|
Generation Internet posted:Life comes at you fast. Article 1 is about choice of language by Americans, article 2 is about lack of preemptive sanctions. Zelenskyi first called for preemptive sanctions quite before January 28.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:What are the incentives for Russia to have an imperial sphere of influence, if it were not for it's autocratic regime that needs to shield itself from the danger of democracy? Well, there's the fact that they've been invaded a hell of a lot of times over the past few centuries, usually during moments of relative military weakness, for starters. The lesson that a lot of Russians have taken from history is that when they have a militarily powerful empire with buffer states on their borders, they prosper. When their military is weak and there aren't buffer states between them and their powerful enemies, they tend to wind up with eras like the Time of Troubles, Napoleon's invasion, the Eastern Front in WWI, Hitler in WWII, and the period of the West dictating their internal policies to ruinous outcomes that we call the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
Maybe one day Russia will learn that them invading neighboring countries doesn't lead to the population being #1 fans of the new regime, and that it will tend to work against them, not with them. Oh well, maybe this time it'll work out. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 08:35
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:https://twitter.com/noahbarkin/status/1494999291802312708 To add to this Ukraine is a significant grain exporter to China and a part of the belt and road initiative. It would be interesting to know what the Chinese government thinks about the current high fuel prices and the prospect of grain prices shooting up if Putin messes with the breadbasket of Europe. Putin desperately wanted a Chinese-Russian alliance ever since the Shanghai cooperation organisation to outweigh the western block but it never materialised, Russia used to be a technology and cheap energy source and now just a cheap resource state for little benefit. During the 00s the RU press was always going on about how good Putin is because he wants to make Russia strong and the evil libs were going to sell Siberia's wealth to China and make Russia a Chinese client state and here we are
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 08:53
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, there's the fact that they've been invaded a hell of a lot of times over the past few centuries, usually during moments of relative military weakness, for starters. The lesson that a lot of Russians have taken from history is that when they have a militarily powerful empire with buffer states on their borders, they prosper. When their military is weak and there aren't buffer states between them and their powerful enemies, they tend to wind up with eras like the Time of Troubles, Napoleon's invasion, the Eastern Front in WWI, Hitler in WWII, and the period of the West dictating their internal policies to ruinous outcomes that we call the 90s. Actually Russia has a history of being unsuccesfully invaded a bunch of times over the last few centuries while most European countries were succesfully invaded a couple of times over the last few centuries, so I would dispute that Russia has this special security need compared to Ukraine, France or Poland. There is no logical reason that the country with the largest nuclear arsenal would need "buffer states" to deter dangers from the outside. Putin needs buffer states because he fears that democracies prospering on the borders of Russia would lead to internal pressures on his regime that might lead to a "color revolution" and maybe because he has the personal ambition of creating an imperial legacy.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 09:03
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Actually Russia has a history of being unsuccesfully invaded a bunch of times over the last few centuries while most European countries were succesfully invaded a couple of times over the last few centuries, so I would dispute that Russia has this special security need compared to Ukraine, France or Poland. During those periods of invasions, the Russians lost tens of millions of lives, and had their technological development set back years if not decades. No one here is saying that they have a "special security need"; what I am pointing out to you is that, like all countries and civilizations, they have taken some broad lessons from their history - some of which you and I may consider good, others of which you and I may consider bad. One of those lessons is that their nation is either protected or vulnerable, strong or weak. When you're a massive country situated on the Eurasian steppe, there's no hope of becoming Switzerland. I'm not justifying that collective mentality, nor am I defending it. I am explaining it, in precisely the same way that I would describe how Manifest Destiny became a thing and why it still impacts the way Americans collectively view the U.S. and the world at large. quote:There is no logical reason that the country with the largest nuclear arsenal would need "buffer states" to deter dangers from the outside. Putin needs buffer states because he fears that democracies prospering on the borders of Russia would lead to internal pressures on his regime that might lead to a "color revolution" and maybe because he has the personal ambition of creating an imperial legacy. Nah, that's a completely ahistorical claim. If that were the case, Putin would be an aberration in Russian history, not the norm. Rulers like Peter I, Catherine II, and yes, Stalin would not be revered as much as they are in Russia to this day. You don't lose 27 million people in one war with mostly one Western country and then not come out of it wanting buffer states in between yourself and the West.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 09:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:When their military is weak and there aren't buffer states between them and their powerful enemies, they tend to wind up with eras like the Time of Troubles, Napoleon's invasion, the Eastern Front in WWI, Hitler in WWII, and the period of the West dictating their internal policies to ruinous outcomes that we call the 90s. Buffer client states along the border would have protected Russia from Jeffrey Sachs rolling in a land invasion and giving Egor Gaidar advice. Sure. We are in 21st century. Its not buffer states, its pure post-imperial resentiment, they (either leadership or people trusting them) want to lord over people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 09:25
