The main difference is that USA is not threatening and breaching Mexico’s security on daily basis? You don’t here from senate the talks that Mexico belongs to USA? Well that’s precisely what is happening when it comes to Russia and other post-Soviet nations. It almost doesn’t see them as sovereign countries, how can you feel safe living in such environment? Many countries only managed to get independent some 30 years ago. That’s a mountain of difference from Mexico randomly teaming up with Putin. Context.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Sure, but Ukraine is not getting Crimea back. They can ensure that they don't cede sovereignty to Russia by insisting without any reasonable pathway that they want to join NATO and the EU. US was already bitching about NATO members not paying their due share and the EU doesn't want another Eastern European dependent state while simultaneously dealing with with Hungary and Poland. This is an easy concession to make and they are only dragging their feet on this because Russia made it a demand. Russia on the other hand has a good reason to draw that line in the sand, because it has a strong hand, being a major supplier of energy to Western Europe and Putin cannot survive domestically while being dicked around by the US like he is North Korea.
Good job the jets come with pilots then!
Look how well 20 years of training went with the people of Afghanistan.
You think that Danish, French, Spanish, and Dutch fighter pilots are going to be running combat missions against the Russian Air Force & Air Defense?
NO Nato pilots will,
but then i doubt that any pilots will be involved in combats at all, as I doubt that any military operation will actually arise other than strategic positioning of troops.Right. But not the NATO pilots from Denmark, Spain, France, and the Netherlands that you said were coming with the NATO jets. Got it.NO Nato pilots will,
NO Nato pilots will,
Who are these Nato pilots?
Considering all these countries have said they are sending ships and fighter pilots to bolster Nato troops, along with Nato sending jets etc 'm not sure wht you are getting at here? ,
NATO will send ships and fighter jets to eastern Europe and put other military forces on standby
Plus logistics, maintenance, defense of suitable airfields, etc.
Hasn't someone already pointed out that some NATO countries are sending some materiel to Ukraine, while NATO (mainly the US) is also looking at deploying more forces (with both the personnel and required materiel) to Eastern NATO countries, but not Ukraine?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
I’m speaking about the Ukrainian Air Force being next to combat incapable. Those NATO forces aren’t being sent to that area to bolster the Ukrainian Air Force that will have to attempt to blunt a Russian invasion of the country.
I would honestly go one step further than that: the Russian government does not even see nor want to treat other ethno-linguistic groups from former Soviet nations as equals capable of choosing their own destiny. You can trace that trend as far back as in the old Romanov Empire, in which Russian nobility treated other ethnic/lingistic/religious groups (Ukrainians, Georgians, Jews, Tatars, etc.) like shit. Then nobility made way to Russian communist leaders and then to Putin/Russian oligarchs, but the same sentiment remained. Where the Russian government wants to stand towards other former Soviet nations is to be a master above servants again rather than as equals.
If Britain did not come up with the London Deacaration in 1949 to declare all members of the Commontealth of Nations as free and equal, a majority of former British colonies would have told the UK to piss off by now. This is perhaps my best comparison between alternative history timelines and what happens in real life between Russia and many of its neighbors at the moment.
Exactly right
If you're Ukraine I'm not sure that it's a deal that you sign. I say that mainly because the invasion of Crimea is already a violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, where Russia agreed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine." You might sign that deal if you think it's your only option to avoid war in the immediate future, but knowing that it is likely not the end of Russian encroachments on your sovereignty.
Regarding France, it's troops sent in Romania but it's following an agreement with Romania that was agreed months(years) ago. It's kind of a way to hit two birds with one stone, do what you agreed a long time ago and also work on the current events optics.
Putin wouldn't be successful in the Mexico case and in the Haiti case he would inherit a total shambles that he would need to clean up to maintain stability. Think you are forgetting that Cuba is already there as a traditional partner of Russia and closer than the other two locations to all the key US cities on the Atlantic coast.
Plus the Ukranian Air Force would cease to exist within 24-48 hours of the start of any invasion.
That's why I mentioned "the opportunity", I didn't forget anything.
Not wanting fencing around chicken sheds, is completely reasonable on a fox's part.
Absolutely. Big emphasis on the word "attempt" in that post there.
They might decide to not even get in the air.
We don't need to deal with hypotheticals, because many countries near the US' border did attempt different govts over the years, and the US did interfere with their sovereignty, successfully in all cases (el Salvadaor, Guatelmala, Honduras, Nicaragua), except one (Cuba).
Yes, but the US is a democracy. It's not a problem when a democracy tries to put down democratic movements, only when an autocracy does it.
Honest question - do you think NATO would let Russia invade Ukraine and topple a democratic government whilst standing by doing nothing (other than supply them with weapons - which they probably don't know how to operate)?
I just can't see that happening
whats going to happen here lads?
Said it before in this thread, every superpower does this. I can't stand Putin and his brutal politics but when people use the "What about Ukraine's sovereignty!" line and act all shocked, I feel they should read up on what the US has done/does and the same with China.
It's naive to think that China would allow a neighbouring country to ally itself with the US. Or the US allow, let's say Mexico join an alliance with Russia. Just won't happen without interference.
Yes, because they're in no particular position to do something besides send over some weapons, supplies, intel and good wishes.
No one really knows but best case scenario would be security talks which addressed the right of Ukraine to maintain its own course but also denies it the right of NATO membership. Ukraine is split like 75-25 with the Russian areas being in the east and centre and the dominant Ukranian areas being in the West. Around Kiev and so on. Russia doesn't want to invade Ukraine because it would cause enormous losses. But if Ukraine attacks Russian areas, there might be a response.
Jaw jaw is better than war war in this scenario, too.
And I can't dislike all of those things? Plus I can't complain that this situation also has implications on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
The best case scenario is Ukraine giving up its rights as a sovereign nation? I'm pretty sure there's not any sort of agreement that could be made that would deny Ukraine NATO membership. Ukraine would have to promise not to apply to join NATO, but in that case Russia may just have ensured that they are going to go back on their word and do it anyway - just like Russia did when they invaded Crimea (and Eastern Ukraine, honestly).
I also have to note that they're not Russian areas, they're Russian-speaking areas. It's all still just Ukraine.
Yes.
Look at Northern Ireland. Is that a British-identifying area or British? Because the population split was less than 75-25 when the annexation occurred and is 50-50 as of now. Is it a sovereign nation? Not really, but isn't it better than the alternative? The relentless and never ending civil war?
I have to note that you're right but also wrong - they are Russian nationals intermixed with Russian-Ukranians. That is, many of these people have dual passports and many just have Russian passports, so you're point is only half accurate.
Gut says nothing major will happen, there simply is too much at stake for everyone involved. If it does, we might find ourselves wishing to turn back time where lockdowns are considered the worst thing in the world.
Currently being discussed on parliament tv with various experts, dunno how much long it'll go on for.
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/64d86212-ba5f-40cc-bf31-fe7f2a350844
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/64d86212-ba5f-40cc-bf31-fe7f2a350844
And even if they were in a position to do something. What are the actual strategic benefits?
Of course the US' interfering in Central/South America/elsewhere has for the most part been problematic and disastrous.
I don't think you'd find anyone on here (apart from @Raoul
) that would disagree.So what's your point here?
It was @berbatrick's point. We do not have to deal with hypothetical scenarios when we have historical and current scenarios to draw from where the US does exactly what Russia is doing right now. I merely agree with Berbatrick.
Every discussion around Russia has to devolve into ’oh yeah but the US is bad too’. It’s a Caf rule.