Well, it was a civil war scenario. 14k dead and eight years of conflict.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
Yeah, but as a South Carolinian let me tell you, we weren’t justified in our separatism and we weren’t justified in asking other southern states for help, making the war bigger. Comparing that request by Luhansk and Donetsk to Ukraine’s request for help after a foreign power unjustifiably seized their land is ridiculous.
I'm giving you what seems to be their point of view. The separatists have split irrevocably from Ukraine and don't seem to favour rejoining. Russia will always exploit that if it can. But the ethnic differences and demographic constitution of Ukraine is not something Russia manufactured. Might not be right, but that's their position. Remains to be seen if that position holds post-invasion. Maybe support for separation will dwindle.
This whole discussion is so roundabout. But I can’t seem to disengage. My mind is telling me noooooo, but my body, my body is telling me yeeeeees.
This whole debate started because I made the point that nothing justifies the invasion. Mciahel commented that doesn’t justify it but Russia was provoked. I firstly don’t understand that. The argument is you can’t solely blame Russia for the lead up to the war but you can after they invaded. I mean, wtf does that mean? The invasion only happened because of something which means the two are linked. Please tell me if I’m being stupid but how can you say NATO bares responsibility for provoking Russia but then say Russia can only be blamed post invasion? And in both cases the invasion isn’t justified? I just don’t get it.
Anyway, the argument I already don’t get moved then on the understanding what provoking means. Which we seem to have established is Ukraine seeking NATO membership (somehow NATO provoking) and NATO militarisation of Ukraine (which was a result of Ukraine’s choice to want to join NATO). We’ve also established Russia is concerned about nukes in Ukraine (but hang on, there’s already nukes on its border by other NATO countries, no guarantee NATO would put nukes in Ukraine, and the whole debate is superfluous anyway because having a nuke in Ukraine would not make Russia any more unsafe than it already is - unless we try and frame it in 1960 nuclear technology). And finally, we talk about spheres of influence and that’s why Russia cares, because that makes it somehow better and more appropriate for them to invade Ukraine.
All in all, a total mess. All to somehow frame NATO and the US as “partially responsible” for this invasion.
Help me understand. Please.
Irrelevant. Not the post or sentence or even discussion I quoted.
NATO provoked Russia. Russia's response was disproportionate. That's why you can blame Russia absolutely for the invasion while not forgetting NATO action in Ukraine prior to that, as well as understanding self-awareness on the part of NATO regarding likely Russian response. The position of the Director of the CIA in 2016, aptly summarized on the previous page.
I don’t need you to give me their point of view and I don’t think that’s what anyone in this discussion is asking of you.
You discount their point of view. That's your business. My point of view was summarized a page ago.
Because they knew what their actions would lead to. That's partial responsibility. That's been understood for a long time. Even the pro-war NYT ran an op-ed from Friedman outlining this. It's not that controversial. It's basic stuff.
US interventions that @Mciahel Goodman supports:
1. Bay of Pigs (sphere of influence)
2. Mexican-American war (Texas requesting US annexation)
1. Bay of Pigs (sphere of influence)
2. Mexican-American war (Texas requesting US annexation)
OK. Ukraine, who'd been invaded and defeated by Russia, provocatively went to the world's best military defence organisation and got advice on how to reorganise its army in line with how the world's best military defence organisation does things, rather than the old way that caused it to get beaten. This provoked Russia to invade Ukraine again, in response.
(However the good news is the world's best military defence organisation's advice and support does actually work, and Russia won't be invading a third time, no matter how provoked.)
Yet to say I support the validity of "sphere of influence" (morally) but whether I support it or not doesn't matter because that's how it was perceived and that's what led to the material conditions you see today.US interventions that @Mciahel Goodman supports:
1. Bay of Pigs (sphere of influence)
2. Mexican-American war (Texas requesting US annexation)
In fact, I think I made a brief defense of NATO/Ukraine on the previous page for the precise reason that sphere of influence is not legitimate, but did not pretend that NATO's encroachment within Ukraine was not a self-conscious provocation, only that you could argue the justness of that provocation if you take Ukrainian autonomy into account.
I hope Western European nations will happily remind Turkey on how many times they harbored jihadists who ended up committing violent acts in the aforementioned countries.
That would be a very good trade to me. Turkey have been flirting with Russia for years under Erdogan, so let them go.
I think that some folks just want to find a reason for it to be at least partially NATO’s (read: America’s) fault, because things in the past have been and that makes folks have a certain view of NATO’s (read: America’s) foreign policy.
Sometimes it is “our” fault and sometimes “we” are wrong… but I don’t think it’s this time.
They should've politely declined NATO cooperation so Putin could one day invade and actually win.
So what you’re saying is, if I got a new girlfriend a decade after I left my old girlfriend, my new girlfriend is a provocateur and is partially responsible for my unjustified death at the hand of my ex girlfriend? And each date I went on before I formally became boyfriend and girlfriend with my new girlfriend is provocative?
It’s not.