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Buffer client states along the border would have protected Russia from Jeffrey Sachs rolling in a land invasion and giving Egor Gaidar advice. Sure. Had the USSR remained intact, yes, it seems unlikely to me that Russia would have been subjected to shock therapy in the 90s. Obviously that's a huge historical counterfactual, since a lot would have had to have gone differently for the USSR to stay together past 1991, but hey, you asked. quote:We are in 21st century. Its not buffer states, its pure post-imperial resentiment, they (either leadership or people trusting them) want to lord over people. Nah, it's countries believing themselves to be more vulnerable than they actually are, because their history has been one of either strength or vulnerability. Most Russians don't vote for Putin because he allows them to lord over people; someone posted a poll a couple pages back showing that geopolitics is nowhere close to their top priority. They vote for Putin in part because they believe he keeps them safe - just as Americans loved noted dumbass warmonger George W. Bush for way too long because they believed he kept them safe after that one really minor, tiny, insignificant episode in which he didn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 09:33
|
|
|
The desire is real, but Russia is not a special state that get to play by special rules, and the 'buffer state' solution (and pandering to it) lets Russia off the hook for it's appaling diplomacy and active measures efforts in its neighbours. Russia's problem is that it doesn't even try to be a good friend and doesn't think it has to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 09:38
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The desire is real, but Russia is not a special state that get to play by special rules, and the 'buffer state' solution (and pandering to it) lets Russia off the hook for it's appaling diplomacy and active measures efforts in its neighbours. Russia thinks it tried to be a good friend in the past (particularly in the 90s) and got burned for it, though. Obviously giving them buffer states isn't an option, but neither is treating them like a pariah state that's gotten too uppity. They have valid security concerns, and if we want them to not act quite so dickishly to their neighbors, the West is going to have to address those concerns constructively. We're going to have to engage them Great Power to Great Power, as we did during the Cold War. That means signing arms control treaties, negotiating a binding treaty that guarantees Ukraine's neutrality, and creating a new European security framework that eventually replaces and phases out NATO. Yes, it's a bit of a farce since they're a crumbling empire, but hey, so are we - and our diplomacy over the past few decades has been every bit as appalling as Russia's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 09:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Russia thinks it tried to be a good friend in the past (particularly in the 90s) and got burned for it, though. Obviously giving them buffer states isn't an option, but neither is treating them like a pariah state that's gotten too uppity. They have valid security concerns, and if we want them to not act quite so dickishly to their neighbors, the West is going to have to address those concerns constructively. We're going to have to engage them Great Power to Great Power, as we did during the Cold War. That means signing arms control treaties, negotiating a binding treaty that guarantees Ukraine's neutrality, and creating a new European security framework that eventually replaces and phases out NATO. Yes, it's a bit of a farce since they're a crumbling empire, but hey, so are we - and our diplomacy over the past few decades has been every bit as appalling as Russia's. They're not asking for security guarantees in exchange for not being so dickish to their neighbours though, they're asking for an enshrined security order where they have an absolute right to bully their neighbours as much as they want and veto their foreign relations with no chance of interference. There's no compromise to be made on that basis; as the US, EU and NATO have all said, they get nothing. They can have talks about arms control, but they're totally disinterested in symetrical restrictions (again belying the fact that this isn't so much about valid security concerns as it is Russia attempting to enshrine a position as a great power with special status in Europe).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 10:10
