Really depends on the the period of the Soviet Union and how one defines “left” politics. Huge huge difference in ideology from Lenin to Gorbachev, where at that point it was so far gone, and led to conditions we see Russia in today. The reality is that the world is shifting balance away from US dominated, to arguably a tri-polar world consisting of imperialist (in the Leninist sense) countries (US, China, Russia).
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
The “Russian invasion of Ukraine” topic is very much connected to the US. Welcome to geopolitics. Now try again with a real rebuttal that actually deals with what I said.
Nah. It is about Putin attacking neighbouring country. You Americans have a tendency to think everything is about you.
If by the economic warfare you refer to the sanctions none of that would have happened had Putin not attacked first Georgia, and then Ukraine in '14. In fact, before that point the 'west' was getting embarrassingly cosy with Putin.
I think it might be good to have one thread purely for updates on what's going on and another thread for debate / analysis / speculation surrounding what's going on.
And a komsomol thread is apparently needed.
And Ukraine is a NATO ally of the US, so naturally involves the country. Do you think the US has nothing to do with this at all? Because 20th century would show that the US loves to stick their noses in other countries’ business all the time.
Until the Russian army invades Ukraine, or something major happens from with inside Ukraine, there is nothing happening except the US and others claiming that something is about to happen (which it might, or might not).
Ukraine is not in NATO.
I stand corrected. But they are a US ally, which still supports my point to the other poster.
I disagree. Both could be discussed here.
Very little. "Both sides" stuff is very trumpian. This is 99% about Russia threatening to attack Ukraine.
But congrats to posters in this thread, making this the worst thread on redcafe, quite an achviement given the state of football forum.
Not even. There are non NATO countries that have strategic treatises with NATO or the US (think ally); Ukraine does not. Unfortunately for them. They are truly alone as far as alliances go, that is why it's so hard to find ways to defend them.
That’s the best you got?If they were any ally in a military sense , and this was still going on as it is now, the world would be a about to go to a very bad place.
The US sends billions of dollars worth of arms to the anti-Russian part of the Ukraine. That is an alliance.
Selling arms is not an alliance.
Is your position that the sum total of what the US has in the anti-Russian part of the Ukraine does not equal an alliance? (this would include arms and other factors such as miscellaneous economic aid and diplomatic aid).
If it was an alliance US troops would be getting staged jn west Ukraime right now. US supports Ukraine in some aspects, but not completely. I guess at the end it is a matter of semantics.
Good point here and I had to do some digging. On a technicality you’re actually correct. But by that standard, Saudi Arabia and Israel don’t make the cut on that, and they’re obviously in a strong relationship with the US including militarily. Same can for sure be said regarding Ukraine. And considering that it borders Russia and other Eurasian countries, why wouldn’t they?
I feel that it's beyond semantics, have a look at the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership. They are allies including in terms of defense.
I skimmed most of it. It dances around, but doesn't mention direct military assistance the way a regular treaty does. (e.g nato article five). Also, I presume it is deliberately written somewhat ambiguously.
A lot of people from Eastern European wouldn’t know where to begin in a discussion about left-to-right politics. It’s a crude axis that is largely not applicable over there.
You’re making claims about this situation with a lot of certainty, and you’ve only just learned that Ukraine is not a NATO member? (this being one of the most pertinent issues driving this showdown)
There is no regular treaties, they are all different. There is little ambiguity with this one, the US and Ukraine are allies, they are allies when it comes to defense and they clearly have Russia as common enemy. Now what you maybe expected is a mutual defense agreement which is a type of alliance but not the only one.
Christ. What a post.
The point he is making is that sanctions that basically put a cost on an invasion of Ukraine do nothing for them. What Russia is already essentially doing, particularly in recent days, should already be condemnable and actionable by the West. It shouldn’t be the case that Russia basically gets a price to invade Ukraine and they decide whether it is worth the cost or not. What good is Russia being sanctioned by the West if Ukraine has been invaded further, a puppet government is installed, lands are formally lost, etc.?
"This is our land, we understand what is happening. The only thing we want is to return peace to our country, and in this situation, we are very grateful to you, the United States, as our ally and partner, we are grateful to President Biden" (Zelensky).
It is an alliance (with the anti-Russian majority); or if it isn't someone should tell Zelensky, the American media, and the American taxpayer.
If you didn't even know that Ukraine was not a part of NATO, don't you think this conversation is a bit above your pay grade? That important detail is a central part of this crisis so not understanding this to begin with reduces the credibility of anything else you are saying with regards to the US involvement in this.
Again semantics. What people understand by ally in a military sense? What I understand is, if one gets attacked the other rushes to their defense. You understand something different. That's all there is to it.
Semantics refers to meaning. So, yeah, "meaning". It's important. What America has been doing, according to America and everyone in this thread, is supporting Ukraine over the past month or so by foiling Russia. So if that's not the case, then what is America doing?
You are talking about a mutual defense agreement which is one specific type of alliance and not the only one. We are not understanding differently you just limited the type of alliance which is in itself incorrect.
It's more important what it's not doing.
This idea that preemptive sanctions would have done anything is complete nonsense. It assumes that Putin operates in the same mental frame and perspective as Western policymakers who adhere to a "rules-based" international order. This article does a great job of explaining why sanctions don't affect Putin's calculus very much: https://web.archive.org/web/2022021...why-vladimir-putin-and-his-entourage-want-war
The fact that Zelensky doesn't understand this as a direct neighbor of Russia/Putin shows his naievity that reflects his past occupation as a clown. Even the corrupt Poroshenko has a better understanding of how Putin thinks. For what it's worth, I also think Biden has a good understanding of Putin and that sanctions are more of a political move rather than actual deterrence at this point.
There is some degree of legitimacy to this position and also happens to be what the Republicans have been pushing (preemptive sanctions to ditch Nord Stream 2 and various other targeted sanctions on Putin). The trouble with preemptive sanctions is that if they don't deter a war, Biden and NATO will have already expended their most severe sanctions and wouldn't have much else to use.
Last edited:
It's also risky if it hurts the population badly since it will give Putin the argument that Ukraine and the USA pushed them into a corner and that he is acting for the people.
Yep it would contribute to a siege mentality that Putin can leverage into even more control of Russian society.
Yeah it's a bit complicated. There is NATO but then there are also strategic treatises (alliances made from state to state, not NATO to state). NATO is what it says on the box, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization; US, Canada and Europe (most of it). Nations like Australia, South K, Japan, Israel, some countries in the middle east are not part of NATO and thus are not NATO's responsibility to defend in case of attack, but they are allays to the US (and other NATO members). It gets a bit more confusing when you have NATO members that are also in strategic partnerships, like Romania (and I think Poland). Romania benefits from NATO as a member to be defended and has the responsability to defend other members, but it also benefits from the partnership with the US through the missile defense system, long range HIMARS artillery, F22 fighters on location etc.
Ukraine has none of that. No NATO and no strategic partnerships at all. They are alone and that is why their situation is so fecking difficult. They can be helped with some weapon systems (like the UK and the US are doing) but at a very limited scale. The very point of Putin's actions is so that Ukraine does not become a member of neither NATO nor an ally. It is a horrible situation for them as one of the only countries in Europe with no defense outside of their own power.
No. It is not.
Define an alliance in modern politics without mentioning economic, political, and military aid (all of which the US gives to Zelensky as of now). Then tell me why you don't consider this to be an alliance. As was mentioned, you can have an alliance without a mutual defense treaty in the event of attack. There are many of them.