Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

JPRouve said:
And even if they were in a position to do something. What are the actual strategic benefits?
Click to expand...
The US especially, and France/UK to a slightly lesser degree, are status quo powers. They designed this world order after the end of WWII, and for Eastern Europe specifically got a re-design after the demise of the USSR. In this order Ukraine was supposed to have sovereignty. Their strategic play overall is just to keep the order. It's uninspiring but its what you do when you're a status quo power.

I think because Ukraine means much more to Russia than it does to NATO, Russia will ultimately take this round. But even a status quo power does have to decide at what point they will commit force merely to keep the existing order, again as uninspiring and seemingly not beneficial it seems.

Also put another way, if this for some reason were a smaller non-nuclear state instead of Russia threatening a country not in NATO/any other alliance, then the US would react more forcefully even if the benefit is nothing more than just keeping status quo, because the costs to them would be much lower.
 
MTF said:
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?
Click to expand...

I dislike this as well and hope this shit calms down fast as feck but the main argument around this has been "Ukraine's sovereignty" which I'm saying is a hypocritical argument.
 
neverdie said:
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.
Click to expand...

These are all outdated scenarios that have zero applicability in the present. All kinds of bad things happened in previous generations, none of which are useful in resolving the current crisis of Russia imminently invading Europe.
 
We need an rvn said:
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
Click to expand...

Ofcourse they will. Nato will not risk an armed altercation with Russia for a non-member. I'm 100% sure about this.
 
Denis79 said:
I dislike this as well and hope this shit calms down fast as feck but the main argument around this has been "Ukraine's sovereignty" which I'm saying is a hypocritical argument.
Click to expand...
Why is it hypocritical? Why can I not say that Ukraine should have a right to sovereignty (even if that sovereignty might cease to exist in practice in a few months), because the US has violated other countries' sovereignty in the past? I am not the United States, I am just me.
 
Raoul said:
These are all outdated scenarios that have zero applicability in the present. All kinds of bad things happened in previous generations, none of which are useful in resolving the current crisis of Russia imminently invading Europe.
Click to expand...
OK, but then what about the Middle East? The US support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt during the Arab Spring. Its current support of Sisi in Egypt right now? These are brutal autocracies which crushed democratic movements with the consent and help of the United States because the US saw its strategic interests as aligned (and still aligned) with the autocratic ruling classes of those countries. That is not outdated, but very much current.

Similarly, the ruling class in Ukraine which America is currently supporting is essentially neo-fascist. That is also current (the topic we're talking about right now, and confirmed as such via UN reports). None of this is whataboutism, it all bears directly on the topic at hand (at least if people insist on simplifying to "good" versus "bad" or "democracy must be upheld" and other such tropes that have begun and maintained war action in the past, present, and threatens to do so in the future).

Wouldn't it just be more honest to say that the US does horrendous things to maintain military and economic status quo and that Russia does the same kinds of horrendous things to maintain its own status quo, also? To discuss what is happening in terms of why the states involved are actually involved instead of talking about democracy, will of the people, and morality, all of which is secondary at best and in many cases entirely irrelevant.
 
MTF said:
Why is it hypocritical? Why can I not say that Ukraine should have a right to sovereignty (even if that sovereignty might cease to exist in practice in a few months), because the US has violated other countries' sovereignty in the past? I am not the United States, I am just me.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I would say most people will let the US do the same thing Russia is doing now without even raising an eyebrow. I'm not saying you but the majority would.
 
neverdie said:
OK, but then what about the Middle East? The US support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt during the Arab Spring. Its current support of Sisi in Egypt right now? These are brutal autocracies which crushed democratic movements with the consent and help of the United States because the US saw its strategic interests as aligned (and still aligned) with the autocratic ruling classes of those countries. That is not outdated, but very much current.

Similarly, the ruling class in Ukraine which America is currently supporting is essentially neo-fascist. That is also current (the topic we're talking about right now, and confirmed as such via UN reports). None of this is whataboutism, it all bears directly on the topic at hand (at least if people insist on simplifying to "good" versus "bad" or "democracy must be upheld" and other such tropes that have begun and maintained war action in the past, present, and threatens to do so in the future).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Russian imminently invading Ukraine ?
 
