|
Orange Devil posted:So how does that square with Putin explicitly stating he is not intending on Russia occupying nor annexing at the least the majority of Ukraine? ...later... Orange Devil posted:I can understand that someone might believe this if they were to look only at our rhetoric. If you look at our actions though it is clear that this is utter horseshit. The rhetorics watcher and actions understander has logged on. Nothing gets past this guy
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:On the subject of surrendering or not to a much stronger enemy... Ukraine's position is similar to Croatia's in 1991. As a new-born country, it had no armed forces, while Serbia/Yugoslavia's were in the top 3 in Europe, if I remember correctly. The idea of surrendering wasn't even entertained at any level and, while circumstances are different, Croatia did win full independence after four years. Overall I'm sure there are many alternative histories where things don't get to this point. If the 90s went better in Russia, no Kursk embarrassment, Bush starting 2 disaster wars, if someone called Putin on his birthday, whatever. I think this is important to understand for the context, as well for the actual goals and state of mind of Russian leadership. This is critical for resolving the conflict. However, I don't accept that this places any responsibility for the invasion on anyone but Putin. Like, actually serious consequences to 2014 could've prevented the current war as well, but that doesn't mean it's anyone's responsibility but the man who gave the order. PS apologies for the less than constructive last post, I was and still am a bit cranky
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 10:55
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:If you believe the EU does not take this seriously then you really don't understand Brussels or western Europe for that matter. didn't the EU just block a bunch of russian news stations this doesn't seem like an ironclad commitment to freedom of speech to me but ymmv
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 11:17
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:didn't the EU just block a bunch of russian news stations So much for the tolerant left, huh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 11:19
|
|
|
Russia's mask has fallen, showing that they never considered the EEU countries as legitimate but as parts of the Russian empire. Clearly, if countries like Poland or the Baltics would not have joined EU/NATO, Putin would have invaded them long ago (just as he did Ukraine - for which NATO was not even the casus belli). But of course, joining NATO means according to big-brained posters ITT that Putin now has legitimate reason to invade and furthermore its NATO's fault. I guess the EEU is forever in a catch-22. If only they could have some agency to decide which block they would like to join: either a proto fascist strongman-led empire build on oil and soviet tanks, or an largely ineffectual yet idealistic not-even federation that BEFORE THIS WEEK was so demilitarized that it would never have posed any danger to any state, least of all Russia. The crisp logic brought forth in this thread, lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 11:23
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:didn't the EU just block a bunch of russian news stations They’ve been pulled from mobile app stores as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 11:23
|
|
|
Somaen posted:...later... Putin has not gone for full annexation in previous wars and military deployments. Georgia for example has not been fully annexed. Neither have Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Neither were Donetsk or Luhansk for the past 8 years, and indeed in both Minsk I and Minsk II Putin agreed that they ought to be reintegrated into Ukraine, but with conditions. Crimea is, while obviously notable, the exception here. Crimea also had different demographics than these other areas, and indeed the rest of Ukraine, which can explain what caused the difference. So looking at Putin's previous actions, not just his rhetoric, I can still conclude that it is not at all clear that he intends to fully annex Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 11:27
|
|
|
His rhetoric in this case is insanely clear though, suggesting that maybe he doesn't intend to act the same way as he did previously. Just in practical terms at this point not annexing Kyiv and Odessa doesn't really gel with the whole maximalist Russian nationalism he's been spouting, but it's literally the Ukrainian capital and second most important city. Reducing the country to Habsburg Galicia that still wouldn't be allowed to join EU hardly is much of a Ukrainian independence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 11:41
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Putin has not gone for full annexation in previous wars and military deployments. Georgia for example has not been fully annexed. Neither have Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Neither were Donetsk or Luhansk for the past 8 years, and indeed in both Minsk I and Minsk II Putin agreed that they ought to be reintegrated into Ukraine, but with conditions. Crimea is, while obviously notable, the exception here. Crimea also had different demographics than these other areas, and indeed the rest of Ukraine, which can explain what caused the difference. jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 11:43
