Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Attila said:
Yes I don't think Nato countries would invade Russia because its insane. But I understand the Russian leadership taking actions against that prospect.

Nato can't say they are just a defensive alliance when they have waged offensive wars before

stop playing the got ya card
Click to expand...
So you understand the Russian high command acting on an idea that has its basis in insanity?

It isn’t a “gotcha” card. It’s a “you’re overlooking the fact that Russia is being aggressive because they wanted to be aggressive” card. Russia isn’t doing this to keep NATO away. Hell, if they conquered Ukraine, NATO would be closer with more countries on Russia’s border than before. What you’re “understanding” makes zero sense.
 
GlastonSpur said:
No, because as I've already said, no one thinks that NATO would even remotely consider invading a nuclear-armed Russia.

If Russia has the right, in your eyes, to invade Ukraine because it's on the Russian border and Russia doesn't like Ukraine's west-ward leanings, then presumably you also think that Finland has the right to invade Russia ... because it too has a border with Russia and doesn't like Russia..

feck the Monroe doctrine - I'm not here to defend some 19th century BS. There are zero excuses for Russia's actions in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
It's not 19th century bullshit.

The great powers will play their games. Russia is one of them
 
Attila said:
Yes I don't think Nato countries would invade Russia because its insane. But I understand the Russian leadership taking actions against that prospect.

Nato can't say they are just a defensive alliance when they have waged offensive wars before

stop playing the got ya card
Click to expand...

So you understand why a authoritarian dictatorship would want to destroy an alliance of democratic countries from expanding towards its borders. It’s to stop democracy from reaching Russia, not because Putin thinks NATO is going to attack Russia.
 
Attila said:
It's not 19th century bullshit.

The great powers will play their games. Russia is one of them
Click to expand...
McCain described them perfectly, but not as a great power. Their strength comes from fossil fuels & their aging nuclear arsenal.
 
Carolina Red said:
So you understand the Russian high command acting on an idea that has its basis in insanity?

It isn’t a “gotcha” card. It’s a “you’re overlooking the fact that Russia is being aggressive because they wanted to be aggressive” card. Russia isn’t doing this to keep NATO away. Hell, if they conquered Ukraine, NATO would be closer with more countries on Russia’s border than before. What you’re “understanding” makes zero sense.
Click to expand...
I think you are overlooking the geopolitical aspect of this conflict. you are way too emotional over it
 
Raoul said:
So you understand why a authoritarian dictatorship would want to destroy an alliance of democratic countries from expanding towards its borders. It’s to stop democracy from reaching Russia, not because Putin thinks NATO is going to attack Russia.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. A democracy in Ukraine would feck Putin
 
Raoul said:
A great power with an economy smaller than Italy’s (soon to be smaller than Belgium’s). That’s some great power.
Click to expand...
If we regress to the "great power" theory of international relations then we might as well also accept that small countries have zero agency and cannot complain when invaded or exploited.
 
Frosty said:
If we regress to the "great power" theory of international relations then we might as well also accept that small countries have zero agency and cannot complain when invaded or exploited.
Click to expand...

Technically they can’t, unless larger states swoop in to defend them. The international system is an anarchic dominance hierarchy like that.
 
Attila said:
what fantasy hypotheticals did I make?
Click to expand...
NATO invading Russia and Ukraine invading Russia…

Russia knows good and well neither of those is going to happen. Basing an “understanding” of Russia’s actions in Ukraine based on those two scenarios is basing your understanding on fantasy.
 
Attila said:
No?
Click to expand...
What makes this essential difference then? Russia didn't leave those other countries alone out of goodness of their heart, but because costs of keeping that empire were much bigger than advantages coming from that and capabilities that Russia had at that point. It is an entirely plausible scenario that this too will happen with Ukraine.
 
Attila said:
as if nato didn't bomb the feck out of Serbia and Libya

I was making the point they can be an offensive power
Click to expand...
And once again, neither of those have the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.

Interesting though that you keep bringing up Serbia, considering what brought about them getting bombed by NATO.
 
Attila said:
yes you Americans have large bombs

destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya what next
Click to expand...
And we’re back to this basically just being you having a go at America.

There’s a different thread for that. This one is for Russia’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine
 
Attila said:
It's not 19th century bullshit.

The great powers will play their games. Russia is one of them
Click to expand...

