|
Shes Not Impressed posted:More clarification: ...ironic? lol
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Shes Not Impressed posted:More clarification: See, you need like one person who understands Ukrainian. Doesn't even have to speak the language, just understand it. And somehow CNN and NBC fail to have one person like that when reporting on a presidential address.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Funny how the mistranslations always seem to be in the direction of ramping up tensions. FWIW I disagree with a lot of the left/anti-imperialist crowd in that I think a Russian invasion is extremely plausible, but US media may as well be cheerleading for it at this point whether it ultimately happens or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:See, you need like one person who understands Ukrainian. Doesn't even have to speak the language, just understand it. And somehow CNN and NBC fail to have one person like that when reporting on a presidential address. Ukrainian is not the language of empire! You could pay a returned peace corps volunteer in beers to do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
Russian military directly invaded and stopped the Ukrainian advance that was significantly pushing back the Russian-backed mobsters in the summer of 2014. There's nothing home grown about the "separatists" in Donbas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:Explaining something and why it happened isn't justifying it. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that. I find it disingenuous that you're spending so much time focused on Russia's legitimate security concerns when half their military has been moved to the border of a country they formerly controlled and partially reinvaded 8 years ago. There is nothing close to a NATO equivalent for that kind of aggression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:NATO should stop expanding for one. And enter negotiations with Russia and be sensitive to its legitimate security concern wrt for example NATO troops on its border, missile systems, etc. But this isn't how NATO actually works? Its not like there's some unified command and control, NATO is more like a partnership than one single military. "NATO Troops" are for the most part usually the troops of the home nation. NATO is just the ability for those troops to interoperate with other NATO countries and the militaries be able to share some data. Any actual action would require calling for an Article 5, and even then its a defense agreement. And to that point: Where have NATO incursions of Russian territories happened? I mean, if Russia has a distinct fear of NATO invasion, what's that founded on? Right now, we have multiple Russian distinct aggressive actions (2014 invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, invasion of Georgia) and out of all that, I don't see any distinct NATO actions that would make all this aggressive military action justifiable? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Feb 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
If NATO actually wanted to gobble up parts of Russia Kallingrad would have been taken long ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
orcane posted:Russian military directly invaded and stopped the Ukrainian advance that was about to significantly pushing back the Russian-backed mobsters in the summer of 2014. There's nothing home grown about the "separatists" in Donbas. Igor Girkin married into a Ukrainian family so he's basically a native
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:I find it disingenuous that you're spending so much time focused on Russia's legitimate security concerns when half their military has been moved to the border of a country they formerly controlled and partially reinvaded 8 years ago. I mean, Russia is well within its rights to move its troops around inside of Russia. Also I don't think the claimed 100,000 troops is quite "half" of the Russian army
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
It's closer to 150,000, and it's close to 60% of active duty military. Obviously they can call up a few million conscripts, and ... party like it's 1914?i say swears online posted:...ironic? lol What he was saying is obvious for someone with like 50% comprehension of Ukrainian. Which is probably zero of CNN staff involved. I would point at the official English statement, but it manages to make a mistake in the very next sentence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:I mean, Russia is well within its rights to move its troops around inside of Russia. Also I don't think the claimed 100,000 troops is quite "half" of the Russian army And also apparently it's within their rights to take a stroll across the border as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:I mean, Russia is well within its rights to move its troops around inside of Russia. Also I don't think the claimed 100,000 troops is quite "half" of the Russian army If Russia did invade Ukraine would it be 'within its rights'?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Obviously Russia is not within its rights to invade Ukraine
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:I mean, Russia is well within its rights to move its troops around inside of Russia. Also I don't think the claimed 100,000 troops is quite "half" of the Russian army I don't think NATO has ever massed troops on the border of the modern Russian state; it would probably be a legitimate security concern if they did. Is the concentration of Russian troops on the border not a legitimate security concern for Ukraine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:While the Western government's (and ghoulish media) messaging has been atrocious, their actions have been the opposite of saber-rattling: they're bending over backwards to avoid an escalation chain with Russia. The US is sending troops and fighter jets to Poland, and though their present mission has been publicly declared to involve staying put in Poland regardless of future events, it is odd to me that this is seen as peacekeeping while Russian movements within their own borders are provocation. And I do not disagree that Russian movements are provocation. However, if I'm skeptical of US movements as a US citizen, one might think the Russians would be particularly skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
Actually, Russia is NOT within its right to randomly move large invasion forces on the borders of other European states according to the Vienna Document which Russia also signed. But hey, surprise. Russian propagandists will endlessly harp on supposed promises and warranties nobody actually gave them about forever staying out of their sphere of influence back in the 80s, but abiding by actual treaties and written agreements they signed? Totally optional, they're just a ploy of Western nazis anyway. BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The US is sending troops and fighter jets to Poland, and though their present mission has been publicly declared to involve staying put in Poland regardless of future events, it is odd to me that this is seen as peacekeeping while Russian movements within their own borders are provocation. And I do not disagree that Russian movements are provocation. However, if I'm skeptical of US movements as a US citizen, one might think the Russians would be particularly skeptical. 