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:https://twitter.com/noahbarkin/status/1494999291802312708 Doesn't seem too outlandish to assume that the CCP is looking at russian belligerence and assuming that it's not coming off well and may, in fact, be coming off so poorly that it may harden sociopolitical power balance against their internally intended foreign policy goals (some of which include belligerent expansion goals of their own), and, being neither executively or financially weak nor poorly managed in terms of intelligence gathering, the kremlin's toolkit doesn't really ... work towards that kind of alliance with them in the way they want. I do not know to what extent or to what substantivity (sp?) china will protest against this now but I will be absolutely fascinated if it continues to such an extent that it becomes a major factor in influencing what russia does or if it actually turns around Schroedinger's Invasion
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 10:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:negotiating a binding treaty that guarantees Ukraine's neutrality Shouldn't this be up to Ukrainians to decide? What if the people elect somebody super pro-NATO? Or what if they go the other way and elect someone super pro-Russia?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 10:22
|
|
|
Good Lord. It’s like just throwing any random poorly justified political, historical, realpolitikical, cultural, or sociological lovely explanation of why putin isn’t actually that bad against the wall and hoping something sticks. Actually guys, considering napoleon and hitler, it’s the only reasonable thing Russia could possible do in this situation - it’s really the fault of the west if you think about it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 10:31
|
|
|
I mean, honestly, that would reinforce your point that self-directed sovereignty should be the most important conditional issue, with some caveats. Especially considering the concern involving any question of intervention policy, especially by countries with histories of self-dealing colonialism. If the country ended up decisively electing a pro-incorporation party, what's even the point of stepping in strongly to oppose the forcible incorporation? It would be an uphill shitstorm in every conceivable direction and would make any remaining intervention intent look like further self-dealing at best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 10:32
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They're not asking for security guarantees in exchange for not being so dickish to their neighbours though, they're asking for an enshrined security order where they have an absolute right to bully their neighbours as much as they want and veto their foreign relations with no chance of interference. Both sides are going to have to compromise, whether they like it or not, if they want these face-offs to stop happening. Otherwise, best-case scenario is we're back here talking about the same thing a year, five years, even ten years from now. The "gently caress you, you get nothing" strategy gets us nowhere. Russia has shown that they're willing to accept a neutral Finland over the past several decades; there's a chance they would accept a Ukraine whose neutrality is enshrined in a treaty, as well. That offer may not sway them, but at this point, there's really not much else the U.S., NATO, and the EU can do besides threatening sanctions (which we may or may not follow up on) and continuing to sell Ukraine arms. We may as well go big with the diplomatic overtures. Revelation 2-13 posted:Good Lord. It’s like just throwing any random poorly justified political, historical, realpolitikical, cultural, or sociological lovely explanation of why putin isn’t actually that bad against the wall and hoping something sticks. That's not an argument anyone is making. punk rebel ecks posted:Shouldn't this be up to Ukrainians to decide? What if the people elect somebody super pro-NATO? Or what if they go the other way and elect someone super pro-Russia? NATO member-states need to vote unanimously to let in a new member-state. As long as France and/or Germany (or any member-state) say no, it's a no. But as for neutrality, I have a feeling that if NATO accession is impossible (which it is), they'd be glad to vote in favor of a treaty that guarantees their neutrality. It's got to be better than this Schrodinger's NATO membership state they're in, where they're simultaneously in the running but also absolutely not. Majorian fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Feb 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 10:36
|
|
|
But the reality is the West can sustain the status quo, whereas Russia cannot. Theres really no reason to make these compromises on fundamental values for no real gain. e: like, it's a mischaracterisation to say the attitude to Russia is 'you get nothing'. It's 'you get to play by the same rules everyone else does, which means that your sovereign interests end at your border without someone else's consent'. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Feb 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 10:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Both sides are going to have to compromise, whether they like it or not, if they want these face-offs to stop happening. Otherwise, best-case scenario is we're back here talking about the same thing a year, five years, even ten years from now. The "gently caress you, you get nothing" strategy gets us nowhere. Russia has shown that they're willing to accept a neutral Finland over the past several decades; there's a chance they would accept a Ukraine whose neutrality is enshrined in a treaty, as well. That offer may not sway them, but at this point, there's really not much else the U.S., NATO, and the EU can do besides threatening sanctions (which we may or may not follow up on) and continuing to sell Ukraine arms. We may as well go big with the diplomatic overtures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 10:51
