|
oscarthewilde posted:Every state has red lines and it is either willfully ignorant or just plain naive to believe that crossing such a red line wouldn't have consequences. This is not some attempt justify why putin/russia decided on this aggressive and destructive course of action, but purely an attempt to understand why. If you back your geopolitical opponent into a corner, and leave no room for a negations or a way out, they will at some point decide to escalate. This is difficult, if not impossible to understand according to the liberal mindset that equivocates the moral right with the epistemic true, but that's what happened the last few months. The US and NATO used Ukraine as useful pawn in their struggle with Russia and now untold Ukrainians and Russians are suffering. I don't buy that Putin felt threatened by NATO at all in the first place. And I don't think not expanding NATO would have caused Putin not to interfere in all of Russia's neighboring states.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
These days Realpolitik seems to be a term mostly used by sociopaths and people who are so colossally dumb they can't imagine anything else than the room they're currently in. It's almost ghoulishly funny how Putin is almost literally like "what?! we suppressed you and treated you like poo poo for centuries, how dare you not be grateful to us!" The abusive ex-husband comparison was a pretty good one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:I don't buy that Putin felt threatened by NATO at all in the first place. And I don't think not expanding NATO would have caused Putin not to interfere in all of Russia's neighboring states. Sure, in the context of its European members, it's not that threatening. But you're leaving out the real heavy weight in the team: the United States. Who in their right mind wouldn't find them intimidating if they're not on your side? As some official once said, NATO was built to keep US in, Russia out and Germany down – which, now that the Germans have started to increase their defence budget, a quote worth reflecting on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
The Germans started increasing their budget after Russia unilaterally ended the long peace in Europe, following 30 consecutive years when NATO did nothing but let its European forces languish in an increasing state of disrepair and accommodate Russia at every turn, never even raising a finger against Putin no matter what he did. This argument that the NATO after 1989 was actively anti-Russian is total bullshit, Russia was barely at the periphery of European security until Putin decided to flip the table and go apeshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
No. 1 Callie Fan posted:Sure, in the context of its European members, it's not that threatening. But you're leaving out the real heavy weight in the team: the United States. Who in their right mind wouldn't find them intimidating if they're not on your side? Germanys role has changed since the 1950s, from the most belligerent country in Europe to one of the most pacifistic. The "up" is anyway relative, the FRG alone had an army of half a million, with 30 fully equipped brigades towards end of the cold war. Now it's 180000 and they have trouble fully equipping one brigade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The Germans started increasing their budget after Russia unilaterally ended the long peace in Europe, following 30 consecutive years when NATO did nothing but let its European forces languish in an increasing state of disrepair and accommodate Russia at every turn, never even raising a finger against Putin no matter what he did. This argument that the NATO after 1989 was actively anti-Russian is total bullshit, Russia was barely at the periphery of European security until Putin decided to flip the table and go apeshit. Woah, wait a minute....... do you really believe in all those words you wrote? I'm sure russians were very pleased to see NATO, a military alliance specifically born to fight them, advance in the last 30 years eastward towards Moscow. It was surely our take on "accomodate Russia at every turn", right? ........ right?!? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 09:12
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:Woah, wait a minute....... do you really believe in all those words you wrote? What did NATO do to inconvenience Russia in any way. Be specific. The whole of Europe has been effectively demilitarised over the course of this " 30 year march against Russia". Any claims otherwise are naked lies to justify crimes against humanity by actual fascists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 09:19
|
|
|
My impression from reading gonks and quality posts all week is that Putin secretly laughs an pisses on NATO but is terrified of the EU. Because they will gently caress over his little hellhole sandcastle project in the end. The closer they are the faster it goes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 09:25
|
|
|
It's amusing that anyone thinks that Russia should be allowed to determine what alliances or organizations other sovereign nations join.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 09:25
|
|
|
Saint Kyivanka posted:It's amusing that anyone thinks that Russia should be allowed to determine what alliances or organizations other sovereign nations join. It absolutely validates the reason for these alliances to exist since they merely protect the members from being violated in ways Russia herself ostensibly agrees to be against international law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 09:30
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:I'm sure russians were very pleased to see NATO, a military alliance specifically born to fight them, advance in the last 30 years eastward towards Moscow. An alliance born to defend against a possible attack. Europe has been steadily disarming over the last decades, and the 5000 US troops stationed in the Baltic countries are specifically there to act as a tripwire, to signal if NATO countries are attacked. They are no threat to Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 09:30
|
|
|
Saint Kyivanka posted:It's amusing that anyone thinks that Russia should be allowed to determine what alliances or organizations other sovereign nations join. It's not about "should be allowed to", it's about "can". See: Ukraine & Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 09:47
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It's not about "should be allowed to", it's about "can". See: Ukraine & Georgia. This framing depends on your acceptance of the Putin apologia that he only invaded those countries because of NATO. Did he beat down protest in Kazakhstan and Belarus because of NATO fears as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 09:52
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:Woah, wait a minute....... do you really believe in all those words you wrote?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 09:55