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Putin has not gone for full annexation in previous wars and military deployments. Georgia for example has not been fully annexed. Neither have Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Neither were Donetsk or Luhansk for the past 8 years, and indeed in both Minsk I and Minsk II Putin agreed that they ought to be reintegrated into Ukraine, but with conditions. Crimea is, while obviously notable, the exception here. Crimea also had different demographics than these other areas, and indeed the rest of Ukraine, which can explain what caused the difference. I'm not really sure there's a meaningful difference between annexation and his stated desire for Ukraine to be a "Union State" a la Belarus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 11:44
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Putin has not gone for full annexation in previous wars and military deployments. Georgia for example has not been fully annexed. Neither have Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Neither were Donetsk or Luhansk for the past 8 years, and indeed in both Minsk I and Minsk II Putin agreed that they ought to be reintegrated into Ukraine, but with conditions. Crimea is, while obviously notable, the exception here. Crimea also had different demographics than these other areas, and indeed the rest of Ukraine, which can explain what caused the difference. Are you genuinely suggesting he stopped every time because he is such a nice guy and not because the logistics/optics of a full scale invasion would have been horrendous?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 11:51
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Putin has not gone for full annexation in previous wars and military deployments. Georgia for example has not been fully annexed. Neither have Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Neither were Donetsk or Luhansk for the past 8 years, and indeed in both Minsk I and Minsk II Putin agreed that they ought to be reintegrated into Ukraine, but with conditions. Crimea is, while obviously notable, the exception here. Crimea also had different demographics than these other areas, and indeed the rest of Ukraine, which can explain what caused the difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 11:53
|
|
|
SlowBloke posted:Are you genuinely suggesting he stopped every time because he is such a nice guy and not because the logistics/optics of a full scale invasion would have been horrendous? If you assume his goals were to create different venues for internal meddling in target states' affairs, as well as effectively blocking them from joining any Western coalitions in the foreseeable future, then Georgia and Ukraine 2014 absolutely achieved their goals for relatively low cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 12:11
|
|
|
When a dictator calls the very existence and legitimacy of a culture or sovereign state into question, you ought to listen and take them at their word. We learn that in school in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 12:22
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:didn't the EU just block a bunch of russian news stations So much for the tolerant left!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 12:26
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I'm not really sure there's a meaningful difference between annexation and his stated desire for Ukraine to be a "Union State" a la Belarus. Yeah, I can't imagine leaving Ukraine independent in any form was ever on the table. An independent state, without intervention of Russian troops, would have reverted to a pro-Western stance sooner or later. Just look at the recent uprising in Belarus. Which is also why this talk about how if Ukraine had only submitted earlier and begged some it would have been treated better is bullshit. There was never any scenario where Russia doesn't put its boot on Ukraine's neck hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 12:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Looking at Putin's previous actions and rhetoric, they two appear to align pretty well, at least as I recall them. Would one not then be justified in assuming that his current rhetoric will also align with his current actions? Isn't that what I'm saying? Where do you think we disagree? SlowBloke posted:Are you genuinely suggesting he stopped every time because he is such a nice guy and not because the logistics/optics of a full scale invasion would have been horrendous? Are you suggesting Putin stopped because of the optics? Because I think he doesn't really care so much about optics to be honest. GABA ghoul posted:Yeah, I can't imagine leaving Ukraine independent in any form was ever on the table. An independent state, without intervention of Russian troops, would have reverted to a pro-Western stance sooner or later. Just look at the recent uprising in Belarus. Belarus and Kazakhstan are two more examples of places Russian troops were deployed but which have not been annexed. But yes, I agree that there was no scenario in which Putin's Russia was going to leave Ukraine fully sovereign and independent. This war, however, is not going to change that. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Mar 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 12:49
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Which is also why this talk about how if Ukraine had only submitted earlier and begged some it would have been treated better is bullshit. There was never any scenario where Russia doesn't put its boot on Ukraine's neck hard. "If you had stopped disagreeing with your abusive spouse sooner then he wouldn't have needed to beat you. Its your fault for bringing this onto yourself" is basically what the "Ukraine was asking for it really" Putin apologists are saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 12:55
|
|
|
Ukraine wasn't asking for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Isn't that what I'm saying? Where do you think we disagree?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 12:59
|
|
|