Organic Potatoes said:
Every discussion around Russia has to devolve into ’oh yeah but the US is bad too’. It’s a Caf rule.
Click to expand...

I think that it is relevant when people are essentially asked to take a side based on moral grounds more than interests. On moral grounds you have to consider that the US, France or the UK are on the scumbags team, the fact that it's my team doesn't erase the fact that they are all morally bankrupt and generally conniving. That reality means that whenever we have a situation like the current one, I have to questions what serves my interest and the interests of my fellow citizens but also why are these cnuts(France, the US and the UK) talking the side that they are currently taking because it sure as hell isn't for moral or democratic reasons, since we all know that they don't care about that at all.
 
Raoul said:
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Russian imminently invading Ukraine ?
Click to expand...

"Wouldn't it just be more honest to say that the US does horrendous things to maintain military and economic status quo and that Russia does the same kinds of horrendous things to maintain its own status quo, also? To discuss what is happening in terms of why the states involved are actually involved instead of talking about democracy, will of the people, and morality, all of which is secondary at best and in many cases entirely irrelevant."

Amended part of above post. If we've moved beyond the morality (NATO good, Russia bad, this is all about democracy) aspect, then I'll happily concede.
 
neverdie said:
"Wouldn't it just be more honest to say that the US does horrendous things to maintain military and economic status quo and that Russia does the same kinds of horrendous things to maintain its own status quo, also? To discuss what is happening in terms of why the states involved are actually involved instead of talking about democracy, will of the people, and morality, all of which is secondary at best and in many cases entirely irrelevant."

Amended part of above post. If we've moved beyond the morality (NATO good, Russia bad, this is all about democracy) aspect, then I'll happily concede.
Click to expand...

I don't know which military or economic status quo you're referring to ?
 
We need an rvn said:
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
Click to expand...

They've done it before and they will do it again.

The only calculation going on in the corridors of US government is how much they can tolerate Russia expanding it's borders right up to their NATO Allies. Morals won't come into it, though they will be wheeled out as a justification if they do decide to react.
 
JPRouve said:
I think that it is relevant when people are essentially asked to take a side based on moral grounds more than interests. On moral grounds you have to consider that the US, France or the UK are on the scumbags team, the fact that it's my team doesn't erase the fact that they are all morally bankrupt and generally conniving. That reality means that whenever we have a situation like the current one, I have to questions what serves my interest and the interests of my fellow citizens but also why are these cnuts(France, the US and the UK) talking the side that they are currently taking because it sure as hell isn't for moral or democratic reasons, since we all know that they don't care about that at all.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That's my position. Not that Russia is good/bad, or US good/bad, but that it is about self-interest and good/bad almost never matters. Which makes me question any military action from a different frame of reference (especially when such is sold on moral grounds).

Raoul said:
I don't know which military or economic status quo you're referring to ?
Click to expand...
The Russian's north-western border buttressed by Belarusia and Ukraine, is the primary issue. If Ukraine falls, or is unstable, the Russian border becomes more unstable, too (than it already is).

For the US, the Middle East and general anti-Russian, anti-Chinese military manouvers (Iran, China, and Russia are currently undergoing joint naval exercises in that - Iranian - region). Also, the Belt and Road initiative which the US wants to counter in any way it can.

More generally again, I am talking about Western (US) hegemony and its potential to fade within this century. How the US has eight hundred military bases around the world and Russia, China, and so on can barely muster a dozen between them (Russia has three, I think).
 
neverdie said:
OK, but then what about [...]
Click to expand...
Every post you made can be shortened to this line. It will be hard to find more than two posters here who condone what the US did under pretext for "war on terror". That has no relation to the situation in Ukraine, unless you are of the opinion that Russia is owed the right to one more invasion , and the Ukrainians should have no voice n this whatsoever.
 
