|
Al-Saqr posted:So like what’s the significance of giving a written response to Putin by Biden? Wouldn’t anything short of what Russia wants mean that it’s just writing a letter saying ‘ try invading Ukraine bozo we’ll sanction you’? I'm not sure it's transformative but it's productive insofar as it keeps channels open and gives some additional time to all the parties to calm down and de-escalate.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
ive been reading some chizhevsky, what can people say about sunspot activity recently? ill make the final determination about what will happen based on that data
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:So like what’s the significance of giving a written response to Putin by Biden? Wouldn’t anything short of what Russia wants mean that it’s just writing a letter saying ‘ try invading Ukraine bozo we’ll sanction you’? I feel like attempting to sincerely respond is less aggressive than either ignoring it or openly mocking it, especially if the sincere attempt includes offers to move a little on a few items. There’s also an audience that the US may be trying to sway in countries like Finland and Sweden where appearing as rational could be helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
I think that's a key point. If you are in the US state department and you are drawing up your wishlist of things you might actually get out of all this, a Finland and Sweden that are actively contemplating NATO membership is probably up there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
Maybe its the whole "no troops east of Germany" grievance being brought up and they want their guarantees in writing this timeFritz the Horse posted:I'm not saying what lollontee posted is the same as holocaust denial, but I would like them to summarize their argument and defend their use of the source, then we'll go from there. Please there is no reason to treat someone as A Fellow Debater when their whole posting career is consistently dropping into threads to post stupid poo poo that riles people up and getting off on them wasting time trying to explain complicated topics that the person doesn't care about
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
People asked "What is the point of NATO now?" when the Soviet Union dissolved. Well, it looks like the Soviet Union's successor state is on its way to re-invigorating the alliance, making the case for its continued existence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I think that's a key point. If you are in the US state department and you are drawing up your wishlist of things you might actually get out of all this, a Finland and Sweden that are actively contemplating NATO membership is probably up there. Why would the US actively desire to add Finland and Sweden to NATO? I know the answer, and I assume everyone here does too, but it definitely undermines the preferred thread narrative that NATO is only allowing countries in because it would be unfair to exclude them from our security umbrella in this cruel world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:ive been reading some chizhevsky, what can people say about sunspot activity recently?  Got my answer we should be good for a bit. no major invasion according to my analysis
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:So like what’s the significance of giving a written response to Putin by Biden? Wouldn’t anything short of what Russia wants mean that it’s just writing a letter saying ‘ try invading Ukraine bozo we’ll sanction you’? The Russians want Blinken to make those public (and will most certainly leak them themselves regardless). Whatever's in there will probably form the basis for whichever casus belli Russia decides to act on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Why would the US actively desire to add Finland and Sweden to NATO? I know the answer, and I assume everyone here does too, but it definitely undermines the preferred thread narrative that NATO is only allowing countries in because it would be unfair to exclude them from our security umbrella in this cruel world. Because the two countries are already in NATO de-facto, and it'd be cheaper and more useful for NATO to stop the comedy on that account.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Because the two countries are already in NATO de-facto, and it'd be cheaper and more useful for NATO to stop the comedy on that account. Seems more like an EU problem than an American problem if there are EU members outside of the American security umbrella. I don't see how it benefits the US in the direct way that you're proposing to resolve that issue, especially when those members aren't part of NATO by choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Seems more like an EU problem than an American problem if there are EU members outside of the American security umbrella. I don't see how it benefits the US in the direct way that you're proposing to resolve that issue. Because in most cases US security guarantees is what makes NATO valid, especially in the face of a country like, say, Russia who has a significantly large military that vastly outstrips even multiple EU nations militaries. Regardless: US not being involved in NATO wouldn't change Russia's goals, especially since Russia is basically saying: Any Eastern European country east of Poland's border with Germany needs to not be a "threat" to Russian interests (worth nothing that includes being in the EU in general). And they are reinforcing that goal with forceful annexation and military threats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because in most cases US security guarantees is what makes NATO valid, especially in the face of a country like, say, Russia who has a significantly large military that vastly outstrips even multiple EU nations militaries. That doesn't explain what benefit the US gets from convincing Sweden and Finland to join and obligate us to defend them if they're not interested.