Then why are we bothering to do anything at all to help then?
If we're alright in the UK/ Western Europe, why aren't we looking after our own before those of another nation?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Then why are we bothering to do anything at all to help then?
If we're alright in the UK/ Western Europe, why aren't we looking after our own before those of another nation?
Well considering the past week it appears well justified to me.
The biggest problem is that any promise from Russia isn't worth the paper it's printed on. They signed the Budapest Agreement in the 90s and that was pretty much torn up when they invaded Crimea.
They're already part of NATO
It’s their second invasion within the last 8 years! I’m not surprised Ukraine aren’t bending to Russias demands simply because they’re fecking up this invasion and are maybe looking to save face.
They have been in NATO since 2004.
This is bullshit though. NATO is the pretext not the reason. He wanted Ukraine and there is every reason to believe he'd have taken it regardless of whether NATO was on the table or not.
The only reason these countries wish to join NATOs defence league is because they know that they are not safe from Russian invasion.
Tbf only 44% of countries in the world is free and democratic. Arguably even less true democratic countries.
When the world peace is at stake I don't think we should push free and democratic narrative no matter what.
I don't think this has to do much with Ukraine wanting to join NATO, and everything with Putin trying to recreate the Russian empire.
He has already put many other requests, including removing NATO members that entered after 1997 (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, N. Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania), in addition to removing the sanctions and the US removing the nuclear weapons from Europe.
Give these to him, and he'll start asking for East Germany soon.
You have two groups of people:
A) Ukrainian/EU nationals, 5 mins to process each person (for both the Ukrainian and Polish border combined) given routine visa-free access to the Schengen Zone
B) Nationals of 3rd countries, 15 mins to process each person (for both the Ukrainian and Polish border combined) given no routine visa-free access to the Schengen Zone
Which group do both sides of the border prioritise processing, both first the Ukrainian border agency and then secondly the Polish border agency, when your only goal is to maximise the throughput of people through the border? The answer to that question is obvious. There's tens of thousands of people at these borders waiting to cross. If you want to keep the maximum number of people moving, you focus on the low hanging fruit, group A, otherwise you are just going to have an ever-greater group of people having ever-greater wait times.
Now when you consider the demographics of the two groups and one will be slanted to men of student and working age, it's not just that group A is quicker to process and can have a greater flow rate, the demographics of group A will mean much of that group will be given ever greater priority, considering Ukrainian men of student and working age cannot cross and group A will therefore be mostly made up of women, children, elderly and people with disabilities.
I can't add any more on this issue, so I won't continue this conversation other than to say the following:
Racism is awful. Racism should be condemned. If border staff are discriminating based on skin colour or race, rather than the passport/visa status, of people trying to cross the border, whether on foot, by car or by train, then that too should be condemned. I'm sure border staff have made mistakes and will have revised policies in what will have been an unprecedented humanitarian situation that you simply cannot prepare for. But if you are expecting Ukraine and Poland to inefficiently manage their borders and operate a strict system of first-come-first-serve for all people, regardless of their passport/visa status and their immediate need to cross the border, then you are being a bit naïve. No borders operate like that anywhere in the world. That's not racism.
Latvia and Estonia are already in, and Finland have an infinitely more capable military than Ukraine. Russia would not try that one again.
Last edited:
Imagine trying to play the Russian anthem for the football team in, for example, Warsaw. Good luck with that.
Yeah, Russia at this point have apparently invaded Ukraine because they want to be in NATO, they're all Nazis, they want to kill Russians, they want nukes to bomb Russia, they want to ban the colours red white and blue, they want to turn Sundays into a mandatory working day and ban people from wearing hats, turn Russian cats into American goldfish, etc.
At what point do we just accept that Russia were invading no matter what.
And what guarantees does Ukraine or the rest of Europe get that that doesn't happen? Not only is there no reason to trust Russia in that regard, there is boundless reason to actively distrust them. If they try to sway powerholders in "neutral" Ukraine towards Russia through their usual campaign of bribery, intimidation, murder and political corruption then what happens? This is a regime that was happy to murder enemies within the UK without fear of any real consequence, why wouldn't they do the same to enemies within Ukraine, a country with far less clout than the UK? And in this instance "enemies within Ukraine" include members of the current regime.
A neutral Ukraine would still be a target for Russia unless Russia has actual reason to fear targeting them.
That makes more sense. In the grand scheme of things, Russian people are the only ones able to stop this madness.
Let's be clear that for all his bluster about NATO aggression etc (never mind that it is a mutual defence league) the real reason Putin wants to destroy NATO is because he wishes to retain the privilege of invading and/or vassalising nations he considers part of the Russian sphere of influence.
