actually worse than the "We'll solve the Ukraine/Russia crises by offering them solar panels and windmill tech" What if we just, like, ask Putin to democratise and stop invading his neighbours? Has anyone tried that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Counter proposal: Russia released Kaliningrad as a new East Germany, and every German expert and politicians has to move there. This way, we undo the thing the Russians allowed in exchange for not expanding NATO eastward. I think this is the most correct legalist approach, and thus something that must happen-Sinteres posted:It's laughable now, but back in the 90's before these patterns were set it's an idea that deserved more serious consideration. I don't think it would have worked out enough for Russia to have gotten anywhere close to full membership, but there was at least some potential to create a NATO that wasn't built around opposing Russia. Russia was even kind of democratic at the time, or at least undemocratic in ways the West approved of like shelling the Duma. By the time Putin took power I think the door was closed, even if he was still talking cooperation for a few years, but a warmer relationship might have led to Yeltsin picking a different successor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
I wonder if Putin was doing so to act as a poison pill to NATO like they often do (and the US/China and others often do) on the UN Human Rights boards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
I think back in 2000 it could've been a legit effort since this was before the whole Russia stronk thing kicked off and they could've been looking to lower tensions since they were in no position to do anything else really
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
I mean, 2000 was already well after the NATO states and Russia antagonized each other over Yugoslavia, and showed they had contradictory aims. The poison pill argument mentioned above is probably true, joining the alliance wouldn't have altered the basic geopolitical realities on the ground, which mean that Russia does have different interests spread over different geographical scope than any other NATO members (but that doesn't excuse them acting as aggressors against other nations). The NATO, as an institution focused on what are basically technical matters, just isn't suited to play the role of a political mediation arena. That's what the Council of Europe is for, and if the Council can't achieve that goal, then neither would the NATO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
State Department official, in explaining ordered departure for Kyiv embassy families, says the decision was based on conclusion that Russia could invade at any time. But notes that USG is still not sure that Russia will invade
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
Isn't the Russian military waiting for ideal weather? I was under the impression the ground wasn't frozen or cold enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 01:29
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:State Department official, in explaining ordered departure for Kyiv embassy families, says the decision was based on conclusion that Russia could invade at any time. But notes that USG is still not sure that Russia will invade The travel advisory also recommends US citizens to leave the country. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/ukraine-travel-advisory.html quote:On January 23, 2022, the Department of State authorized the voluntary departure of U.S. direct hire employees (USDH) and ordered the departure of eligible family members (EFM) from Embassy Kyiv due to the continued threat of Russian military action. U.S. citizens in Ukraine should consider departing now using commercial or other privately available transportation options. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Jan 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 01:35
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Isn't the Russian military waiting for ideal weather? I was under the impression the ground wasn't frozen or cold enough. Idk why this keeps getting tossed around. The Russian military is capable of fighting in any weather, and it is also basically as cold as its going to get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Isn't the Russian military waiting for ideal weather? I was under the impression the ground wasn't frozen or cold enough. Weather's already ideal. Things holding it back are negotiations and that there's tons of equipment still on rails, in particular lots of movement from the Eastern Military District into Belarus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
The Russian army is always waiting for another Stalingrad according to posters itt
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:Idk why this keeps getting tossed around. The Russian military is capable of fighting in any weather, and it is also basically as cold as its going to get. I've read it online more than once Ukraine is experiencing a warmer-than-normal winter. That said, how much longer until all the equipment reaches Eastern Ukraine?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 04:41
|
|
|
I just don't get why if Russia was actually going to invade they haven't yet. There wasn't months of buildup like this (and time for the west to formulate a responsive) for South Ossetia or Crimea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 05:37
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:I just don't get why if Russia was actually going to invade they haven't yet. There wasn't months of buildup like this (and time for the west to formulate a responsive) for South Ossetia or Crimea. They are not going to invade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 05:37
