Do you have any idea how much tech the EU and the US is trading with Russia? Is that an alliance?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
I think he's confusing bilateral cooperation with alliance.
It's an economic alliance, yeah (especially between the EU and Russia). That's the consequence of Russia being a two trillion dollar economy with 140m people. It was mentioned in previous arguments that sanctions against Russia are self-sanctions for this reason. But your position is that Ukraine is alone in the world without an ally when Washington and other NATO states have been sending billions of dollars into Ukraine and this entire conversation is about Ukraine's potential to be encompassed within NATO (which is not going to happen).
If you want a state that is alone in the world you should look to some place like Yemen which is already a horrendous war (genocide in fact) and we, in the West, not only never give it this level of pertinence but we in fact profit from it directly by arming the Saudis.
I'll accept a bilateral distinction if that suits people. It would reflect the mercenary relationship of convenience better than "alliance", so perhaps that makes more sense.
You are using the word "alliance" in a way that is not accurate. By your definition the entire World is in alliance with everyone else.
Yeah, I don't agree. I think the US/NATO views Ukraine as an ally of convenience and it quite clearly is an economic, military, and diplomatic ally (that's according to Zelensky, the US media, the monetary statistics, I think Biden himself, and every other source you can find). But if sending money and guns to a country for a decade is not an "alliance", then maybe we can work with "bilateral cooperation".
Also, the very distinction "capital flow" exists to demonstrate exactly how the world is in alliance with itself. So, I think you misunderstand the nuance of mutual economic entanglement in a globalised world where technically speaking everyone, except the most sanctioned countries, are economic allies of choice or necessity.
And there is often overlap between the two, where bilateral agreements typically happen with allied nations and not adversarial ones. Although there are some exceptions.
What? If it were an ally in the military sense you would have major forces there to protect them to what looks like an invasion. Do you see any of that? If they were an ally to the US or NATO we would not have been here. They are alone and vulnerable. You really don't understand the term ally my friend.
"Operating alongside their Ukrainian allies, the British Army spent two weeks taking part in drills and exercises that helped to strengthen the relationship between the two nations."
That's from the UK MOD. Perhaps the ministry of defense misunderstands the term more than I do?
That's the lingo of the army when operating or training with other nations. NATO has worked with Russia in anti terro many times and I'm sure they referred to each other the same. It is very different to a country being ally with another. I think you know this.
If the UK does have an alliance with Ukraine then Russia would be wise to wind its neck in a bit before it’s too late.
Best trained military in the world bar none.
Best trained military in the world bar none.
It isn't just lingo or the army in training, though, it's the lingo of the leading politicians of all the relevant states and all the relevant state media.
"Western solidarity is surely needed to prevent Moscow from starting a full-blown war. So are more weapons for Ukraine and economically crippling sanctions against Moscow in the event of a serious Russian incursion. The Biden administration deserves credit for having done a great deal to create deterrence in support of our Ukrainian allies. But it also needs to strike a proper balance between vigilance and alarmism. Putin doesn’t need America’s help in putting more pressure on its long-suffering neighbor."
That's the NYP.
"But the Biden administration has taken other steps to shore up Ukraine's defenses, including recently sending another $200 million in Javelin anti-tank missiles, ammunition and other military hardware. Over the last year, the United States has provided $650 million in military aid to Ukraine."
That's common knowledge from Military.com.
Surely the distinction is simple? They are a non NATO ally. How do you classify the relationship between the US/NATO and Ukraine if not as a non-NATO "ally"? Also, Raoul's idea of bilateral partnership probably works well to address the ambiguity of most non-NATO alliances. They don't imply mutual defense pacts but do imply everything else (aid in diplomatic, economic, and military spheres, usually to the advantage of each side as bilateral implies).
The UK does not have a strategic partnership with the Ukraine. Nor does the US nor does NATO. What else is there? You understand the difference between media or even political narrative and actual alliances yes?