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Seems more like an EU problem than an American problem if there are EU members outside of the American security umbrella. I don't see how it benefits the US in the direct way that you're proposing to resolve that issue, especially when those members aren't part of NATO by choice. It's more expensive for Americans to continue guaranteeing their security than it would be to simply plop proper NATO infrastructure there is what I'm saying. They're outside the American security umbrella only de jure, for their domestic political purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That doesn't explain what benefit the US gets from convincing Sweden and Finland to join and obligate us to defend them if they're not interested. ...They would only join if they're interested, tho?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
How are u posted:...They would only join if they're interested, tho? The original post I responded to suggested that a benefit to all of this from the US perspective is convincing Sweden and Finland to sign up. My contention is that the US obviously does actively seek new NATO members to contain/roll back Russian influence, and has been pursuing that purpose nonstop since the Cold War ended, while the general consensus in the thread has been that NATO more passively accepts members who desire to join only to be free from fear of Russian aggression.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:That doesn't explain what benefit the US gets from convincing Sweden and Finland to join and obligate us to defend them if they're not interested. Interest in joining NATO has been rising in both of those countries, with an understandable spike in 2014 and seems a safe bet an even larger spike in interest right now. Still up to them to actually ask to join, but if Russia invades I'd be very surprised if they don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Because the two countries are already in NATO de-facto, and it'd be cheaper and more useful for NATO to stop the comedy on that account. Sinteres posted:That doesn't explain what benefit the US gets from convincing Sweden and Finland to join and obligate us to defend them if they're not interested.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The original post I responded to suggested that a benefit to all of this from the US perspective is convincing Sweden and Finland to sign up. My contention is that the US obviously does actively seek new NATO members to contain/roll back Russian influence, and has been pursuing that purpose nonstop since the Cold War ended, while the general consensus in the thread has been that NATO more passively accepts members who desire to join only to be free from fear of Russian aggression. So, taking your own words, do I understand correctly that countries that have joined NATO after the fall of the USSR were coerced to do so by the US, and had no interests of their own? If that's not what you're saying, then good news, we've arrived at the common point of content with your posts. No one is arguing that US doesn't take advantage of other NATO member states (or prospects) for U.S. domestic agenda. A Buttery Pastry posted:The Swedes are an independent arms manufacturer, they are by no means de-facto NATO. Independent arms manufacturer with 100% NATO spec army and shared military missions, last I've checked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The Swedes are an independent arms manufacturer Debateable, the 90:s was a long time and we ourselves do import a fair share of the arms we use. Planes and grenades only get you so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Being in NATO means having to buy American military hardware. Outside of the whole F-35 snafu that's really not true. Hell most of NATO is driving around in German tanks. France is pretty much all domestic equipment, etc... Probably the closest thing might be a standard for calibres of weapons but "Everyone needs a rifle in 5.56 or 7.62 to ease ammunition compatibility" is a far cry from "Everyone MUST buy M16s from America". Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Being in NATO means having to buy American military hardware. What, I don't think that's true. You can use your hardware but the systems are recommended to be NATO compatible (i.e. like radios, signals, etc.). Because there's no way that Germany was going to buy the Abrams. And a lot of NATO countries have their own tanks, trucks, aircraft, etc. I think they try to ensure compatibility with ammunition too, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Being in NATO means having to buy American military hardware. It at least nudges them in that direction, which is a good point. And coincidentally, other than Turkey (which gets all kinds of exceptions), it means they can't flirt with Russian arms deals either. Though the US sanctions countries it doesn't want to buy Russian too now (again, other than Turkey??), so it might be a redundant benefit at this point. cinci zoo sniper posted:So, taking your own words, do I understand correctly that countries that have joined NATO after the fall of the USSR were coerced to do so by the US, and had no interests of their own? No, I don't think it's all about coercion, though I do think the us vs them divide we've contributed to does in turn contribute to the negative security environment that's led to some countries deciding they need that protection. Maybe renewed imperialism by Russia was always inevitable--obviously people predicted it might