WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Drilldo you could join an azov battalion and stand as a defender of the victims of communism

Sinteres posted:

But yeah, I agree that Russian intervention in Ukraine isn't ideal, which is why I prefer a compromise where some tacit understanding on Russian control of Crimea is reached (Russia realistically isn't climbing down from that after formally annexing the territory) in return for a return to normal relations and a withdrawal from the Donbass. I don't know if that's a deal Russia would take, but I've been in favor of it since the initial invasion. And since everyone agrees that Ukraine isn't getting NATO membership any time soon, why not make that a formal commitment, even if just for a set number of years? It's a painless concession, so if it can prevent actual harm it seems worth doing.

Sinteres posted:

They continue to refer to it because it's been the excuse for every major US intervention for decades, like I said. Pointing out that Munich happened has been how imperialists have punched left at people who prefer diplomatic solutions forever.

Orthanc6 posted:

Quite like, unfortunately, the situation Ukraine has with nukes. They traded in the nukes they inherited from Russia for a guarantee of independence. Turns out, nukes are any countries' actual guarantee of independence. So that's "fun".

Sinteres posted:

Pro-West coups are known as color revolutions, but pro-Russian coups which may or may not actually happen are to be met with preemptive sanctions.

Sinteres posted:

Maybe we could try de-escalation, where Russia withdraws from some of the territory they're currently occupying and some of the sanctions are withdrawn in return. And some of Russia's strategic concerns could be addressed, and Russia in turn could be a better neighbor and stop threatening Ukraine's security. Israel routinely bombs Iranian forces in Syria because they can't possibly allow even a weaker enemy country to have a presence near their border, and the US obviously supports this, but when Russia has concerns about a massive alliance that's far stronger than it continuing to bolster its strength near Russia's borders, they're paranoid and any attempt they make to address the situation is a monstrous act of barbarism from the Western perspective. The real American argument is that we're strong enough that we'll do what we want to do without any real concessions to assuage Russian concerns, and any attempt by Russia to stop us will be met with crippling sanctions that will immiserate the people of Russia.

Sinteres posted:

What if we're the bully and Russia's right to be paranoid?

uno.mannschaft posted:

Sure, but there are other means to achieve your goals than wishing your opponents die by divine intervention and going to war. And maybe thats what we are seeing now?

steinrokkan posted:

When Putin speaks of Russian security, he means exclusively his ability to squeeze and exploit his neighbors. They had reasonably favorable position in the European structures prior to this, with all of Europe being quite willingly dependent on Russia for energy, but they were apparently willing to throw it away for this, that doesn't spell "willingness to compromise" to me.

lollontee posted:

why would you wish something like that? seems like a place i could get killed for being a communist in

TipTow posted:

Some common ground, this is kinda central to my "Russia feeling threatened by NATO" position.

And I appreciate your reasoned discussion with me steinrokkan, as opposed to the two! posters who wish death on me for trying to discuss a pretty complicated situation.

TipTow posted:

No doubt. That doesn't change the fact that the U.S, which has a history of antagonism toward Russia, is the "elephant in the room" when discussion how Russia feels threatened by NATO.

lollontee posted:

doesnt the US do that on the regular, for instance in recent history with nicaragua?

Alchenar posted:

I think the problem with the 'it's a bluff' position is that Putin's demands have been so maximalist that nothing he can possibly be offered will make this brinksmanship look like a win for him. Compare and contrast with the Cuban Missile Crisis where the US's starting demands were exactly what they wanted 'remove the nukes from Cuba', and the concession that was made in the end was a reasonable one of reciprocal withdrawal that made everyone feel like a winner (well, aside from the 'we almost nuked each other, that was bad' feeling and the fact that Khrushchev wasn't able to get credit from the widthdrawal of missiles from Turkey so it looked like he'd lost).

If this is all a bluff, what's the realistic endgame that Putin is actually looking for? One the one hand he's threatening Ukraine with invasion, on the other all his demands have been about NATO dismantling itself. I don't know at all what happens with Ukraine, but I suspect that regardless of what happens there NATO is going to emerge from this with a new sense of resolve and purpose and possibly a couple of new members.

Truga posted:

i'm not calling out the condemnations, i'm calling out the idea that this entire conflict was somehow completely unavoidable by the west. when one side completely ignored the positions of the other for like 20 years, you don't get to pretend that. it's insanely lovely for people of ukraine, but this entire poo poo was brewed by both russia and nato, not just one side

Truga posted:

clearly, what's thousands of dead slavs over a principle amirite

jesus loving christ dude

MikeC posted:

Sinteres posted:

Don't know what country you're from, but this is definitely the callous 'it's no problem for us if Ukraine gets invaded or not, we win either way' attitude where diplomacy isn't even worth trying that I talk about the US having.

Sinteres posted:

I don't think Putin's a particularly unstable or irrational actor, and he's made his demands pretty clear about Ukraine (and Georgia) not being permitted to join NATO or the EU. Sucks for Ukraine, but if invasion is going to prevent those from happening anyway, giving up those aspirations makes sense to me. We already know that nobody cares about the victims of occupation since the sanctions on Crimea impose collective punishment on them, so it's not like the US is going to do them any good in the case of an invasion. Besides, the West broke their promises about NATO enlargement long before Putin started invading his neighbors, so the US, UK, and France are among the bad faith actors who precipitated the crisis, and it's not a whataboutism since they acted first and influenced Russia's subsequent actions. Not that I'm saying enlarging NATO was as immoral as Russia invading its neighbors, but it's been a contributing factor to deteriorating relations, though obviously if you live in the Baltics or Poland you're happy to make that trade.

Morrow posted:

All this discussion of Crimean popular support for Russian annexation ignores the facts that Russia annexed the peninsula regardless of any popular support. Whether the native population opposed or supported annexation in 2014 was not a factor into Russia's decision to invade and annex the territory of one of its closest neighbors.

Robocope posted:

Lots of people itt going over literal American propaganda.

Sinteres posted:

Again, I very clearly went with the assumption that Russia is evil/unjustified/however you want to look at it in the phrasing of my question, and simply asked if there's more that could have been done for peace even knowing that. 'We dont negotiate with terrorists' seems to be the consensus, so I'll take it as answered, but you're misrepresenting my position here now.

Terminal autist posted:

Obviously I can't speak for Sinteres who it looks like was probed for having a position in opposition to the unhinged blood lust ITT, but scrapping the Western security framework seems like a pretty good goal. Do you seriously thing anyone in a Western nation is threatened by Russia? The FSB isn't going to inject you with Polonium for having weird opinions about Russians, Des Moines not going to get strafed MIGs. For a serious solution to the problem we should try making NATO North Atlantic again.

fuctifino posted:

Seeing as these stories were heavily reported in the UK media, I guess these tweets deserve to be posted here: