|
lightpole posted:Thank you my position was entirely justified and I deserve this Yeah, I feel like I sound like a Putin apologist and I don't mean to. I was originally reacting to the question of whether there's any value to the argument that Russia sees NATO as an active threat, and the argument I'm trying to make is that there are two versions of that claim. One is the tankie line and it's simplistic and wrong, in which NATO really is an imperial warmonger that acts to secure the US's dominance in the world. I don't think that's the case. The argument I'm trying to make is that a reasonable, if slightly paranoid, Russian member of government who is not a Putin stooge could observe NATO's behavior and come to the conclusion that the claim above is accurate. The reason for that is the following chain of logic: 1. NATO claims to be purely defensive, but it has taken active interventions in the past that were not direct defensive operations. 2. NATO claims that its motives for intervening are purely humanitarian, but when the UN codified what humanitarian intervention looks like and the UNSC authorized a humanitarian intervention in Libya, NATO very quickly exceeded the limits of that mandate and pushed for regime change (see Micah Zenko for more on that: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/) The thing is, I know folks who have been in the rooms where some of those calls were made, and I'm relatively confident based on what I know of those guys that NATO's actions were legitimately taken for humanitarian reasons. I just don't think it's that off-base for somebody to look at points 1 and 2 above and come to a different conclusion, which is what the original discussion was posed as.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon/status/1514791586244165643?t=twHK5-Yy1R7T-Hitik4pNw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:NATO is literally the structure that allows a coalition of the willing, why duplicate it? Again, this talking point is entirely something that Russia is arguing when they've tried to counter that NATO is an aggressor, why are you giving it validity? Because my work gets me close to UN and international law, and the violations by NATO are still being felt in debates about R2P and interventions. It's still an active thing that makes even some non-Russian-aligned countries uncomfortable about approving interventions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:Yeah, I feel like I sound like a Putin apologist and I don't mean to. I was originally reacting to the question of whether there's any value to the argument that Russia sees NATO as an active threat, and the argument I'm trying to make is that there are two versions of that claim. One is the tankie line and it's simplistic and wrong, in which NATO really is an imperial warmonger that acts to secure the US's dominance in the world. I don't think that's the case. Nobody is claiming you are doing so, but you are openly making the very arguments Russia was using to justify the very actions they are taking. Either you realize that maybe that might be because its horseshit or you double down. Maybe its because these arguments were just covers to do absolutely atrocious poo poo while trying to rebuild an empire, pull a colonialism and claim you are being threatened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:Yeah, I feel like I sound like a Putin apologist and I don't mean to. I was originally reacting to the question of whether there's any value to the argument that Russia sees NATO as an active threat, and the argument I'm trying to make is that there are two versions of that claim. One is the tankie line and it's simplistic and wrong, in which NATO really is an imperial warmonger that acts to secure the US's dominance in the world. I don't think that's the case. In both cases, NATO intervened on behalf of people being genocided, defending them against the genociders. They were inherently defensive, not aggressive or acquisitional invasions. In both cases, Russia was backing the genociders. In Putin's world, anybody that interferes with things he supports is an imperialist and aggressor. He's using his own definitions of those words, and now you're adopting them too - which is why you sound like a Putin apologist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
Notahippie posted:Because my work gets me close to UN and international law, and the violations by NATO are still being felt in debates about R2P and interventions. It's still an active thing that makes even some non-Russian-aligned countries uncomfortable about approving interventions. So what about Russia's violation of laws? Do we get to pretend NATO must be beyond reproach to treat these argument as nothing more than covers for atrocities and colonialism? Its projection at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In both cases, NATO intervened on behalf of people being genocided, defending them against the genociders. They were inherently defensive, not aggressive or acquisitional invasions. You're right and I'm going to drop it - the more the discussion goes, the more grossed out I get by making arguments that even sound like carrying water for Russia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
Defenestrategy posted:I don't understand how NATO is any more or less a provacative force than the CSTO? Do people not know that Russia itself has a bunch of defensive alliances with former USSR states? I read assertions today that if Russia goes from "special operation" to "war" that it can drag-in other members of the CSTO to participate, which is not a defensive alliance (unless they false-flag stuff or Ukraine starts doing something unlikely). No references to corroborate that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dril/status/831805955402776576 this is applicable
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
Lake of Methane posted:I read assertions today that if Russia goes from "special operation" to "war" that it can drag-in other members of the CSTO to participate, which is not a defensive alliance (unless they false-flag stuff or Ukraine starts doing something unlikely). Didn't the Russia already threaten to declare war on Ukraine today? Wouldn't this allow them to massively increase their conscription rates and not have to dance around deploying conscripts outside of their borders?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