happen going back to the weakest post-Soviet days--but I don't think the US ever made a good faith effort to reach out to Russia as partners and escape this hostile relationship that leaves countries caught in between us, but mostly took advantage of Russian weakness to obliterate Russian power and influence. Yes, diplomatically in some cases, but also by attacking countries like Serbia and Libya. And whether you agree about R2P as it applies to Serbia or not, the reason we applied it there instead of somewhere like Yemen more recently is obviously because it was convenient for the US to crush Serbia while it's convenient for the US to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. If I gave the impression in previous posts that Russia's totally justified in lashing out at its neighbors to prevent these losses, I don't really believe that. I guess what I'd say is that given Russia's diplomatic and economic weakness, it's understandable that they'd choose to engage in the one arena where they do still have strength, and that more attempts should have been made to engage with them diplomatically and acknowledge their concerns going back to the 90's so maybe we'd have a more constructive relationship. Again, maybe Russian imperialism was inevitable, but if it wasn't initially, American imperialism certainly gave Russia a push in that direction. And American intransigence (as well as Russia's own overambitious demands) is to this day preventing possible diplomatic solutions to current problems. In the long run I also think the US is making a huge mistake by totally alienating Russia and pushing them to rely more and more on China, but long term strategy has rarely been an American strong suit. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Outside of the whole F-35 snafu that's really not true. Hell most of NATO is driving around in German tanks. France is pretty much all domestic equipment, etc... Day a French president makes them reliant on American stuff is the day they get strangled by zombie DeGaulle rising from his grave.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What, I don't think that's true. You can use your hardware but the systems are recommended to be NATO compatible (i.e. like radios, signals, etc.). Yeah your stuff just needs to meet the standards in the relevant STANAG. Practially you end up buying stuff that has some US equity, because it's almost impossible to procure a piece of modern military equipment that hasn't had components sub-contracted out to companies across NATO. And frankly if you want the best and you can afford the logistical cost that comes with it, piggybacking off the R&D spend that the US does is often the smartest move in the game. e: Russia was a NATO partner for peace and there were even air and naval exercises in the years running up to 2014. The hand was outstretched.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yeah your stuff just needs to meet the standards in the relevant STANAG. Practially you end up buying stuff that has some US equity, because it's almost impossible to procure a piece of modern military equipment that hasn't had components sub-contracted out to companies across NATO. Yeah and in most cases the US will supply relevant sub-systems and even provide training.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
Wikipedia posted:In 1942, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin became aware of Chizhevsky's research work, including Physical Factors Of The Historical Process, and Chizhevsky was asked to retract his writings on solar cycles, which contradicted Soviet theories of the reasons for the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917. Alright, this makes me curious...what the gently caress did the Soviets think solar cycles had to do in any way with the revolutions of 1905 and 1917?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
If it was merely a question of national security, Finland would have joined NATO a long time ago. But when you share a border with another country and do trade with them, keeping good relations does have certain benefits. Sweden hasn't shared borders with Russia in a long time and last time they did, people rode horses instead of cars. The fear of Russia isn't ingrained in their national identity the same way it is to Finland's. Both Swedes and Finns also largely despise United States and their ham-fisted way of doing foreign policy, which doesn't help NATO's popularity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:No, I don't think it's all about coercion, though I do think the us vs them divide we've contributed to does in turn contribute to the negative security environment that's led to some countries deciding they need that protection. Maybe renewed imperialism by Russia was always inevitable--obviously people predicted it might happen going back to the weakest post-Soviet days--but I don't think the US ever made a good faith effort to reach out to Russia as partners and escape this hostile relationship that leaves countries caught in between us, but mostly took advantage of Russian weakness to obliterate Russian power and influence. Yes, diplomatically in some cases, but also by attacking countries like Serbia and Libya. And whether you agree about R2P as it applies to Serbia or not, the reason we applied it there instead of somewhere like Yemen more recently is obviously because it was convenient for the US to crush Serbia while it's convenient for the US to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. I do agree that Russia got hosed over by the America left and right, at least for the entirety of the 90s - which clearly did inform subsequent prioritization work done by the Russian establishment. I don't agree on some other things (e.g. that US