morothar posted:Really getting sick of of the arrogant stance purporting that NATO and the US had all the agency. EEU countries *wanted* to be part of NATO more than anything else, even the EU. Why? I dunno, maybe because of a few decades of imposed communism and occupation in the 20th century, and a few hundred years of Russian aggression and occupation before that? NATO could have publicly stated it would not accept any member who used to be part of the USSR or the Warsaw pact to placate Russian irredentism. It's perfectly fine to say "gently caress Russian irredentism you can't tell other countries they're still your oblasts" but then you should seriously prepare to defend those countries instead of hoping Russia will just accept your argument forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 14:17
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:NATO could have publicly stated it would not accept any member who used to be part of the USSR or the Warsaw pact to placate Russian irredentism. It's perfectly fine to say "gently caress Russian irredentism you can't tell other countries they're still your oblasts" but then you should seriously prepare to defend those countries instead of hoping Russia will just accept your argument forever. It really, really doesn't matter. Because it isn't about NATO. Putin has been clear for 20+ years: Ukraine is not a real country. Its a Russian territory. The only reason Putin was concerned about NATO because NATO was the only thing that could conceivably have stopped what he is doing right now. This is about imperial colonialism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
Haramstufe Rot posted:Russia's mask has fallen, showing that they never considered the EEU countries as legitimate but as parts of the Russian empire. It's not about legitimacy. If we know Putin is frothing at the mouth to invade former buffer states in response to those states wanting to join NATO or the EU, then we must either tell those countries they're free to join but we will only do so much to help them in the gamble to join faster than Putin can gently caress em up, or we should prepare a sufficient deterrent to give Putin pause. We did neither, Putin has hosed over a number of neighbouring countries, saying Putin is bad and wrong doesn't help those countries, the situation is an indictment of lovely incoherent irresponsible foreign policy driven by short term wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:It's not about legitimacy. If we know Putin is frothing at the mouth to invade former buffer states in response to those states wanting to join NATO or the EU, then we must either tell those countries they're free to join but we will only do so much to help them in the gamble to join faster than Putin can gently caress em up, or we should prepare a sufficient deterrent to give Putin pause. We did neither, Putin has hosed over a number of neighbouring countries, saying Putin is bad and wrong doesn't help those countries, the situation is an indictment of lovely incoherent irresponsible foreign policy driven by short term wishful thinking. You are basically saying Nuclear Armed nations should be allowed to do as they please to their neighbors and the optics of that are.....pretty awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You are basically saying Nuclear Armed nations should be allowed to do as they please to their neighbors and the optics of that are.....pretty awful. My point is that "should" doesn't come into it. If a nuclear armed power produces a fait accompli, that fait accompli will stand no matter how wrong or undesirable it is. Putin's Russia effectively owns not only Crimea and the separatist regions, but also however much of the rest of Ukraine its military can take against Ukrainian resistance. If there had been NATO bases in Ukraine last week, Russia would have been unable to advance an inch. We can say that the latter would have been much preferable to the former, but we failed to make the latter happen. Instead, we stupidly lost a game of brinksmanship by failing to prepare for the predictable reaction of a nuclear armed irredentist shithole state and now everyone has to deal with the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:It's not about legitimacy. If we know Putin is frothing at the mouth to invade former buffer states in response to those states wanting to join NATO or the EU, then we must either tell those countries they're free to join but we will only do so much to help them in the gamble to join faster than Putin can gently caress em up, or we should prepare a sufficient deterrent to give Putin pause. We did neither, Putin has hosed over a number of neighbouring countries, saying Putin is bad and wrong doesn't help those countries, the situation is an indictment of lovely incoherent irresponsible foreign policy driven by short term wishful thinking. Well we can't change the past, but I think NATO and EU can choose not to accept Russian actions against independent states without being morally required to let them enter in the coalition. To recap, Putin has told everyone now that the attack had next to nothing to do with NATO or the EU. His reason (beyond the Nazi bullshit) is that Ukraine belongs to Russia. Ukrainians are Russians. This logic is also true for many other countries that Putin will eventually attack if allowed. Most importantly however, this is a direct threat for the Baltics, and for much of Poland. And since his reason is based on events that predate NATO, there can only be one conclusion: Those states were always in danger of being reintegrated into the Russian empire (in whatever form Putin deems it best) as long as Putin rules Russia. These ex-Soviet states joined the EU and NATO because they wanted to be part of that economic and social sphere. Sure. But most of all because they were terrified of Russia - the country that had occupied them for the last century. And