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:NATO itself isn't the empire, it's the mechanism for the expansion of the US empire and for the maintenance of its sphere of influence I guess I'll volunteer to stay within this particular empire and sphere of influence, if the empirical fact is that the only alternative is to become part of a much worse empire / sphere of influence. Perhaps it could be said of any form of cooperation in international relations that it bears aspects of the Empire due to the intrinsic power differential between the involved countries, but is still preferable to going at it alone in a world full of malevolents actors who manifest a far worse version of imperialism. And that this obsession with what about the NATO / EU resembles imperialism induces a tunnel vision blocking the perception of all the things that make these imperial structures different from others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 10:52
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:My understanding is that Finland wasn't actually neutral during that period, Soviet influence was just rather limited to sell the idea of the USSR as a good neighbor. (And to prevent Sweden from running off to NATO) Oh sure, Finland wasn't really neutral - "Finlandization" became a word for a reason, after all. But there was influence from both blocs throughout the Cold War: quote:Despite the official policy, there was some secret co-operation with the West. This ranged from Finnish organizations such as the Social Democratic Party accepting U.S. Central Intelligence Agency funding to sharing of seismic data on nuclear tests. Likewise, Eastern Bloc countries conducted espionage in Finland, e.g., the East German Stasi had agents there. And the treaty guaranteed its ability to remain a liberal democracy with social democratic features throughout that period. I don't think it's impossible for Ukraine to negotiate something similar with Russia and NATO - it may be difficult, but it will probably be less difficult than negotiating NATO accession at this point. Alchenar posted:But the reality is the West can sustain the status quo, whereas Russia cannot. Theres really no reason to make these compromises on fundamental values for no real gain. I'm not so sure the West can sustain the status quo as much as you think it can - public enthusiasm for involving ourselves in places like Eastern Europe is only declining in the U.S. And I'm certain Ukraine can't keep up the status quo. As we saw with those voter polls from earlier in the thread, the center cannot hold. People like Zelensky who run on unity platforms are going to have trouble beating ultra-nationalists or pro-Moscow factions. I think Russia has as good a chance of wearing all of us down, as we do of wearing them down. Majorian fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Feb 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 11:00
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:My understanding is that Finland wasn't actually neutral during that period, Soviet influence was just rather limited to sell the idea of the USSR as a good neighbor. (And to prevent Sweden from running off to NATO) Finland very much was neutral during that period insofar as it went to anyone having boots on our ground, and why is it that everyone just seems to ignore that ETYK happened? Jesus Christ guys, I expected more from you!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 11:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:And the treaty guaranteed its ability to remain a liberal democracy with social democratic features throughout that period. I don't think it's impossible for Ukraine to negotiate something similar with Russia and NATO - it may be difficult, but it will probably be less difficult than negotiating NATO accession at this point. I don’t understand how you reconcile Ukraine getting invaded in 2014 for having the audacity to liberalise with the supposed notion that Russia would be okay with liberal, but “neutral” Ukraine. To me the argument that Putin here is actually threatened by EU than by NATO does make significantly more sense than what you say. What does neutrality even mean in your argument? Vassalization or other forms of loss of sovereignty aren’t quite just that. Why you feel, as you said earlier, that Russia would even be interested in a neutral Ukraine, after this essay? That is to name just a single recent example of contempt intrinsically held for the mere concept of a Ukrainian nation by Putin, his political establishment, and certain sociopolitical circles in Russia. As for West sustaining itself in a stand-off versus Russia, we definitely have the coffers to do it. The problem is in European political will - Russia plays its cards well with holding some nations by the balls (Italy imports 90% of its gas from Russia), and we have some vocal “Russia understanders” who seem to believe (the alternative explanation is possible, and more depressing) that appeasement can reform an imperialistic fascist regime (I’m the historical precedent for this). cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Feb 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 11:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm not so sure the West can sustain the status quo as much as you think it can - public enthusiasm for involving ourselves in places like Eastern Europe is only declining in the U.S. And I'm certain Ukraine can't keep up the status quo. As we saw with those voter polls from earlier in the thread, the center cannot hold. People like Zelensky who run on unity platforms are going to have trouble beating ultra-nationalists or pro-Moscow factions. I think Russia has as good a chance of wearing all of us down, as we do of wearing them down. I doubt shipping some weapons to Ukraine has that much impact on the American public. I guess Biden could just stop talking about Ukraine but that doesn't get Russia closer to what they want. If the government or public in Ukraine gets worked down by Russian pressure they are free to make whatever deal they want with Russia. If they want to enshrine neutrality in their constitution they have the ability to do that. The US or NATO is however not going to officially recognize Russias sphere of influence and sign over the future of Ukraine to Russia. It is simply anathema to western self-perception and proclaimed values.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 11:56