efforts would be well spent to try actively reverting the course on Russia), but this is a much clearer argument for you to make, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:Alright, this makes me curious...what the gently caress did the Soviets think solar cycles had to do in any way with the revolutions of 1905 and 1917? The soviets didn't. they could permit Chizhevsky because he was a competent biologist -- when he was in the camps he stopped a cholora outbreak, so was treated well enough and allowed to continue his work until he was rehablitated. Same reason they could abide by some of the more utopian dreaming of the now socialist hero tsiolkovsky too, who was influenced by the even more insane fedorov, who believed that mankind must undertake the mission of universally resurrecting all human beings who have ever existed (Doestovsky once asked him in a letter if he meant literal resurrection, or figurative, in the sense of renan, he clarified he meant literally raising the dead). But yes, to suggest that the sun gave people the passionarnost to do a revolution (rather than it being the personal child of Lenin) was pretty offensive to Stalin, so Chizhevsky was denounced as a mystic hiding behind the mask of science. Russian cosmists of the late 19th and early 20th century make tesla look like a reserved scholar. I'm getting really into them, might be start of manic episode, cant really tell. FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
Good to see that NATO is standing united. https://twitter.com/Doranimated/status/1484606185185624067
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:Good to see that NATO is standing united. Germany is basically undermined by their dependance on Russian gas and in the middle of winter and a gas crisis, is playing both sides.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:Good to see that NATO is standing united. Don't worry, they have innovative diplomatic options that will surely influence Russia: https://mobile.twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1484594200284999688 I wouldn't discount this completely, it might just result in Putin hurting himself badly from laughing too hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/21/blinken-us-russia-talks-ukraine-527569 Slightly more expanded summary on the Russia-US bilateral talks, and this sounds like something that could go on for a while. Unless Putin goes “well, thanks for confirming in writing that you mean to antagonise us” next Tuesday and gives the standby troops a go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Germany is basically undermined by their dependance on Russian gas and in the middle of winter and a gas crisis, is playing both sides. Too bad they closed down all those environmentally friendly nuclear plants. Somebody fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
Edit is not post, my badOddObserver posted:Don't worry, they have innovative diplomatic options that will surely influence Russia: What the hell is he smoking? Russia, for better or for worse, already went full in on Nuclear to replace large portions of their fossil generation in the next 10-20 years. This isn't even an ISSUE Putin likely wants to engage on given they are busy selling gas to Germany... And not like Germany's renewable plan is even going well right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Edit is not post, my bad Germany: We will cooperate with you on an initiative for renewables that will directly reduce your international influence due to being a gas and oil exporting petrostate, how about it? I'm sure that's going to go well 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:Good to see that NATO is standing united. This was iirc (can't check WSJ because of pay wall) at least partly about howitzers and their ammunition that was originally from USSR and bought by East Germany, then after unification Finland bought a bunch for cheap because we use the same caliber anyway. Then later Finland donated a bunch of those guns to Estonia, who are now modernizing their equipment to Nato standards but Ukraine still uses a lot of that howitzer model. In this case the transfer would also have required Finland's approval, so it was quite unlikely to happen in any case - for foreign political reasons obviously, but also because domestically the act of approving the transfer of arms to a war zone is politically loaded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
The official statement from NATO on Russia's demand that NATO not be allowed to have troops within Eastern European NATO member-states: https://twitter.com/NATOpress/status/1484634859045892104 Nenonen posted:This was iirc (can't check WSJ because of pay wall) at least partly about howitzers and their ammunition that was originally from USSR and bought by East Germany, then after unification Finland bought a bunch for cheap because we use the same caliber anyway. Then later Finland donated a bunch of those guns to Estonia, who are now modernizing their equipment to Nato standards but Ukraine still uses a lot of that howitzer model. the article states it is not about finland not approving but germany having a policy against sending weapons to "tense regions." quote:Germany is blocking North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally Estonia from giving military support to Ukraine by refusing to issue permits for German-origin weapons to be exported to Kyiv as it braces for a potential Russian invasion. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
^^ Deleted tweet. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/21/russia-and-us-to-meet-in-geneva-as-ukraine-war-fears-grow As per Guardian, Biden-Putin summit on the table.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 22:18
|
|