If by “discount” you mean “think they’re full of it”, then yes, yes I do. Ditto that for Putin… but I already thought that because I have already read up on what their viewpoint is. We are here because (once again) you’ve gone down a line of discussion where folks think you’re giving your opinion, not the proxy opinion of Donbas and Russia.
The first sentence in this post is what is and has been rebutted.
Everyone basically admitted that Russia viewed NATO's action as a provocation (one page ago). NATO have admitted that such would be seen as a provocation. I don't see any refutation of that at all.
I don't think they are full of it. I think it's probably more complicated. But we were never going to agree.
Ha! Reminds me of the Ben Franklin line from HBO’s John Adams…
“Don’t they know they’ve violated the first fundamental rule of warfare? Which is to always let the [Russians] win!?!?”
You think there’s merit to the pile of shit that is the Russian justification for war?
Or the justification of American Imperialism (ominous music). Can go either way.
Gave my position already, basically mirrors the summary of that article dealing with Burns' opinion.
I’m not talking about what RUSSIA thought of it. I’m talking about what YOU thought of it. And more importantly, whether it was really provocation or not.
A repost
the current head of the CIA made his views known on the issue:
With the part in bold being my primary point. You can understand the idea of provocation without also saying that Russia was justified in its invasion, and that's the broader point made by almost every academic source cited in this thread. I don't think it's controversial or that it implies a mutually exclusive premise.
the current head of the CIA made his views known on the issue:
With the part in bold being my primary point. You can understand the idea of provocation without also saying that Russia was justified in its invasion, and that's the broader point made by almost every academic source cited in this thread. I don't think it's controversial or that it implies a mutually exclusive premise.
I thought it was a provocation and that it was understood as such.
Can you not just give a straight answer? This isn’t a college classroom.
That is my answer
I think it's complex and I also don't think I or anyone here fully understand(s) it. But inasmuch as I do, my position is that outline above, "that you can understand the idea of provocation without also saying that Russia was justified in its invasion...".
This is actually for the geopolitics thread (@Raoul/@Carolina Red), since it has no direct bearing on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But while it's still here: other countries can say whatever they want, but NATO membership requires agreement from all current members and there is little others can do to just force Turkey into that position. The Turks aren't idiots though and won't stop this forever; they will just need some concessions in turn. Sweden and Finland are unlikely to start represssing Kurdish organizations, so there will probably be something about economic collaboration or more help for Turkey with the many refugees it's harbouring.
So you think NATO should have declined requests for help so as not to “provoke”?That is my answer
I think it's complex and I also don't think I or anyone here fully understand(s) it. But inasmuch as I do, my position is that outline above, "that you can understand the idea of provocation without also saying that Russia was justified in its invasion...".
I don't think NATO accepted the request for altruistic reasons. But I don't think they should have declined, no. Sort of what I meant by not being sure there was a way around it in an earlier post, or that things could have been done differently.
As they're essentially (or rather literally) puppet states of a dictatorship, it's impossible for us to know what the people in the "republics" really want at this point. But calling the split "irrevocable" seems like a very bold prediction.
Maybe. Ukraine would have to take them back by force, I think, which is possible but who knows.
As is a state’s right to do when a region illegitimately breaks away.
Then it would have been NATO’s (America’s) fault for not pushing harder for Ukraine to join.
And yet in the very articles you cite, Burns also says he favoured NATO expansion just more slowly. And let’s not forget, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, the West DID pay attention to Russian sensitivities on that, and yet Russia still invaded. There are lots of reasons why Putin lost trust in the West (and vice versa) and I certainly remember thinking at the time we did not handle Russia very sensitively post the fall of the Soviets, but the one thing we did do well, was establish an environment where the former Soviet republics could prosper in freely and in peace. Russia may have felt this was provocative, yes, there was a risk in that, but it wasn’t really about respecting Russian colonial interests anymore, those vanished with the Soviets. When the Ukraine war is won, it may well be seen as the point at which Russia is forced to realise that the imperial game is finally over, and they will need to find a new way of engaging with its former colonies, the same lesson everyone else in the West has had to learn.
Last edited:
Well said.
I find it amazing there's still people pretending that they don't understand the provocation point. It's like you've got it in your heads that it's a russian talking point so some inverse truth of action having no consequences must be believed or Putin wins.
If you can't admit it was provocative even whilst justified then you can't start to debate the implementation. If they'd have properly judged the level of provocation and taken ownership of it they'd have been able to bring Ukraine under NATO protection fully from the off and saved lives.
Historians talk about how economic policy provoked Japan and Germany in WW2 and oddly enough that isn't a justification of pearl harbour or the holocaust either. The many threads that build up to conflict aren't one sided good vs bad arguments.
If you can't admit it was provocative even whilst justified then you can't start to debate the implementation. If they'd have properly judged the level of provocation and taken ownership of it they'd have been able to bring Ukraine under NATO protection fully from the off and saved lives.
Historians talk about how economic policy provoked Japan and Germany in WW2 and oddly enough that isn't a justification of pearl harbour or the holocaust either. The many threads that build up to conflict aren't one sided good vs bad arguments.
Economic policy justified the holocaust?