I've addressed the point of what a strategical alliance actually means (in practice). It is an official act with real actions. Ukraine does not have it. You understand what and how such an act is put in place for countries that have it (S Korea, Israel). Do you see that in Ukraine?
You use terms that you do not understand or you are pretending you do not. Call it "friends" call it "brothers" or whatever you want, but actual political and verifiable designations like Ally you can not. It is not a game of words it is a real World situation: Ukraine does not have strategic partnerships with the West.
On point one. Does the UK have a strategic partnership with the Ukraine?
Yes. "The UK and Ukraine have recently signed the Political, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership Agreement, engaged in a rigorous defence dialogue and forged a cooperation agenda in the defence industry. The UK has stepped up its support to Ukraine to help it resist Russia's hybrid pressures." So that is quite literally true.
Does the US? Yes (I'll just repost: https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/). So that is literally true.
Now, you understand that these are legal documents between states, yes? I.e., the difference between media reporting and state diplomacy? So you now surely understand that you are wrong on your first point.
South Korea and Israel are not the models to use here. Each has a direct line of inheritance (into the security framework) from colonial state/war to legal agreement with mutual defense implications. Ukraine is much more similar to Saudi Arabia or Indonesia. There are existing diplomatic relationships which classify (state-to-state) each other as "allies" in areas of military and economic cooperation.
Which terms am I not understanding here? "Alliance"? Because from my perspective I am refuting quite a lot of what you assert as fact with actual factual documentation and you are simply ignoring it time and time again (whereas Raoul, for example, insists upon a different distinction, you insist upon not engaging with facts presented to you).
There is literal proof to the contrary (including documents between each state with names such as "strategic partnership"). It does not have a mutual defense necessity clause, like NATO, but that has been pointed out two pages ago and still this argument continues?
You think it's "bizarre" to question using social media as a primary source of informing yourself about the world? I think you'll find that attitude considerably more widespread among informatics people, including quite a lot of former social media executives, than among grandmas.
I take it then that you limit your social media information intake to a small group of highly regarded journalists on Twitter, whom you have carefully sifted from the total pool of writers on the subject in question?
But of course, if it's highly regarded journalists you want, you could just read/watch the media they work for instead. The stuff they deliver there is almost invariably better than their quick, brief Twitter posts and also you wouldn't be as limited to just the sources you've chosen yourself. I trust I don't have to get into things like how, once you're past the likes of Kuenssberg or Foster, almost the whole rest of the Twittersphere is rubbish or worse, or how hugely unreliable a lot of what you read about a developing crisis situation on Twitter is. And that's before we get to things like downright disinformation and how Twitter is weaponised for information warfare. I also trust I don't have to point out the blatantly obvious issues with any algorithm-driven social media platform, for anything more serious than banter or socialising?
Point one with the UK has no military alliance to speak of. You know this. It is economical and industrial. You are wasting my time.
Point two with the US. Same. No military alliance is made, like it is with S Korea, Australia, etc. You are wasting my time here.
Point 3. Include Australia there; also some European nations. Has f all to to with colonial past.
"It does not have a mutual defense necessity clause" That is the fecking point innit? The ones that do (S Korea, Japan, Romania (NATO member), etc) are benefiting from it, as is evident. Does Ukraine seem to you like an ally?
I've talked to you on multiple posts that one does not have to be NATO to have a defense alliance but it can be done with a strategic one (that includes a defense alliance ffs, it was obvious; there are strategic partnerships in playing lego and eating pies, those were not the point...).
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/uk-ukraine-security-cooperation
That is a rather comprehensive report on UK-Ukranian military alliance (including the UK's training of 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers and the UK selling Ukraine arms which includes warships, rockets, as well as the building, from scratch, of various naval bases within the Ukraine). You do not see all of this military cooperation as military cooperation (it has to be economic and industrial otherwise you would have to concede the point, which is that the UK has a strategic relationship with the Ukraine, ironically entitled "Strategic Relationship with Ukraine" which you do not think exists, or at least didn't in your last post).