it turns out, they were right. Joining NATO and / or the EU is the only rational step these countries could have taken. The alternative is - and likely always was - to stop existing as an independent country. Some people ITT have it backwards. They think that Putin lost his mind because NATO encroached on Russia. However, Putin has now explicitly told us that this essentially is not a factor, given that his conquest is ex-ante legitimate. Of course, everyone knows the state of the EU's armed forces and the decline in NATO forces, so the idea that they would pose a threat to Russia was never a serious contention anyway. So you are right in two respects. First, the coalitions need to protect their members militarily, which the EU for instance has been slacking on. Let's hope the EU gets it poo poo together and does this. For that reason, the states that can be accepted as members is a smaller set than the set of independent states that have a right to exist as neighbor to both Russia and the EU. Second, having determined that Putin's expansionary policy has very little to do with an imagined "threat by NATO", and instead has everything to do with what he considers Russia, its vassals, and legitimate third countries, the coalitions (especially the EU) need to bring forth the strongest non-military deterrence they can muster. This is what is happening now. I would hope the sanctions intensify over the coming days. It also sucks for Russians in Russia, who I am sure have no intention on waging a destructive war in Ukraine. However, there is really no alternative to complete economic and social isolation of Russia by the EU, UK and the US. But does it follow that it is our responsibility to defend all countries if we ever as much as talk nicely to them? No. It's Russia's responsibility not to wage such wars. No matter what these countries choose to do. If we are being all pragmatic and relativistic: Russia has chosen to attack a third country, and we will now chose to destroy Russia (economically). Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Mar 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
If the nuclear armed shithole collapses as a result of its own bungled invasion will the West retroactively have been right to do what it did
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:It's not about legitimacy. If we know Putin is frothing at the mouth to invade former buffer states in response to those states wanting to join NATO or the EU, then we must either tell those countries they're free to join but we will only do so much to help them in the gamble to join faster than Putin can gently caress em up, or we should prepare a sufficient deterrent to give Putin pause. We did neither, Putin has hosed over a number of neighbouring countries, saying Putin is bad and wrong doesn't help those countries, the situation is an indictment of lovely incoherent irresponsible foreign policy driven by short term wishful thinking. Your first condition is what happened to Ukraine, isn't it? They were told they were free to join, but it was their responsibility to fulfil the criteria and they weren't fast enough. That could have certainly been handled better by the EU, but they thought they have time, because the wishful thinking was, that Russia does not revert back to a megalomanic imperialistic shithole as soon as it recovers from the loss of it's last imperium, that broke up because Russia was a megalomaniac imperialistic shithole (amongst other things).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:If the nuclear armed shithole collapses as a result of its own bungled invasion will the West retroactively have been right to do what it did Yeah there's a reason Germany and Japan have some of the highest quality of life in the world and no one talks about their neorealist realpolitiks spheres of influence and their subconscious imperial uncontrollable need to annex and declare war Considering the awful level of quality of life in Russia a turn from empire to normal functioning state would be very welcome
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:This war, however, is not going to change that. You don't know that. Nobody does. Ukraine's chances right now look very bad, yes, but that's up from literally impossible just a week ago. So many extremely unexpected things happened in the last few day that changed the calculus and that nobody had predicted on either side. I can't blame Ukrainians for trying to roll the dice and try to fight for an actual future for their people, especially when the alternative of Russian occupation is so horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
If you really believe that Putin would never have invaded Ukraine if there had been no mention anywhere of them joining NATO then you don't know anything about Putin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
Haramstufe Rot posted:Well we can't change the past, but I think NATO and EU can choose not to accept Russian actions against independent states without being morally required to let them enter in the coalition. Right, but the US and NATO were very explicit prior to the invasion that they would not be militarily defending Ukraine. So de-facto that means accepting that Russia can militarily create a fait accompli, provided they are willing to suffer the economic consequences, right? Given that Russia appears willing to do this, here we are. Also, I just want to note that there is a certain existential danger to choosing to "destroy" a nuclear armed country, economically or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Right, but the US and NATO were very explicit prior to the invasion that they would not be militarily defending Ukraine. So de-facto that means accepting that Russia can militarily create a fait accompli, provided they are willing to suffer the economic