The Firestarter said:
Every post you made can be shortened to this line. It will be hard to find more than two posters here who condone what the US did under pretext for "war on terror". That has no relation to the situation in Ukraine, unless you are of the opinion that Russia is owed the right to one more invasion , and the Ukrainians should have no voice n this whatsoever.
Click to expand...

which is funny because "whataboutism" became popular as a term to describe russian propaganda methods and rhetorical patterns
 
neverdie said:
The Russian's north-western border buttressed by Belarusia and Ukraine, is the primary issue. If Ukraine falls, or is unstable, the Russian border becomes more unstable, too (than it already is).
Click to expand...

This sounds like a good argument as to why Putin should not destabilize Ukraine by invading it.

neverdie said:
More generally again, I am talking about Western (US) hegemony and its potential to fade within this century. How the US has eight hundred military bases around the world and Russia, China, and so on can barely muster a dozen between them (Russia has three, I think).
Click to expand...

Empires come and go over time. That's a natural thing that happens at various times throughout history. The US has bases around the world because it has bilateral agreements with the nations where those bases are (ie., they are there by invitation).
 
Last edited:
The Firestarter said:
Every post you made can be shortened to this line. It will be hard to find more than two posters here who condone what the US did under pretext for "war on terror". That has no relation to the situation in Ukraine, unless you are of the opinion that Russia is owed the right to one more invasion , and the Ukrainians should have no voice n this whatsoever.
Click to expand...
The current situation in the ME and with China, Russia, Iran has a direct relation on this thread. Also, the neo-fascist Ukranian sections supported by NATO also bear directly.

Looking at an event like this in isolation is not intelligent. Many things related to it, directly and indirectly, are happening simultaneously.
 
Raoul said:
This sounds like a good argument as to why Putin should not destabilize Ukraine by invading it.

More generally again, I am talking about Western (US) hegemony and its potential to fade within this century. How the US has eight hundred military bases around the world and Russia, China, and so on can barely muster a dozen between them (Russia has three, I think).

Empires come and go over time. That's a natural thing that happens a various times throughout history. The US has bases around the world because it has bilateral agreements with the nations where those bases are (ie., they are there by invitation).
Click to expand...
I think we probably agree on the issue of motive because you have always viewed international events from within the dominance hierarchy standpoint and my point of view is quite close to that here. We will most likely just disagree on the issue of framing and whether it is problematic to frame war as moral instead of self interest.

I agree on your last point.
 
neverdie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Uh........what?
 
neverdie said:
The current situation in the ME and with China, Russia, Iran has a direct relation on this thread. Also, the neo-fascist Ukranian sections supported by NATO also bear directly.

Looking at an event like this in isolation is not intelligent. Many things related to it, directly and indirectly, are happening simultaneously.
Click to expand...
Russia wanting control of Ukraine has no relation to ME or Iran.
 
neverdie said:
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.
Click to expand...

thank feck Neville Chamberlain is dead then
 
neverdie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats your two choices? The current state or civil war?

You arent from around these parts are you?
 
We need an rvn said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree,
Denis79 said:
Ofcourse they will. Nato will not risk an armed altercation with Russia for a non-member. I'm 100% sure about this.
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite 100% sure there would be intervention, assuming we're talking about a full conquest of Ukraine.

There are levels that Putin could go to which would meet different responses, as Biden has already alluded to.

An attempt to take over the entire country however... There is no scenario we can compare this to since the German invasions of Czech Republic and Poland, people seem to be under the impression it'll be another Crimea or something. Ukraine can't be taken overnight, it would require a sustained campaign utilising all the brutality of modern warfare, the bodycount could enter the millions. We arn't sitting back and watching that all unfold on live TV. The pressure will mount the second civilian casualties enter the hundreds, never mind the thousands and beyond.

I remind that NATO countries can act on their own accord, alone or with others. Poland, Czechia, Lithuania, etc could decide to send in Troops if they wanted to, or aid in air support. Nobody in Ukraine is asking for troop reinforcement however.

For the reasons above, I hightly doubt there will be a full scale invasion.
 