There is no sound reason to accede to such an ambition when we are looking at democratic states desiring mutual protection against non democratic aggressors. All this is in a very real sense about the future of the democratic world.
There is no sound reason to accede to such an ambition when we are looking at democratic states desiring mutual protection against non democratic aggressors. All this is in a very real sense about the future of the democratic world.
Personally, I think the real question is this: if the West knew that NATO membership talks would make Russia invade Ukraine, should we have advocated for Ukraine neutrality for Ukraine's own good will? We can talk about sovereignty all we want but the fact is Ukraine is now in a war with Russia and people are dying.
In other words, should we have disappointed Ukraine by saying "we're sorry but we won't be discussing NATO membership, not now and not in the future, period.".
No disrespect but I think that Russian empire narrative is made up one from the west and I don't think many people actually believed this.
About other requests I think they are more request for negotiations than actually wishlist.
Under the current regime, NATO shouldn't even try hard to achieve this...
In principle, yes of course.
But as with everything, putting it into practice has proven to be next to impossible.
Think about N Korea. Are they going to agree.
Russia will never ever agree. It is their primary leverage, as we have just seen.
It has been tried and tried over the years. And Russia for example still had them by the thousands.
CND was a massive movement a few decades ago, but got nowhere.
Finland and Sweden are looking increasingly likely to join NATO in the near future as it stands right now.
Last edited:
Agree with this.
He'd have taken Ukraine regardless. Why does he not want Ukraine to join NATO? Because he'd like to conquer it.
So what do you think he'd do if he got assurances they wouldn't join NATO?
Yeah but they never watered the pitch.
Obviously
Latvia and Estonia are already part of NATO, and Finland are probably joining. I don't know how you expect your opinion on the "whole reason for the war" seriously when you don't even know that the Baltic countries are in NATO. It's pretty fundamental to the conflict.
Also, how could Belarus act a West leaning politician when they aren't a democracy? If they were a democracy they wouldn't be helping Russia invade Ukraine.
Yep. Don't know how that got typed. Maybe I need a break from this thread
IF Russia had EVERY vassal state back, they would not stop there! Not as long as the current regime is controlling them. That has to be clear. I do not understand how people even can discuss this and blame Nato. Even russias own people do not think Nato would attack them!
It seems like a complete no-brainer for Finland at this point. They are already fairly close to the 2% of GDP on military spending, so no massive increase is needed.
It is absolutely not. Putin has even written about all this himself ffs. It is his openly stated ambition. He doesn't even recognise Ukraine as a nation. They are Russians in his own written words.
unfortunately you can’t “uninvent” nuclear weapons. If wveryone disarmed and a conventiknal world war started, each side would build them again and more likely to use them as already at war.
Mutual destruction hopefully prevents war but yiu never know.
Practical vs ideal.
In an ideal world you can, not accepting ukraine and still be on friendly terms, jobs creation, investment, bilateral partnership, etc.
One does not have to be in nato to prosper.
We dont accept new member for now but we welcome you nonetheless.
I'm paraphrasing that chicago lecturer btw
Tbf nuclear has been responsible for alot of war not happening... until the day it doesnt...
Without nuclear nato would have jumped on and bombed russia to stone age.
Yeah, one of the weirdest sanctions is Western universities kicking Russian students out/taking back their scholarships etc. Surely it works for Putin, not against him?
I get most of the sanctions even though they feck me over massively as a Russian citizen as they put a burden on Russian economy and instigate public unrest. How sanctioning poor students that got out of there to get a proper education, fleeing Putin’s regime, I have no idea.
He said that on live TV. Did you watch it?
Or did you read his essay about solving the Ukrainian question that he published last July (and then Medvedev published something similar a few months later).
Tbf nuclear has been responsible for alot of war not happening... until the day it doesnt...
Without nuclear nato would have jumped on and bombed russia to stone age.
Yep. Without nukes it's far more tempting for conflicts to become boots on ground etc. Nukes give the ability for the leaders and generals sending those men and women to die to also be impacted. Deaths from war have dramatically reduced since their invention. The single biggest contributor to peace in the last 70 years in my opinion.
The issue has always been what if you get a leader for which MAD doesn't apply because they've had a breakdown, are suicidal or whatever.
You mean Sweden? Norway were a founding member.
I think Putin has hugely miscalculated the after effects of this. He's likely to get another one or two Nato members on his doorstep, made China realise he's not a reliable partner, and created a fourth military superpower in a united EU.