|
|
|
Can I say the idea that Russia needs buffer states in case of an invasion is absolutely laughable? It's not 1940 anymore, and the idea that we are going to actively invade a nuclear armed stateis just mind boggling. Russia much like the US is a country that will absolutely use it's nuclear arsenal if threatened by an actual invasion force that is from an actual total war situation. There's absolutely no reason in this day an age that the idea of a buffer states exists, and it's just propaganda by Putin to justify his current actions which are just an excuse to try and strong arm other countries in order try and get what he wants. Russia is solely responsible for what is happening and they are threatening to invade a sovereign nation, it's not for defense, and solely for Putin's own ideals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:Can I say the idea that Russia needs buffer states in case of an invasion is absolutely laughable? It's not 1940 anymore, and the idea that we are going to actively invade a nuclear armed stateis just mind boggling. Russia much like the US is a country that will absolutely use it's nuclear arsenal if threatened by an actual invasion force that is from an actual total war situation. There's absolutely no reason in this day an age that the idea of a buffer states exists, and it's just propaganda by Putin to justify his current actions which are just an excuse to try and strong arm other countries in order try and get what he wants. Same goes for the "oh what's going to stop NATO from placing nukes close to Russia if they expand???", which is just plain nonsense in a world where nuclear submarines exist. Russia just wants the West to give Russia a carte blanche on treating certain countries however they want, namely in the case of Ukraine as a territory to be systematically looted through a puppet kleptocracy, and they call this geopilitics (which is a deplorable concept in itself, but sadly still respected among self-styled"reasonable" and "rational" analysts). steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Feb 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 12:11
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:Can I say the idea that Russia needs buffer states in case of an invasion is absolutely laughable? It's not 1940 anymore, and the idea that we are going to actively invade a nuclear armed stateis just mind boggling. Russia much like the US is a country that will absolutely use it's nuclear arsenal if threatened by an actual invasion force that is from an actual total war situation. There's absolutely no reason in this day an age that the idea of a buffer states exists, and it's just propaganda by Putin to justify his current actions which are just an excuse to try and strong arm other countries in order try and get what he wants. Oh land based cruise missiles in Ukraine would absolutely pose a serious defence problem for Russia, the military concern in principle is totally legitimate. It's that the correct solution to that problem is 'okay, lets have a treaty that bans these missiles being deployed anywhere up to 500km from the Russia/x border with verification mechanisms' which Russia rejects (because Putin wants a solution where he gets to strong arm neighbours).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 12:14
|
|
|
How many arms treaties has every nation joined and then left the second they feel that they can get a better deal by doing so? I mean this seriously to both sides here, without there being the threat of force and/or some other mechanism to prevent it being broken, international agreements generally seem to get ignored or circumvented reasonably often by everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 12:35
|
|
|
Russian troops confirmed to stay in Belarus. https://t.me/tass_agency/110257
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 12:37
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:There's absolutely no reason in this day an age that the idea of a buffer states exists, and it's just propaganda by Putin to justify his current actions which are just an excuse to try and strong arm other countries in order try and get what he wants. It's not necessarily solely for ideals in the fascist irredentist sense, but the economic component is huge. Ukrainians know that all countries that integrated with the EU saw a good raise in the quality of life and those that are "buffer states" are what they are. Ukraine was already Finlandized as a neutral state for decades for Christ's sake and they had two revolutions in the span of 10 years because the corruption was so unbearable and the future so bleak and the last one kicked off the invasion due to the threat of closer economic ties with the EU. This is why the back and forth with the 5th iteration of a putin-understander is so tedious - they purposefully ignore the economic component and just credulously focus on the thinly veiled lie of the "security concern" as if if there was no NATO everything would be fine and Putin would definitely let Ukraine develop into a successful democratic state while occupying parts of it
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 12:55
|
|
|