Ramshock said:
Uh........what?
Click to expand...
The "troubles", or the civil war. And sovereignty I mean the border and GFA in general. How the border is an issue and will remain one indefinitely. Something similar could be negotiated in the Ukraine.
 
Ramshock said:
Thats your two choices? The current state or civil war?
Click to expand...
I don't imply the civil war is current, I imply that it doesn't exist because of a bipartisan negotiation between various states which produced the framework for the GFA.
 
neverdie said:
The "troubles", or the civil war. And sovereignty I mean the border and GFA in general. How the border is an issue and will remain one indefinitely. Something similar could be negotiated in the Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Yeah no theres another option and also there is a valid practical reason the IRA gave up the armed struggle and it would be the same reason that loyalism wouldnt be able to mount much of a struggle post a New Ireland.
 
JPRouve said:
I think that it is relevant when people are essentially asked to take a side based on moral grounds more than interests. On moral grounds you have to consider that the US, France or the UK are on the scumbags team, the fact that it's my team doesn't erase the fact that they are all morally bankrupt and generally conniving. That reality means that whenever we have a situation like the current one, I have to questions what serves my interest and the interests of my fellow citizens but also why are these cnuts(France, the US and the UK) talking the side that they are currently taking because it sure as hell isn't for moral or democratic reasons, since we all know that they don't care about that at all.
Click to expand...

This is Ukraine vs Russia, not the West vs Russia.
 
Ramshock said:
Yes but thats not the only two options
Click to expand...
What are the other options, then? How could they be implemented within the Ukraine? I think a GFA type deal could work in Ukraine, but much different according to sections. I'm not saying a direct replica, but a formal similarity.
 
neverdie said:
What are the other options, then? How could they be implemented within the Ukraine? I think a GFA type deal could work in Ukraine, but much different according to sections. I'm not saying a direct replica, but a formal similarity.
Click to expand...

I just think it was a poor comparison at best and I am very particular when someone uses the place where I live in comparisons. The other option is the democratic mandate enabled by the GFA which means an island wide referendum can be triggered in the event of a willing nationalist majority in the North which is within reach in my opinion.
 
Ramshock said:
I just think it was a poor comparison at best and I am very particular when someone uses the place where I live in comparisons. The other option is the democratic mandate enabled by the GFA which means an island wide referendum can be triggered in the event of a willing nationalist majority in the North which is within reach in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree with that but I see that majority as being a problem. When the border poll is called, unionist sectarianism will surely rise? That's why I see NI as a kind of perpetual border problem because technically only a majority is needed but practically you'll need a majority of unionists, too, or else you'll have a rerun of the troubles except with the sides inverted and that is what everyone wants to avoid. But this is probably legitimate "whataboutism" on my part so I won't continue it.
 
JPRouve said:
In that case why are we talking about Nato and whether it should be involved or not?
Click to expand...

Well firstly its mainly a Russian propoganda talking point to frame it all as Russia vs NATO. Their work is very effective, so that theme bleeds into western media and the people that digest it (me/you).

Secondly if anyone is going to help Ukraine, it is going to be countries that just so happen to be members of NATO, so its easier to just say NATO?

Thirdly, there is a genuine element of increased threat to NATO members in this scenario that may cause them to act in some way.
 
Simbo said:
Well firstly its mainly a Russian propoganda talking point to frame it all as Russia vs NATO. Their work is very effective, so that theme bleeds into western media and the people that digest it (me/you).

Secondly if anyone is going to help Ukraine, it is going to be countries that just so happen to be members of NATO, so its easier to just say NATO?

Thirdly, there is a genuine element of increased threat to NATO members in this scenario that may cause them to act in some way.
Click to expand...

Who are the countries that you are referring to?
 
Simbo said:
Well firstly its mainly a Russian propoganda talking point to frame it all as Russia vs NATO. Their work is very effective, so that theme bleeds into western media and the people that digest it (me/you).
Click to expand...
Russian propaganda works opposite to this. Russia likes to frame NATO action as being only the US and maybe the UK.

It is the US which likes to frame its moves as NATO inspired or motivated. You can see that now by reading the new york times, the post, or watching any number of press conferences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.