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:This framing depends on your acceptance of the Putin apologia that he only invaded those countries because of NATO. Did he beat down protest in Kazakhstan and Belarus because of NATO fears as well? Not really. I can believe the Russian invasion of Ukraine is completely illegitimate and morally wrong while also acknowledging that it was a possible outcome of the diplomatic course taken by Ukraine (and encouraged heavily by the US and NATO) and concluding that it would have been preferable for Ukraine to avoid the invasion by acquiescing to Russian demands of following Minsk II, including guaranteeing neutrality and not attempting to join NATO. That doesn't mean I believe Russia has the right to demand another sovereign nation not join an alliance. It means that I believe Russia has the capability to demand that and militarily achieve that goal if its demands are not met. Furthermore nobody has the ability to stop Russia from doing this without seriously risking nuclear war, which nobody is prepared to do. At which point whether or not Russia has the right is a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:18
|
|
|
Nobody's rootin' 4 pootin'!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:27
|
|
|
There's been a very deliberate effort to make it impossible to talk about problems through fomenting deliberately incoherent partisanship, thought-ending cliches and that particularly liberal strand of ideological blinkers where the geopolitical actions of perceived 'allies' are seen as not only right and justified, but inevitable and unquestionable, the will of history itself, while enemies, even just foreigners as perceived, can only be judged for acting in counter to those inevitable tides of history and in general displaying any attempt at independence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:33
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Not really. This essentially means you do believe the framing, though. Either they become a puppet state voluntarily, or they get invaded by Putin. Either way, sovereignty was never on the table, which means you can't really blame the west for Putin's aggression. Also, the Minsk II agreement happened because Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:35
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Not really. If that's the case, it's only because the Russian government is criminal and Ukraine's course was counter to is criminal intentions. Leaving this part out is giving Russia an air of legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:39
|
|
|
If Russia weren't the imperialist power it is, relations to its neighbors would be better and Ukraine wouldn't have been pushed towards the West. This is all on Putins failed policies and constant meddling in neighboring states. Russia should have abided by the Budapest memorandum it signed, which denuclearized Ukraine in exchange for Russia respecting Ukraine's territorial sovereignty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:40
|
|
|
The security guarantees were a stupid lie and you have to be a total moron to believe they would've been happy with leaving Ukraine independent, just out of NATO Putin came out saying Ukraine is not real and has to submit, the formal guarantee demands were bullying to see if the west will back off to score a propaganda and diplomacy win until escalating further (economically/militarily) Please stop engaging the mouthbreathers still bringing up security guarantees, they are not worth wasting keyboard strokes on
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:41
|
|
|
Omon Ra posted:Can you formulate why the Russians weren't pleased about NATO's expansion? Do you think it's because they fear an invasion by the U.S. or European countries? If the Warsaw Pact would be still alive and in the last 30 years It would have expanded west including for example countries like Austria or Sweden, would you be pleased? Answer yourself
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:41
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:If the Warsaw Pact would be still alive and in the last 30 years It would have expanded west including for example countries like Austria or Sweden, would you be pleased? Answer yourself Would those countries' democratically elected governments voluntarily apply for membership, entirely without any coercion from Moscow? Why are you spreading fascist propaganda?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:44
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It's not about "should be allowed to", it's about "can". See: Ukraine & Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:46
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Would those countries democratically and voluntarily apply for membership?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 10:51
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:Either they become a puppet state voluntarily, or they get invaded by Putin. This was the reality of the situation, yes. Though the demands in Minsk II seemed relatively mild to the point where "puppet state" might go a bit far. Though I will acknowledge that there is no guarantee Russia wouldn't push further later. I do believe just Minsk II was preferable to the current reality of invasion and war, for the Ukrainian people. Fame Douglas posted:Either way, sovereignty was never on the table, which means you can't really blame the west for Putin's aggression. You can still blame the west for egging on Ukraine to choose rejecting Minsk II. Similarly you can blame the fascist elements within the Ukrainian armed forces from credibly threatening a coup and killing Zelensky in the event Zelensky had accepted Minsk II. Both of these things are likely to have contributed to Zelensky choosing to reject Minsk II. Which was a disastrous decision. And to be clear, none of these things change that Russia, and especially Putin, are primarily responsible for the current disastrous situation. None the less, I think it could have been avoided even given Putin not changing his behaviour. And given this, I think it should have been avoided. true.spoon posted:But likewise Russia "can" be greatly diminished by the rest of the world if they do what they "can" disregarding whether they "should". Yeah, sure, but unfortunately this comes at the cost of the suffering of millions of Ukrainians and who knows how many deaths. So not great!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 11:04
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I do believe just Minsk II was preferable to the current reality of invasion and war, for the Ukrainian people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 11:34
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Would those countries' democratically elected governments voluntarily apply for membership, entirely without any coercion from Moscow? Insulting will lead you nowhere with me, so save yourself time. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 11:35