Somaen posted:It's not necessarily solely for ideals in the fascist irredentist sense, but the economic component is huge. Ukrainians know that all countries that integrated with the EU saw a good raise in the quality of life and those that are "buffer states" are what they are. Ukraine was already Finlandized as a neutral state for decades for Christ's sake and they had two revolutions in the span of 10 years because the corruption was so unbearable and the future so bleak and the last one kicked off the invasion due to the threat of closer economic ties with the EU. This is why the back and forth with the 5th iteration of a putin-understander is so tedious - they purposefully ignore the economic component and just credulously focus on the thinly veiled lie of the "security concern" as if if there was no NATO everything would be fine and Putin would definitely let Ukraine develop into a successful democratic state while occupying parts of it There's also a bit of overlooked truth here: Russia is terrible at maintaining the stability of it's client states. Not realising that Yanukovych's grip on the country was incredibly tenuous and pushing too hard was how this whole crisis started. There's no reason to believe that even if it were possible to offer Russia a 'buffer zone' that such a solution would be remotely sustainable given the sovereign wishes of the people in that zone. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Feb 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 13:05
|
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/pressjfo.n...16002060555111/ Ukrainians are saying that Russia has sent 134 military equipment pieces into Donbas - howitzers and MLRS specifically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 13:32
|
|
|
Looks like it could happen as soon as tomorrow  https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1495370998601949184?t=4AhA_k8Ep8VK621mG0DBEA&s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Looks like it could happen as soon as tomorrow They may wait at least until Tuesday, when the Donbas “debate” is scheduled in Russian Parliament. https://www.interfax.ru/russia/823113
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Both sides are going to have to compromise, whether they like it or not, if they want these face-offs to stop happening. Why would either the NATO leadership or Russian leadership want the face-offs to stop? An internal politics easy button and a nearly unlimited funding opportunity for each other's military industrial complexes is a friggin' blessing to both sides. The only cost is the health and wellness of people neither side care about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 13:35
|
|
|
At this point I believe it when I see it, it's always "tonight" "tomorrow" "on wednesday"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 13:35
|
|
|
It's pretty horrific that people are bringing up how they are sympathetic about Russia wanting buffer states because of how they got invaded a lot, considering the last time they got invaded 1/4 of Belarusian population and 1/5th of Ukrainian one got murdered by an enemy the Moscow government armed. Yes, Hitler in particular would want to murder all those people anyway (both Jewish and Slavic), but the general principle that they're supposed to be there to die for the Russian cause is reprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
So with Russia being pretty good at modern disinformation campaigns online (as evidenced by hoky poo poo the arguments about this across the entire Internet) I'm assuming taking nearly everything I read with a massive pinch of salt. What is the actual "best" outcome for Ukraine here and what is the "best" outcome for Russia? From above I'm guessing for Russia its someone in Ukraine breaks a cease fire and shells a load of ethnic russians giving Russia an excuse to roll in. Is the best option for Ukraine just to hold fast?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
FYI Donbass isn't predominantly ethnic Russian (though city of Donetsk used to have a slight plurality). Of course given Putin doesn't recognize Ukrainian peoplehood...
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
Mebh posted:So with Russia being pretty good at modern disinformation campaigns online (as evidenced by hoky poo poo the arguments about this across the entire Internet) I'm assuming taking nearly everything I read with a massive pinch of salt. The best outcome for Russia is that civic order collapses in Ukraine “on its own”, and subsequent election “works out” into their favour. They would want to get a government which can rewrite the constitution to remove any Europe/NATO motions from it, grant Donbas veto rights over foreign and economic policy, and recognise Crimea as Russian. That would fulfil their stated objectives and likely priorities, and spare them any meaningful consequences. The best outcome for Ukraine is that Russia pays reparations and leaves Donbas and Crimea, Europe relegates Russia to a minor energy supplier, and there’s a Budapest memorandum 2.0 or equivalent sovereignty and territorial integrity protection regime in place, be it an agreement of inviolability, or a Godzilla law with automatic sanctions. Neither of these is remotely possible. In reality, Russia can further escalate without any real reason, as they’re fabricating plenty - like in any other recent conflict. Ukraine’s best scenario depends on what Russia will do, and how West will react to that, since I’m sceptical that Putin’s regime is vulnerable to military casualties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Mebh posted:So with Russia being pretty good at modern disinformation campaigns online (as evidenced by hoky poo poo the arguments about this across the entire Internet) I'm assuming taking nearly everything I read with a massive pinch of salt. The aggressor here is Russia, you're nearly always going to be correct just assuming everything that paints them in a positive light in this conflict is untrue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2022 16:04
|
|