The days of Russia being a great power are over. It has an economy smaller than Italy's (and will soon be smaller than Holland's), conventional forces that can't even conquer the eastern fringes of Ukraine despite throwing two-thirds of its entire ground forces into the attempt, a dysfunctional government and a technological base that is a million miles behind that of the West.

Russia has the nuclear threat and lots of oil, coal and gas - that's about all it has. And once Europe weans itself off Russia's energy supplies, a process that Putin has now kick-started into action, Russia will be left having to sell these at knock-down prices to India and China. In effect, Russia has become China's junior partner - and China will be calling Russia's shots from here on.
 
Attila said:
You talk as if the USA hasn't enforced regime change on democratically elected governments for their own interest
Click to expand...
And when was the last time they did that? When was also the last time that Russia defended a so-called democracy if they are for any greater good?

Putin and the CCP are at the forefront of a new ideological Cold War. If you feel those feckers are any better than the West, then we have nothing left to say.
 
One minute laying waste to an entire country and puffing their chests out on military parades, the next minute whining about how threatened they are by NATO.

It's shocking how easily people fall for it and get sucked into defending them.
 
Just to stop derailing the thread, a few thoughts about the discussion in the last couple of pages and then I won't mention them again:

-Ukraine is not a threat to Russia's existence, more like the other way round. Ukraine has been independent for about 30 years and has been invaded by Russia 3 times (Crimea, Donetsk-Lugantsk, and now the whole country).

-NATO is not forcing anyone to join. If anything, it has made the process of joining really difficult for other countries. Since 2009 only two have done it.

-NATO nor anyone will invade Russia as it now has nukes. The aggressor of the last 2 times was defeated, occupied, downsized its army, doesn't have nukes and depends on trading with Russia (although the last three are about to change due to Putin's decission to invade).

-Russia tends to invade a lot more often than be invaded. However, it appears to show a tendency to invade and then be military embarrased every 40 to 50 years, and it tends to happen against smaller powers everytime. First the french, then the turks, the japanese, the finnish, the afgans and now Ukraine.

-Esentially, Russia's status as a great power now seems to depend on A) its nuclear reserves and B) its non-renewable resources (Oil and Gas). Whatever the result of the war is, Russia's situation in both is now weaker: invading countries that got rid of their nukes tends to dissuade other countries of doing the same (and encouraging others to get them), making Russia's nukes less relevant in the long term. And, of course, the invasion also accelerated the end of the EU's dependency on Russian oil and gas.

-The US actions in other parts of the world are no excuse for Russia's actions. As a matter of fact, the US is still paying the price for most of the wrong decissions it made there. But there's a different thread for that.
 
Last edited:
Krakenzero said:
Just to stop derailing the thread, a few thoughts about the discussion in the last couple of pages and then I won't mention them again:

-Ukraine is not a threat to Russia's existence, more like the other way round. Ukraine has been independent for about 30 years and has been invaded by Russia 3 times (Crimea, Donetsk-Lugantsk, and now the whole country).

-NATO is not forcing anyone to join. If anything, it has made the process of joining really difficult for other countries. Since 2009 only two have done it.

-NATO nor anyone will invade Russia as it now has nukes. The aggressor of the last 2 times was defeated, occupied, downsized its army, doesn't have nukes and depends on trading with Russia (although the last three are about to change due to Putin's decission to invade).

-Russia tends to invade a lot more often than be invaded. However, it appears to show a tendency to invade and then be military embarrased every 40 to 50 years, and it tends to happen against smaller powers everytime. First the french, then the turks, the japanese, the finnish, the afgans and now Ukraine.

-Esentially, Russia's status as a great power now seems to depend on A) its nuclear reserves and B) its non-renewable resources (Oil and Gas). Whatever the result of the war is, Russia's situation in both is now weaker: invading countries that got rid of their nukes tends to dissuade other countries of doing the same (and encouraging others to get them), making Russia's nukes less relevant in the long term. And, of course, the invasion also accelerated the end of the EU's dependency on Russian oil and gas.

-The US actions in other parts of the world are no excuse for Russia's actions. As a matter of fact, the US is still paying the price for most of the wrong decissions it made there. But there's a different thread for that.
Click to expand...
Good post - but bizarre any of it had to be said - it should be obvious to all…
 
alexthelion said:
I'm not American, the only "truth" you're spouting has come from Russia. How much are they paying you?
Click to expand...

Judging by the name I'd say he's Hungarian. Great government they have there, real charmers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.