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Yeah, sure, but unfortunately this comes at the cost of the suffering of millions of Ukrainians and who knows how many deaths. So not great!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 11:37
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:Insulting will lead you nowhere with me, so save yourself time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 11:40
|
|
|
It's very strange that this thread doesn't discuss some interesting and recent news: for example, a british official speaker who reveal the true aim of our sanctions aren't to help Ukraine, but in reality to overthrow Putin from power. Or Miss Von Der Leyen who decided on her own to protect our minds from the evil russian propaganda and ban the russian news channels all over Europe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 11:50
|
|
|
don't deflect, answer the questionOmon Ra posted:What about the point he made? NATO is voluntary; the Soviet Union, which Putin would like to restore, consisted of occupied states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 11:53
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Not really. Ah yes, you know how the famous old saying goes - "better to live on your knees, than die on your feet". I mean I get that it potentially can go both ways; it was almost certainly better for 99.9% of Japanese people that they unconditionally surrendered to the US, than if they had fought to the end - both in the short run, and in the longer 10-20-30-50 year run. Ukrainians would be better off today if they unconditionally surrendered themselves to Russia, but in 2-10-20-30-50 years? Who knows, hindsight is 20/20 and maybe it'd end up fine, but they'd be more likely to turn out like the West Bank. Would it be better to be the West Bank than to be like... Idlib? So far, 10 years on, the answer I guess is "yes" but it's a pretty poo poo choice all around and you'll only know in retrospect, and only for the path taken.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 11:58
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:It's very strange that this thread doesn't discuss some interesting and recent news: for example, a british official speaker who reveal the true aim of our sanctions aren't to help Ukraine, but in reality to overthrow Putin from power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 12:02
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:It's very strange that this thread doesn't discuss some interesting and recent news: for example, a british official speaker who reveal the true aim of our sanctions aren't to help Ukraine, but in reality to overthrow Putin from power.  like that's some dark secret? We're pushing Russia to make them back off, but assuming Putin won't back down himself, of course the only other option is for other Russians to get sick of economic disaster and remove him (and then back off Ukraine and get the sanctions lifted).This is literally public knowledge and widely supported by the population. quote:Or Miss Von Der Leyen who decided on her own to protect our minds from the evil russian propaganda and ban the russian news channels all over Europe. Yeah, Zensursula lives up to her old nickname. I'm a free speech extremist, but I'm also a big fan of reciprocity in international politics, and I doubt you can freely watch European news channel in Russia right now. Now stop dodging every hard question, for example: steinrokkan posted:What did NATO do to inconvenience Russia in any way. Be specific. The whole of Europe has been effectively demilitarised over the course of this " 30 year march against Russia". Any claims otherwise are naked lies to justify crimes against humanity by actual fascists. NihilCredo fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Mar 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 12:17
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:Insulting will lead you nowhere with me, so save yourself time. It's not an insult, is an observation of fact you conveniently twisted to avoid addressing the point of the post, further lending credence to the substance of the supposed insult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 12:28
|
|
|
Omon Ra posted:The Ukrainian people decided that it wasn't preferable, and that they're willing to fight and die for the right to be a free democracy. The world sees them as heroes and Putin as a tinpot president who crashed his country's economy and credibility for no good reason. Yeah, but based on how the war is unfolding it appears that they will fight and die in droves and still not end up being a free democracy. To the point where the war is going so poorly for them that it is hard to imagine the government could not have foreseen this as the likeliest outcome in case of war. In which case their calculus to pursue a diplomatic line with such a real possibility to end up resulting in so much death and suffering for their countrymen is highly questionable. Like, I don't really see the heroics in sending others to fight and die if the chance of accomplishing your goals is zero, no matter how noble those goals. It's even very questionable how worthwhile it is to do this with just your own life. Saladman posted:Ukrainians would be better off today if they unconditionally surrendered themselves to Russia, but in 2-10-20-30-50 years? Who knows, hindsight is 20/20 and maybe it'd end up fine, but they'd be more likely to turn out like the West Bank. As poo poo as Putin is (and again, this man is very, very poo poo), I haven't seen any indication he intends to genocide the Ukrainian people. And I think it is important that we continue to distinguish gradations in the bad things people do. If everything bad is immediately the worst possible thing then we lose perspective and also diminish the severity of the actual worst things. So like, fighting yourself to death even if you have no chance of winning against an enemy intent on genociding you is very understandable. Doing the same against an enemy attempting to enforce much less harsh demands on you is questionable. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Mar 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 12:41
|
|
|
"Why stand up and fight if you're not 100% sure you can win?" "Why vote for an underdog candidate? They're just going to lose anyway." "Why stand up to injustice at all?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 12:47
|
|
|
Let's rephrase to: "Why send your countrymen to die in droves for a fight they cannot win when an alternative was available?" Which is a really fair question in my view. And also much closer to the actually existing reality of the war in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
Ah yes, Zelenskyy whipping and beating the unwilling Ukrainians to fight for him, threatening to torture their families and kick their dogs if they don't pick up their weapons and fight 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2022 12:53
|
|