orcane fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The US is sending troops and fighter jets to Poland, and though their present mission has been publicly declared to involve staying put in Poland regardless of future events, it is odd to me that this is seen as peacekeeping while Russian movements within their own borders are provocation. And I do not disagree that Russian movements are provocation. However, if I'm skeptical of US movements as a US citizen, one might think the Russians would be particularly skeptical. So far the only troops in Poland is the 82nd Airborne and was brought in to help with evacuations (which Poland has largely opened the border for) Fighter movements are likely to cover the ongoing airlift to get the 82nd in position. But worth note if the intention was to defend Ukraine they wouldn't start in Poland. And the 82nd is hardly capable of facing a 150k+ multi-division assault regardless. Its not saber rattling. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Feb 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The US is sending troops and fighter jets to Poland, and though their present mission has been publicly declared to involve staying put in Poland regardless of future events, it is odd to me that this is seen as peacekeeping while Russian movements within their own borders are provocation. And I do not disagree that Russian movements are provocation. However, if I'm skeptical of US movements as a US citizen, one might think the Russians would be particularly skeptical. If US sent nearly 2/3rds of the entire army to borders of Russia or Belarus and configured them in a way that looks exactly staged for invasion it would indeed be provocative and deserve criticism. It's not doing anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
orcane posted:Why is that odd? How likely is it that these US jets will be used in (hidden? what?) attacks on Russia, the one country with enough nuclear weapons to rival the United States? How many times have the US used forces stationed in Europe to attack Russia? How is that even comparable The US was one of several countries that invaded Russia right after the 1917 Revolution
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:The US was one of several countries that invaded Russia right after the 1917 Revolution Do you think the United States and/or NATO are willing to or interested in invading Russia today?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
How are u posted:Do you think the United States and/or NATO are willing to or interested in invading Russia today? No, probably not a direct invasion. I'm just pointing out that countries like the US, UK, France, and Germany have an extensive history of invading and attacking Russia and Russia has good reason to be wary of a military alliance that contains all four.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
your "extensive history of invading and attacking russia" is an invasion that happened more than a century ago under a completely different set of circumstances, unless i am misunderstanding? what bearing does this have on the current crisis?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
How are u posted:Do you think the United States and/or NATO are willing to or interested in invading Russia today? That's an interesting question. I was told in the other thread that Poland, the Baltics, et al. were interested in joining NATO due to a history of Russian aggression against them. Totally valid point. If that logic holds true, then, why wouldn't Russia have viewed the expansion of NATO into those countries in the aughts--well before Georgia, Donbas, or the current crisis, when Russia showed no signs of revanchism--as anything but aggressive, considering their proximity to Russia? Specifically the Baltics. Why do some countries get to react to historical animosity and others don't? NATO always has been and still is an anti-Russian alliance. If it wasn't, why did those countries join in the aughts? What were they afraid of, Sweden?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
All of the Russian bluster about NATO security concerns is a moot point because Russia, as a nuclear armed state with ICBMs and SLBMs, is not, and will not, find itself in a situation where they are facing an existential threat. They know this. America knows this. NATO knows this, and Ukraine knows it too. It makes every bit of crying about Ukrainian threats to Russian state security extremely cynical when everyone knows Ukraine is not, and literally could not be, the threat they are made out to be by Putin. It's naked realpolitik.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:No, probably not a direct invasion. I'm just pointing out that countries like the US, UK, France, and Germany have an extensive history of invading and attacking Russia and Russia has good reason to be wary of a military alliance that contains all four. Russia has sent a lot more armies into Europe than European powers have sent the other way which is probably why Russias neighbors are so eager to join a defensive alliance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:The US was one of several countries that invaded Russia right after the 1917 Revolution Explains why Poland was so eager to join NATO, considering the Polish-Soviet war around the same time. E: To clarify, this is to highlight how silly this type of reasoning is, not an actual argument. Paladinus fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Feb 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