If Kazakhstan feels confident enough to tell Russia to gently caress off I don't know who they think they can rope into this mess? On the other hand if Serbia wants to get their poo poo pushed in again I can't say I feel bad for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Lake of Methane posted:I read assertions today that if Russia goes from "special operation" to "war" that it can drag-in other members of the CSTO to participate, which is not a defensive alliance (unless they false-flag stuff or Ukraine starts doing something unlikely). I'm pretty sure CSTO is a defensive alliance. There's also a pretty steep drop-off after Belarus in terms of military power. I don't think Tajikistan could do much to move the needle even if they were inclined.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
I think the question of whether NATO is a threat and whether Russia is justified in defending itself against NATO kind of hinge on whose history you choose to ignore or embrace. This isn't whataboutism, this is a pragmatic factual question: do you think that it's likely that the US/France/Germany interjecting themselves into your regional politics is going to go well for YOU, Mr. Generic Russian Alcoholic Plumber? Historical precedent is a mixed bag. If you assume that Russia, with its (soviet) history of populist governance in the form of land redistribution, work guarantees, free education, etc, is basically a force for good, then resisting the influence of NATO members isn't an insane idea. Russia and many other 2nd and 3rd world countries can plausibly claim that the US and other members of NATO have demonstrated the imperialist ambition to support or establish governments friendly to their mercantile interests even at the cost of legitimate governance. The more influence NATO and its constituent members gain in a region, the more likely they are to subvert good regimes or prop up lovely regimes. There is an ocean of historical examples but in recent memory we have KSA, apartheid Israel, Turkey, and the Bolivian lithium elections. It's not insane to imagine that NATO members would try to subvert Russia's internal governance also. Maybe political and economic influence of NATO in Russia ends up positive (Poland, Czechia) or maybe it ends up real fuckin rough (sorry Kurds, Palestinians, Saudi women/slaves, the American electorate did a whoopsie, hope you understand). Obviously the problem here is the counterfactual. The Russian Federation isn't actually a political entity that's building good institutions and improving the lives of its people. It has no visible ideological ambition like improving Russia's science and academe, promoting the arts or free speech, or establishing a utopian worker's paradise. It's just a petrostate dictatorship with illegal gay people, a whole lot of dead journalists, and three genocides under its belt. Which is why it is choosing to "resist" "NATO influence" by genociding Ukranians (again). I've lived in both Russia and the US and I would choose the US 10/10 times, but attempting to limit the influence of NATO on your region isn't any crazier IN PRINCIPLE than attempting to limit the influence of Amazon on your congressional elections. The logical conclusion of this analogy of course is if Amazon was supporting a shitlib democrat in Ohio, and you "resisted their influence" by voting for Gym Jordan, then beating some abortion doctors to death. If you assume both NATO and Russia have basically bad intentions, may I recommend hailing SS18 Satan, may his passing cleanse the earth?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:I'm pretty sure CSTO is a defensive alliance. There's also a pretty steep drop-off after Belarus in terms of military power. I don't think Tajikistan could do much to move the needle even if they were inclined. It's more a legal cover for Russia to station forces in its client states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's more a legal cover for Russia to station forces in its client states. Satrapy is a much more appropriate term than 'Client State'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
I’m going to have a hearty laugh if Kazakhstan ends up with a big chunk of Siberia when this is over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
The mass murder, rape, torture, and forcible deportation of Ukrainian civilians/noncombatants, as well as the destruction of non-military infrastructure is pretty strong evidence that this is not about Russia mounting a "defense" against NATO expansion. Arguments for that line of thinking are mostly cherry picking geopolitics while ignoring recent employment of similar tactics in other conflicts where land borders with Russia were not involved. Recent releases by the Kremlin propaganda machine regarding their intentions in the country pretty swiftly dismantle such arguments as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
There's a video of Zelensky in English appealing for more heavy weapons from two days ago. Be advised, there are a few images from Bucha of deceased civilians that play through a slideshow while he talks. https://www.instagram.com/tv/CcS11VSALNC/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:35
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:There's a video of Zelensky in English appealing for more heavy weapons from two days ago. Be advised, there are a few images from Bucha of deceased civilians that play through a slideshow while he talks. Isn't this the one where the US says "how about some artillery pieces and m113s?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
It's possible, my experience with that Instagram account is that it's usually pretty up to date with its posts but it could be from one of his recent talks with Congress or other western governments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
In one of his statements lately Zelenskyy stated that russia may use tactical nuclear weapons, and frankly we need to do something if russia escalates to that point. I'm not sure what, but something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So what about Russia's violation of laws? Do we get to pretend NATO must be beyond reproach to treat these argument as nothing more than covers for atrocities and colonialism? idk I didn't see him arguing that as really pushing that point (nor really crossing any lines, for that matter) and I don't think it's a worthless question to raise, either. It's just that the resounding answer is that No, it's really not about what NATO does, it's about what Russia and friends no longer feel able to do. On that point, being a defensive alliance does not mean you have some requirement to stay uninvolved if civilians are being dragged into the forest and executed within 100 miles of your borders. And further, why is the concern towards the countries intervening and not on the state actually brutalizing civilians. Additionally while there's some point to considering the questions, it's hard to even play devil's advocate for without quickly hitting the "You're right and I'm going to drop it - the more the discussion goes, the more grossed out I get by making arguments that even sound like carrying water for Russia" point. Overall, I've yet to see a compelling case that Russian's complaints about NATO expansion has to do with much beyond frustration that they have less ability to bully their neighbors. Containment is a thing, to some extent, but both NATO and the EU would prefer to have a functional, non-expansionist Russia as a neighbor and trade partner. As such, containment is mostly just a practical thing as long as Russia continues to plan to eventually annex its neighbors. Casimir Radon posted:I’m going to have a hearty laugh if Kazakhstan ends up with a big chunk of Siberia when this is over. After what the soviet union did to the Kazakhs, I think we could just call that reparations, Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Apr 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1515110096623206403?t=-rbciiDd85iev3sq2EqB1Q&s=19 Is anyone else making these kinds of allegations and if so how credible could they be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
I've been mulling about what we (the West/NATO) will do if chemical weapons are employed. It might be as straightforward as further sanctions/asset forfeiture/international warrants for arrest. That said, I'm wondering if we have military assets in the region within cruise missile striking distance of Eastern Ukraine. Something similar to what we did in Syria in 2018. Sure, it's direct confrontation but it is on Ukrainian soil, hopefully with their blessing, and while it is an escalation in tensions, it's not boots on the ground. Alternatively, a Western/NATO no fly zone over non-contested parts of Ukraine might also be a measured response allowing Ukrainian Air Forces to focus on the eastern front. But everything is an escalation and now that we've learned about the atrocities in Bucha, it's not clear what the West is willing to do if WMDs (bio, chem, or nuclear) are used.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
A.o.D. posted:Isn't this the one where the US says "how about some artillery pieces and m113s?" A couple years ago when I was on an Army base I saw a bunch of M113s and wondered which chumps still used those. Then I read that the US Army was still buying those things new until 2007. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It's not impossible, and given the Russia's wrecklessness I cannot dismiss it out of hand, but this needs something real backing it up .
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:A couple years ago when I was on an Army base I saw a bunch of M113s and wondered which chumps still used those. Then I read that the US Army was still buying those things new until 2007. They're really good at carrying gear in any terrain. Just don't be anywhere near one if bullets are flying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
pantslesswithwolves posted:https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1515110096623206403?t=-rbciiDd85iev3sq2EqB1Q&s=19 It's a no brainer that the ship could carry nukes. Sunshine tipped missiles are all the more capable at smashing carrier groups, which I believe was the primary purpose of the Soviet surface fleet. Was it at this time? poo poo, probably anyone's guess and we'll never really know unless James Cameron takes a submersible with a Geiger counter down there, or there's another "opening of the archives" in 20 years ala the stuff that got unearthed after the fall of the SU. It seems like it would be awfully dumb for it to have been carrying nukes, but, you know, *gestures vaguely at this whole mess* E: also that VVV although "some evil rear end in a top hat retrieving the nukes the Russians lost in the dumbest possible manner" would make a good plot for a modern Thunderball Arrath fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Apr 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
pantslesswithwolves posted:https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1515110096623206403?t=-rbciiDd85iev3sq2EqB1Q&s=19 Long and short: It doesn't matter. Plenty of nukes sunk in the ocean. A couple more won't matter, and nobody is going down there to get them, for sure. And water is a great containment/shielding for radioisotopes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 01:58
|
|
|
pantslesswithwolves posted:https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1515110096623206403?t=-rbciiDd85iev3sq2EqB1Q&s=19 The only places I can find saying this on Google are rags.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Long and short: It doesn't matter. Plenty of nukes sunk in the ocean. A couple more won't matter, and nobody is going down there to get them, for sure. I feel like Ukraine has approximately infinity reasons to go see if they can get the nukes right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
They were towing it back towards Sevastopol when it sank and is likely to be very difficult to recover if only for the fact that Ukraine has not really been able to contest the Black Sea from a naval perspective during this war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
How close did they get it to port before it sunk?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I feel like Ukraine has approximately infinity reasons to go see if they can get the nukes right now. But not infinity ways to dive on a wreck in the middle of a war in heavily contested Russia patrolled waters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:They were towing it back towards Sevastopol when it sank and is likely to be very difficult to recover if only for the fact that Ukraine has not really been able to contest the Black Sea from a naval perspective during this war. ?? Other than the flagship they sank. Presumably they have other Neptun missiles or will shortly. If the Russian's #1 air defense platform in the black sea couldn't protect itself I guarantee none of the other ships will be able to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
They also blew up and sank a 350' landing craft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
Has the Turkish rescue of the sailors been officially debunked by trustworthy sources yet Or confirmed
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
350 noscope
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
ulmont posted:I feel like Ukraine has approximately infinity reasons to go see if they can get the nukes right now. I can't think of any. If they found them they couldn't use them. Russia still has the codes for arming them. If they figured that out, they wouldn't have any way to deliver them. If they could deliver them, they still couldn't use them because they would in turn be annihilated by Russia's response.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2022 02:44
|
|