I remember that when I was reading Ian Kershaw's brilliant Hitler's biography I got a bit surprised (because I never thought of it that way although it made perfect sense afterwards) that the Germans were showing signs of discontent after the first years of his European campaigns. All of them were widely successful which you'd assume would be enough but people simply didn't want to fight anymore even though it benefited them massively.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
There's certainly a power struggle between the two (it hardly can be any other way, considering that NATO was created to fight the force that Russia acts as a successor too) although I doubt that NATO has any active offensive plans towards the East like Putin keeps suggesting.
l've always wanted to leave Estonia for a warmer place 
It's certainly one narrative running through the conflict but they're seperate debates to be honest. It's the lack of distinction that allows the simplistic view of our side is justified in It's strategic actions but the enemy is not.
There's no world where the US can feel threatened by a China African base yet Russia should be fine with nukes and bases on It's door step though. It's also naive to think it doesn't cause a counter reaction.
Nato is refusing to deny that Ukraine will be one day invited in NATO. For Putin it is offensive act. Just like inviting Baltic states was.
Now, lets be clear here. In perfect world every country have right to decide about what to do and who to join. But in reality, every action has counter reaction. Lets imagine (this example is repeated over and over again) that Russia puts nukes in Mexico, Cuba and Canada and goes in alliance with them. How would USA react?
Ukraine has not been invited to Nato, so what is there to react to?
Ukraine wants to join. As they leaders keep saying. NATO is refusing to give Russia guarantee that they will not accept Ukraine.
Not sure if he's quoting UK officials from today or if this is old news.
did you skip history in school ?WWII and later ?
Estonia raising alarm:
I think you did
And stole all their Gold and Oil.
l've always wanted to leave Estonia for a warmer place
I love Estonia
NATO hasn't invited Ukraine, Ukraine however has signalled they want to become a member. They wrote it into their constitution. If Ukraine wants Russian army off their borders they could change their constitution and give Russia what they want by assuring they will never join.
At this moment Ukraine probably wants NATO more than NATO wants them.
The chain of this argument runs from here:
(Proxy and "direct containment", i.e., indirect warfare via siege/sanction = containment of China and Russia and Iran, too, but Iraq in the past and seventeen other notable states today).
He misunderstood. I never said direct war. You could make that argument, though. Sanctions are a direct form of economic warfare, but we can keep them distinct for the moment.Where?I want one credible source showing anybody wants direct war with Russia or China. Not even John Bolton was that batshit crazy.
Here's where you enter:
Your position is that sanctions and containment are not war. Mine is different:
You define war narrowly (much more narrowly than the US does when it makes plans for containment and economic sanctions, too):
But, taking your definition, sanctions meet even this narrow definition via proxy. The US sanctions Russia and sanctions China and props up anyone liable to cause them actual problems in the case of war whilst keeping a distance (Ukraine/Taiwan/whoever you like: Israel and Iraq in the case of Iran, for instance).
So:
My position is the above. Economic sanctions are war by proxy. The modern military-economic sanction stems from the siege. No one questions the siege is a state of war. So:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/sanctions-siege-warfare/
https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/iraq12.htm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356189261_Sanctions_as_siege_warfare
Sanctions, when brutally imposed, are warfare. They are the economic arm of the military component. Or, as Von Clausewitz said, war is politics by other means (and sanctions are war by proxy). I don't think I'm playing semantic games. I'm referring to economic warfare which often acts as a prelude to proxy or direct military warfare as the two stem from the exact same intention. Iraq is the classic case study but you can find more. Iran and Cuba work well, too (Iran particularly as the US funded each side variously in the same war whilst eventually making it known that it wanted to directly impose regime change in each state, which it has done in Iraq, post Saddam's invasion of Kuwait when the US were less certain that he could be controlled).
If you don't think sanctions are warfare, as in the Oil for Food program, then I'm curious as to what you think they are? It is an economic siege which attempts to prevent anything from moving in or out until the state collapses. How is that not "physical" violence? Is the economy not physical? Is food not physical when anywhere from 250,000-500,000 kids died during said program. So we might disagree. I think the semantic equivalence is just and you don't, but I have explained why I think my position makes sense whereas you have yet to tell me why we need to remove sanctions from the realm of warfare.
The economic siege, maintained by military and diplomatic means, has the exact same aim as warfare. To impose the will of one state upon another. That is not a false semantic equivalence.
Dunno how to link it, but there is a MOD attack plan on twitter.
Da.
Just kidding!! I had a very bad day the other day with negotiations on a potential estate purchase. Apologies to all offended parties.
If the deal can be recovered, the new stoves will be solely used for failed attempts at imitating Gordon Ramsey’s Wellington’’s.
Handcuffs scraping against the stainless steel handles would be appalling.
Last edited:
I mean forget Russia, had it not been for the NATO and US military aid, the Serbs of all people would have run over Croatia and would have exacted revenge on the "Ustase". The reality is that if the US withdrew from NATO (like much of the American population wishes) then the largesse of the Russian military would become clearer and leaders of tiny European countries like Croatia would be crapping in their pants. EU countries like France have defense capability on paper but no country has the diplomatic pull to unite the EU to shed blood and materiel on countries in the Baltics or the Balkans. I could see the UK being willing to fight but the coordination wouldn't be there and so they would be left to fight on their own ultimately.