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:They are not going to invade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:They are not going to invade. I want you to be right. But why is Europe and the US dumping literally hundreds of thousands of tons of supplies with a focus on anti mechanized munitions like atgms, javelins, and .50 cal ammo for a Russian bluff? The US Intel is intercepting tons of chatter about the prospects of invasion and planning for it and what happens during occupation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:I've read it online more than once Ukraine is experiencing a warmer-than-normal winter. That said, how much longer until all the equipment reaches Eastern Ukraine? When the Russians say so  There's currently 70~75 BTGs committed, which is enough to secure the land bridge to Crimea if that's what they want, and seem to be moving at least a Division's worth to Belarus (probably with the intent of keeping units near Kyiv pinned), but if they want to go for broke there's more forces they can draw from. For what it's worth, the Russia-Belarus snap "exercise" has its force concentration & movement portion scheduled to run until the 9th, with the active portion to begin on the 10th. ED: RE whether this is a bluff or not, so far this is all exactly how the real thing would look like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 05:55
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:I want you to be right. But why is Europe and the US dumping literally hundreds of thousands of tons of supplies with a focus on anti mechanized munitions like atgms, javelins, and .50 cal ammo for a Russian bluff? It's not going to be nearly as costly for him to cave as some think since he'll seamlessly transition into rhetoric about the West jumping at shadows and hyping ephemeral threats to advance NATO imperialism. Edit: and sure, he absolutely might invade. I just think it's also reasonable to suspect it's all a show. Cugel the Clever fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jan 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 05:58
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:They are not going to invade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:They are not going to invade. I wish there was like, any media source that took this angle and explained why. But it’s all war fever among the usual suspects. It makes this situation hard to figure out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 07:27
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:I want you to be right. But why is Europe and the US dumping literally hundreds of thousands of tons of supplies with a focus on anti mechanized munitions like atgms, javelins, and .50 cal ammo for a Russian bluff?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 07:50
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:I wish there was like, any media source that took this angle and explained why. Maybe this should tell you something? I don't know if Russia will attack, but they are doing everything in their power to make the preparations look as real as possible and leave absolutely no doubt about what they are doing. There is no way around everyone treating this as if it's the real thing, even if it ends up being a bluff later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 07:54
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:I just don't get why if Russia was actually going to invade they haven't yet. There wasn't months of buildup like this (and time for the west to formulate a responsive) for South Ossetia or Crimea. Aside from the question of whether they are going to invade this time... Both Ossetia and Crimea had a limited window of opportunity to get in, so they did. Ukraine was in turmoil as Yanukovich had just fallen, and there were still active uprisings with a wave of unchecked Russian separatism in the annexed areas. In Ossetia, on the other hand, they had been reinforcing their local troops since April, so that's several months before the beginning of hostilities in August, but in the end they had to act on the pretext that Georgia had endangered the peacekeeping mission in Ossetia and shelled Ossetian civilians, and they needed to respond immediately, as Georgia was already lodging diplomatic requests for a ceasefire. Meanwhile in the ongoing case, there is no urgency, nothing is pressing Russia into acting right away, even if the long delay is seemingly giving Ukraine time to prepare, it has no means of doing so in a meaningful way. So if Russia is confident Ukraine is on its own, Putin can toy with his prey for as long as he wants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 07:57
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Maybe this should tell you something? I don't know if Russia will attack, but they are doing everything in their power to make the preparations look as real as possible and leave absolutely no doubt about what they are doing. There is no way around everyone treating this as if it's the real thing, even if it ends up being a bluff later. It's harder to make a case for why they won't attack, considering Russia clearly doesn't give a poo poo about instigating warfare given they've been doing so every 6 years or so (Chechnya 1 in '95, Chechnya 2 in '01, Georgia in '08, Crimea in '14 and Donbass in '15). "Putin is a coward, actually" is a rather weak argument in the face of what Russian foreign policy tragically looks like in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 09:19
|
|
|
I think the problem with the 'it's a bluff' position is that Putin's demands have been so maximalist that nothing he can possibly be offered will make this brinksmanship look like a win for him. Compare and contrast with the Cuban Missile Crisis where the US's starting demands were exactly what they wanted 'remove the nukes from Cuba', and the concession that was made in the end was a reasonable one of reciprocal withdrawal that made everyone feel like a winner (well, aside from the 'we almost nuked each other, that was bad' feeling and the fact that Khrushchev wasn't able to get credit from the widthdrawal of missiles from Turkey so it looked like he'd lost). If this is all a bluff, what's the realistic endgame that Putin is actually looking for? One the one hand he's threatening Ukraine with invasion, on the other all his demands have been about NATO dismantling itself. I don't know at all what happens with Ukraine, but I suspect that regardless of what happens there NATO is going to emerge from this with a new sense of resolve and purpose and possibly a couple of new members.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's harder to make a case for why they won't attack, considering Russia clearly doesn't give a poo poo about instigating warfare given they've been doing so every 6 years or so (Chechnya 1 in '95, Chechnya 2 in '01, Georgia in '08, Crimea in '14 and Donbass in '15). Chechnya is part of Russia, and engaged in attacks against Russia during the interwar period, so it doesn't really belong in a narrative about Russia's expansionist impulses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2022 10:51
|
|