TipTow posted:That's an interesting question. I was told in the other thread that Poland, the Baltics, et al. were interested in joining NATO due to a history of Russian aggression against them. Totally valid point. Might be because if you don't join NATO, Russia has a habit of invading, pulling a color revolution, or whatever is the flavor of the day for Putin. Mysteriously, very few cases where NATO does the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:All of the Russian bluster about NATO security concerns is a moot point because Russia, as a nuclear armed state with ICBMs and SLBMs, is not, and will not, find itself in a situation where they are facing an existential threat. They know this. America knows this. NATO knows this, and Ukraine knows it too. If this was true, what was the point of expanding NATO? What did the U.S., France, the U.K., and Turkey gain from adding Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia? Surely they wouldn't need the extra help in fighting off Russia if that was was never going to happen anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Might be because if you don't join NATO, Russia has a habit of invading, pulling a color revolution, or whatever is the flavor of the day for Putin. Mysteriously, very few cases where NATO does the same. Can you cite an example of this happening prior to the Baltics' ascension?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
It is not really complicated guys..everyone is loving bad, and innocent people always suffer due to them. T_T
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
TipTow posted:If this was true, what was the point of expanding NATO? What did the U.S., France, the U.K., and Turkey gain from adding Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia? Surely they wouldn't need the extra help in fighting off Russia if that was was never going to happen anyway. If a democracy wants to join NATO and the existing members agree, why shouldn't they be allowed? It is a defensive alliance. More nations joining together in a defensive alliance seems like a good thing, in and of itself. It's only a bad thing for nations that are interested in conquest, who might be thwarted by a defensive alliance of nations that they would otherwise be interested in conquering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:It is not really complicated guys..everyone is loving bad, and innocent people always suffer due to it. I agree 100%. But there's a cadre of people that become apoplectic at the insinuation there aren't "good guys" in this crisis. It's just "bad guys" and victims.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
TipTow posted:Can you cite an example of this happening prior to the Baltics' ascension? Transnistria.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
TipTow posted:Can you cite an example of this happening prior to the Baltics' ascension? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_presence_in_Transnistria
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
How are u posted:If a democracy wants to join NATO and the existing members agree, why shouldn't they be allowed? It is a defensive alliance. More nations joining together in a defensive alliance seems like a good thing, in and of itself. It's only a bad thing for nations that are interested in conquest, who might be thwarted by a defensive alliance of nations that they would otherwise be interested in conquering. Well, except that NATO itself is an alliance of conquest as seen in Serbia, Afghanistan, and Libya
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
How are u posted:If a democracy wants to join NATO and the existing members agree, why shouldn't they be allowed? It is a defensive alliance. More nations joining together in a defensive alliance seems like a good thing, in and of itself. It's only a bad thing for nations that are interested in conquest, who might be thwarted by a defensive alliance of nations that they would otherwise be interested in conquering. NATO isn't just a defensive alliance though. See Kosovo. Edit: Yeah, and Libya. I'm inclined to say Afghanistan at least involved self defense, even if the end result was obviously horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:It is not really complicated guys..everyone is loving bad, and innocent people always suffer due to them. T_T but that means the innocent people are also bad
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The US is sending troops and fighter jets to Poland, and though their present mission has been publicly declared to involve staying put in Poland regardless of future events, it is odd to me that this is seen as peacekeeping while Russian movements within their own borders are provocation. And I do not disagree that Russian movements are provocation. However, if I'm skeptical of US movements as a US citizen, one might think the Russians would be particularly skeptical. It's a matter of magnitude - just like the "tripwire" forces in the Baltics, it's an useful show of commitment if you puff them up with PR but impractically small for either offensive or defensive purposes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
How are u posted:If a democracy wants to join NATO and the existing members agree, why shouldn't they be allowed? It is a defensive alliance. More nations joining together in a defensive alliance seems like a good thing, in and of itself. It's only a bad thing for nations that are interested in conquest, who might be thwarted by a defensive alliance of nations that they would otherwise be interested in conquering. I think that's a naieve view of (at least) the U.S.' intentions. Security umbrellas aren't free, and I very seriously doubt that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia would be significant contributors to the alliance should the time come.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2022 21:28
|
|