You missed my point. I am not talking who is right or wrong in all this. I am talking about how real world works. Every country has their interest and that is not welfare of Ukraine and their people.
When you mention our war for independence; Don't teach me about war in MY country. In that war, USA did helped us. But they were involved at the end of the war, when it was clear that we are winning and only with some logistic help (officially they didn't even then
). During that war biggest "supporters" of Serbia and for keeping Yugoslavia together were UK and France. So, i should say that UK and France are evil? No, they just had their interest in that (long story to talk about it). Just like Germany and Austria had with sticking with us.Edit: Croatia is not tiny. Shame on you.
.
Last edited:
@Mciahel Goodman Whilst I somewhat agree (and not completely) that crippling sanctions on small pariah nations could be considered a form of warfare; it’s a huge stretch to extend that with leveraging sanctions on a country like Russia. It just doesn’t work.
Yeah the difference between Russia/China and Cuba/Iraq/Iran is that Russia and China are big enough states so that you would have to sanction yourself to sanction them. It doesn't work, but not because that isn't the intent. The US/China need each other in terms of export/import (China exports the majority of the US's goods and buys an enormous amount). With Russia, it becomes a self-sanction when EU states suffer potentially crippling energy prices and other problems. The financial market reacted against overly-sanctioning Russia just yesterday https://www.ft.com/content/e2e1748a-32c6-4ca9-85d8-3a384eede156.
When I say that the US is waging war against China and Russia continuously, I'm not just referring to sanctions (which won't work by themselves). I mean the deployment of US military assets to northern/eastern EU and the South China Sea. The US trying to counter the Belt and Road Initiative and other things. The US very much sees China and Russia as the two primary enemies in current world affairs. They don't like Russia because Putin's autocratic state doesn't do what the US wants it to and they don't like China because they're afraid that it will surpass the US in the next quarter century. So I'm not saying it is the same as Oil for Food, as both these states are too big to be hit by that, but that the intent when using sanctions and diplomacy (because they can't use direct military means) is roughly the same.
Quite pathetic this from Russia isn’t it
Its actually the opposite. Putin doesn't like the US because it stands in the way of him being coercive with former Soviet states and in Europe. The US doesn't even have a problem with an authoritarian Russia with nukes, as long as it doesn't use its power to spread authoritarianism elsewhere.
I am sure some even here will believe that Untaine is indeed attacking.
I agree, they don't care about Russia being internally corrupt. They do care when that extends to the Middle East and Putin interferes with American policy by more or less solely enabling Asad to remain in power. That's when it becomes clear Putin does not do as the US wants him to in foreign affairs. But it isn't really about authoritarianism either, it's just about checking America every now and then when America is used to running the board without opposition.
Who thinks that? I haven't seen anyone paint Ukraine as the aggressor.
Anyway, the US has been desperate for a Cold War ever since the Cold War ended. This is the closest they get but I think Russia and (especially) China will refuse to play their roles.
Piece of general advice: Don't ever get your information about the real world from social media. Ever.
Erm, what?
Fortunately they've been having joint exercises for months so they can repel the west from invading them.
Super duper nuclear weapons.
What you see as waging war, I see as geopolitical balance and counterbalance. They aren't enemies, they are rivals. Sanctions are a quasi-diplomatic tool to signal 'hey, we're pissed' and deployment of military assets is a similar tool.
What you're portraying (US/Nato action with no equal and opposite reaction) simply is untrue in my opinion. And the portrayal of 'war' is wrong too in my opinion. They aren't trying to bend Russia/China to their will, they are trying to protect their interests with traditional means like economics, spheres of influence, etc. In the same way that both Russia and China are doing. A war generally has concrete objectives and time frame. In fact US war strategists/academics in the last 30 years or so have been parroting this line, because the more limited objectives are, the greater the chances of success.
This is fundamentally about the survival of authoritarianism, not just in Russia and Belarus, but globally, which is not coincidentally why Bolsonaro showed up in Moscow yesterday as moral support for Vlad. The rules and norms that undergird authoritarianism are fundamentally incompatible with the direction the international system as a whole is moving towards, which means confrontations like this will be inevitable. Putin knows he cannot survive if democracy in Russia takes flight, which is why he is desperate to thwart, not just at home, but in nations that are close to him.
Sanctions are only diplomatic when dropping bombs is the alternative. They are trying to curtail Russia/China in as many areas as they can. What was the concrete objective of the Iraq War? There may be concrete objectives but they are never what the US pretends they are.
The US supported Bolsonaro and most right wing South American leaders. It has little to do with authoritarianism because Sisi and the house of Saud are absolutely authoritarian (as are most of the emirate states, too). These are "allies" within the international system as it stands. So that distinction simply doesn't hold. If it did, you would see consistency. America would not back any authoritarian states rather than single out Russia as the one authoritarian state to be despised. The truth is that the US backs whatever authoritarian states they see as beneficial to their interests and condemn others they view as working against their interests. Those interests have to do with economic and military control, not "democracy".
As someone said, the "rule-based order" refers to a hegemonic world within which the US gives the orders. It isn't about democracy. It's about ensuring the US does not take orders. As a counterpoint, note that China economically supports both democracies and dictatorships (exactly what the US does, externally).