You are moving the goalposts. No one is saying it is the same as S Korea (inherited from colonial times and the Korean War) or Australia (historical British colony).
See above. We are speaking about former colonies (and, with countries like Japan, about post-War realignment under the United States various rebuilding doctrines).
Yes, that is the point. The US/UK/NATO/Ukraine alliance, as it stands, seems like a precursor to a formal mutual defense necessity clause (entrance into NATO being more or less the entire point of this whole conflict).
The post I made prior to this one is probably a better one for reference of other readers in terms of someone making a claim, having it literally refuted, but refusing to alter their position. So maybe we are both wasting our time?
I am making the point that there are no military alliances between NATO and the Ukraine and you are trying to pretend that there are. There are none.
Some economical and some industrial and some training do exist between many states, including Russia and the West.
The way you are trying to move the focus with BS like "colonial states" makes me think you know a lot less then I though. Where would you put Romania then? The new colonies? Every ally is a colony or a would be colony or let's make up some excuses to not accept the true meaning of ally.
You think it's "bizarre" to question using social media as a primary source of informing yourself about the world? I think you'll find that attitude considerably more widespread among informatics people, including quite a lot of former social media executives, than among grandmas.
I take it then that you limit your social media information intake to a small group of highly regarded journalists on Twitter, whom you have carefully sifted from the total pool of writers on the subject in question?
I trust I don't have to get into things like how, once you're past the likes of Kuenssberg or Foster, almost the whole rest of the Twittersphere is rubbish or worse, or how hugely unreliable a lot of what you read about a developing crisis situation on Twitter is. And that's before we get to things like downright disinformation and how Twitter is weaponised for information warfare. I also trust I don't have to point out the blatantly obvious issues with any algorithm-driven social media platform, for anything more serious than banter or socialising?
As far as I can tell, your primary problem is that you think the term "alliance" is being misused. In the sense that an invasion of Ukraine does not equal an invasion of NATO, and no one has argued that this is the case, as Ukraine is obviously not a member of NATO, then we are arguing about a matter of degree. The difference between mutual necessity of defense and almost every other form of military cooperation that falls short of that.
I am not arguing that there is anything like that kind of alliance between the two (this is the exact point of the conflict) but that there is military cooperation between US/UK/Ukraine which is an alliance that falls short of whatever pure (NATO) definition you want to impose. Saudi Arabia is an American ally. If they get invaded tomorrow the US would probably intervene indirectly but it wouldn't have to because there is no such NATO commitment. That is the kind of "alliance" which the US/UK have with the non-separatist part of Ukraine. Surely we can all agree on that and simply use a different term and end it here? Ironically, this really is a semantic game with almost no meaning any more.
Someone like @2cents (anyone who isn't me, really) could explain this to you better, perhaps. The gist of it is that you are applying a general (almost universal) intent to particular meanings. I was talking about the British occupation of Korean islands, incursions into China, and the historical relationship Britain/US have with former colonies in defensive terms which you have flipped into some kind of universal claim that every country is a colony. I never said anything like that. Anyway, I'll let someone else respond to you. We probably won't agree.
Super…Army…Soldiers
Are the SAS better trained than US special forces?
Of course.
Russia could crush the UK so easily if they desired.
This actually makes me feel more at ease. Maybe its a bluff after all.
The article in the Economist is paywalled unfortunately. I'd be really interested in the arguments being made why Putin doesn't fear sanctions.
Why they picking on little Ukraine then? Bullies!
Exactly. And that’s just the back up!
No they couldn't. They would win a land war, eventually.
NATO took Irak in 2 weeks. Russia can't move troops in 3 moths.
All Russia would have to do would be to push a few buttons and the UK would be deleted.
Same for the UK to delete Russia.
How prey tell? (Short of using nukes )
Russia have the 5th largest army in the world. Look at the size of the place ffs. They could destroy near enough anyone, easily an island like the UK.