consequences, right? Given that Russia appears willing to do this, here we are. Sure. But that's not the EU nor NATOs fault nor necessarily even choice. In fact, if we knew that Russia would attack Ukraine given the opportunity, and if both the EU and Ukraine chose so, then an association would still be defensible as a rational act. The reason is simple: However often we are hypocritical about it, we do operate on principles. These include the respect for people in independent countries to choose their future, and these also include our unwillingness to be held hostage by Russia - which is precisely what we would do if we would not associate with Ukraine at their request. For Ukraine the situation is the same. Note, however, that your point is still moot. Russia planned to attack Ukraine whether it was associated with the EU/NATO or not. The invasion could not have been held off forever, even if EU and NATO would have isolated themselves from EEU countries (which however is merely hypocrisy). Defending the Ukraine outright was never an option, as I have said above. In the end, its clear that the blame falls on Russia on account of not accepting the free decisions, nor the independence of the people of Ukraine. It's either that, or we are living in an entirely relativistic world where fait accompli follows fait accompli, such that the only interesting question is "who is stronger". In this world, there is no blame. There's only Russia's interest and the EU's interest. But then you cannot leverage moral relativism to allow Russia to do whatever, and demand that the EU acts altruistically toward all other states in the world. Indeed, the sanctions against Russia are then merely a consequence in a chain of events that had to happen anyway. Either way, trying to blame NATO, the EU or Ukraine for Russia's attack is not a real argument. Orange Devil posted:Also, I just want to note that there is a certain existential danger to choosing to "destroy" a nuclear armed country, economically or otherwise. Irrelevant, a greater danger exists for the EU in accepting these fait accompli without reaction. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Mar 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
Resisting imperialism is a good thing, something all should strive for. Even if the imperial power is nuclear armed and the odds aren't in your favour. Ukraine is doing that and EU should help them, because it is a just and right thing to do. And if this idealistic argument doesn't sway you, you can think it through self-preservation. If Ukraine falls, Russia will continue trying to divide the EU and move westward. Only by standing together and through solidarity we can stop imperialism. And it seems to me that Ukraine might have a chance still. If Russian economy crumbles they just can't uphold the tempo of invasion, never mind potential bloody occupation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Haramstufe Rot posted:However often we are hypocritical about it, we do operate on principles. These include the respect for people in independent countries to choose their future Yeah, no. You don't get to take all the times we assisted or supported in invading or couping independent countries and say "yeah that was hypocritical, but our principles stand". Respect for independent countries is patently not one of our principles. Believing that it is is falling for propaganda. Haramstufe Rot posted:Note, however, that your point is still moot. Russia planned to attack Ukraine whether it was associated with the EU/NATO or not. The invasion could not have been held off forever, even if EU and NATO would have isolated themselves from EEU countries (which however is merely hypocrisy). Defending the Ukraine outright was never an option, as I have said above. I've been agreeing since the very start that the blame primarily falls on Russia and especially Putin. I think it is useful to also look beyond this and examine the roles our own countries have played and the choices we made, for I do continue to believe that those choices had an impact on the eventual outcome. I don't believe that you mean for example that Ukraine would be attacked whether they were associated with the EU/NATO or not, for it would mean claiming that Russia would have also attacked had Ukraine been a full EU and NATO member, which is difficult to imagine. The question though is, what good does repeatedly stating that Russia and Putin are primarily at fault do us? It doesn't change a single thing about what is happening and the suffering being visited on, primarily, the people of Ukraine. Ultimately we do not appear to have the power to change Russia's actions. We do have the power to change our own. So it seems more productive to me to spend our time thinking about and discussing those. Especially because I don't think that there is anyone in this thread who actually believes Russia and especially Putin are primarily to blame. Glah posted:Resisting imperialism is a good thing, something all should strive for. Even if the imperial power is nuclear armed and the odds aren't in your favour. Ukraine is doing that and EU should help them, because it is a just and right thing to do. And if this idealistic argument doesn't sway you, you can think it through self-preservation. If Ukraine falls, Russia will continue trying to divide the EU and move westward. Only by standing together and through solidarity we can stop imperialism. OK but for example my country has been a de-facto US vassal state for many decades now, firmly in its imperial grip. It's not great, but it is also not the end of the world. Standing up to just Russia isn't going to "stop imperialism". As for the economy, what specific resources does Russia require that it cannot get as a result of the economic sanctions that you think might stall their invasion? And again, I do not think there is going to be an occupation nor that one was ever planned to begin with. One of the reasons I think this is because of the costs involved. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Mar 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:OK but for example my country has been a de-facto US vassal state for many decades now, firmly in its imperial grip. It's not great, but it is also not the end of the world. Standing up to just Russia isn't going to "stop imperialism". I wouldn't go as far as equating American imperial hold on European country and Russian imperial hold. For one you get free elections, you don't get jailed for speaking out against the government and you have wide ranging free press/media. Theoretically you have a choice of voting for parties that want out of NATO and EU and they aren't going to send tanks to stop it. Contrast this to Russian imperialism. The obvious example would be WW2, would you rather live in imperialist countries like France or UK or authoritarian imperialist country like nazi-Germany? This is the choice that Eastern European countries have now. quote:As for the economy, what specific resources does Russia require that it cannot get as a result of the economic sanctions that you think might stall their invasion? And again, I do not think there is going to be an occupation nor that one was ever planned to begin with. One of the reasons I think this is because of the costs involved. I'm more of the opinion that the shock of removing Russian economy from global economy will be so great that Putin can't maintain his imperial war machine. Soviet Union had a big, self-sufficient economy too but it was inefficient and putting huge amounts of production into military materiel stagnated them and was their undoing. And modern Russia isn't even Soviet Union. quote:And again, I do not think there is going to be an occupation nor that one was ever planned to begin with. One of the reasons I think this is because of the costs involved. This raises the question of why didn't Russia just consolidate the separatist areas and at most try to do decapitation strikes against Ukrainian military? They are invading Ukraine from all fronts. What would be the point of bleeding out the army in all out attack, if the end result would be returning to separatist areas? They had already achieved that in 2014, there's no need for anything more if Russia doesn't aim for occupation of Ukraine now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:As for the economy, what specific resources does Russia require that it cannot get as a result of the economic sanctions that you think might stall their invasion? And again, I do not think there is going to be an occupation nor that one was ever planned to begin with. One of the reasons I think this is because of the costs involved. Aside from that, having the Rouble crumble and large parts of their foreign reserves frozen might also make it much more expensive to source the resources they technically have access to, especially since the sellers know that Russia is more limited in who it can buy from now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
I also don't see how they could achieve any of the stated goals without a long-term occupation or threat thereof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
Glah posted:I wouldn't go as far as equating American imperial hold on European country and Russian imperial hold. For one you get free elections, you don't get jailed for speaking out against the government and you have wide ranging free press/media. Theoretically you have a choice of voting for parties that want out of NATO and EU and they aren't going to send tanks to stop it. Contrast this to Russian imperialism. The obvious example would be WW2, would you rather live in imperialist countries like France or UK or authoritarian imperialist country like nazi-Germany? This is the choice that Eastern European countries have now. Yeah so this is what I mean with losing perspective by every bad thing automatically being the worst thing. Putin is very bad. The political situation in Russia sucks. Russia is not Nazi Germany. Ukraine does not face the complete extermination of its population. As for removing the Russian economy from the global economy without mentioning specific material ways in which this will stop the Russian warmachine: yes ok, maybe this will work. But in the long term. It will not help Ukraine during this war. The answer to your question according to Putin is that he: 1. intends to demilitarize Ukraine, which concretely appears to mean destroy as much Ukrainian militarily materiel as possible to the point where the country will not have a functioning military 2. intends to kill, or maybe capture and put on show-trial, a bunch of people associated with Azov and the like as well as the high-level Ukrainian government I also would not be surprised and kind of expect Putin to go for an annexation play of at least Donetsk, Luhansk and a land corridor to Crimea at this point. I would be surprised if Putin goes for an annexation of significant land west of the Dnieper. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Yeah so this is what I mean with losing perspective by every bad thing automatically being the worst thing. Putin is very bad. The political situation in Russia sucks. Russia is not Nazi Germany. Ukraine does not face the complete extermination of its population. Putin has stated in no uncertain terms, that his intention is to turn Ukraine into "Little Russia" and suppress/replace Ukrainian culture (and language) with Russian culture, similar to how Ukraine was treated during Soviet occupation. E: it was quite explicit in the pre-written victory speech. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Mar 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2022 17:05
|
|
