Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Smores said:
I wouldn't be too surprised if we end up in the situation of stalled NATO membership with a defensive pact made instead. In effect no NATO positions in Ukraine which Russia can claim as a win and security for Ukraine which would be a win for Zelenskyy.

Can't imagine the disputed (invaded) territories would be returned.
Click to expand...
I don't know how country which has part of their area occupied, can join Nato? Imagine if you are Ukraine's leader and you just joined Nato. What would be your first thought? Crimea. How to provoke Russia in conflict and get Crimea back.
 
Foxbatt said:
He would and so would any capable Russian. He has no business invading any other countries but he would always say it's hypocritical for the USA and the UK to say that. They invaded Iraq for no good reason and recognized Kosovo too.
Click to expand...
The never ending ‘they did that so this is ok’ argument.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
IF (and it will not) WW3 starts, all alliances are in question and new one would be created. When real shit starts, everybody look what is primary in their interest.
Click to expand...

True, but a rampant Russia controlling Europe is really not in the US's larger interests. Who knows though. As others have said, Biden is pretty meek.
 
Ok this is amusing (if you’re familiar with the Twitter account):

FMOI5j_XMBALoKH
 
The Firestarter said:
Not under Putin, but if someone less batshit succeeds him, they might. Not Crimea though, that would take unreal carrots to do so.
Click to expand...

Hasn't Putin been pretty consistent lately stating that NATO have continued to break a series of promises that it would not expand eastward (whether that is true in fact is irrelevant)? His message has continued to be that NATO is not to be trusted and has been duplicitous in the past so would gaining a promise from NATO over Ukraine really be seen as a victory in Russia? Would that not make him look weak in light of his messaging in the last decade or so?
 
2cents said:
Ok this is amusing (if you’re familiar with the Twitter account):

FMOI5j_XMBALoKH
Click to expand...

What about the 99% of us who aren't familiar with that specific Twitter account?

I refuse to get yelled at for posting very interesting historical fun facts about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Munich Agreement, and then have to watch a fellow scout post funny tweets. It's literally like what Hitler did with the Enabl- [BANNED]
 
Drifter said:
MP uses parliamentary privilege to name Russian oligarchs
Click to expand...

She closes on the "international rules based order" which requires clarification:


News International said:
The US and its allies do not tire of telling all and sundry, especially China, to abide by the rule-based liberal order that the US-led West had established after World War II. This demand is based on three implicit assumptions. It betrays the West's typical arrogance about the superiority of its cultural values, political ideology, and economic system, which underpin its internal and external policies.

Second, it is grounded in the implicit claim about the objective fairness of the system of inter-state conduct established by the West. Third, the demand upon others to abide by the so-called rule-based order assumes that Western countries scrupulously adhere to its basic principles and rules of behaviour. A close scrutiny reveals that all the three assumptions are open to questions and factually inaccurate.

There is no denying the fact that the Western civilisation in the aftermath of the Renaissance achieved remarkable progress and stole a march over other civilisations in different branches of knowledge, especially in sciences, technology, politics, philosophy, economics and international law. These advances enabled Western countries to establish their global hegemony so that by the end of the 19th century, most of the world was directly or indirectly under their control through their colonial rule in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

The 20th century witnessed the continuation of the West's supremacy and the rise of the US. The world, however, is now being radically transformed by the emergence of new major powers, especially China whose dramatic growth in economic and military power has posed a daunting challenge to the supremacy of the US-led West.

It is inevitable that as this process of global transformation unfolds, it would not only influence progress in science and technology, but also lead to changes in political organisation of states, economic management at the national and global levels, and international law to reflect new ground realities. Therefore, it is nothing but a reflection of the West's arrogance for it to demand that its cultural values and political and economic models must be adopted by others despite international cultural, political and economic diversity.

In his book 'The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order', Professor Huntington recommended that the West should refrain from such an approach. He argued that 'Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers from three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous.' American dismal failure to impose its cultural values and political model on Afghanistan is the latest example of the futility of such efforts by Western countries.

The international order established by the US-led West after World War II through the UN, IMF, World Bank and related institutions basically aimed at regulating international affairs in a manner which suited its interests. Distinguished scholars including Stephen G Brooks, G John Ikenberry and William C Wohlforth in an article titled 'Lean Forward', published in Foreign Affairs in 2013, pointed out, 'After all, today's rules and institutions came about under its (the US) auspices and largely reflect its interests, and so they are in fact tailor-made for soft balancing by the United States itself.'

According to them, the US had used its global dominance 'to structure the world economy in ways that serve its particular interests.' The essential point is that far from being fair and even-handed, the existing global political and economic order is heavily tilted in favour of the US and other Western powers, which helped establish it in the first place.

It is inevitable, therefore, that as the economic and military power of China and other non-Western countries grows, they will seek to modify the rules of the existing world order so as to make them even-handed and to provide to the emerging great powers a fair opportunity for their rise and the accommodation of their interests. On the other hand, since these rules were laid down to give an advantage to the Western powers led by the US, they are likely to resist these attempts to modify them. This factor lies at the heart of the growing rivalry and frictions between the US-led West and China.

Washington is employing all the levers of hard and soft power at its disposal through repositioning of its forces in the Indo-Pacific region, strengthening of alliances and building up new ones, and a sustained media campaign to contain the expansion of China's power. The ultimate outcome of this titanic struggle is shrouded in the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. However, one thing which can be said with a fair degree of confidence is that the world order in future would be culturally, politically and economically more diverse than what the West would like to see.

Finally, the assumption that Western countries abide by the rule-based order, which was established by them, is simply false, especially in dealing with major problems of international peace and security as well as important issues affecting their economic progress and prosperity. The US and other Western countries like the UK and France have flagrantly violated the principles of the UN Charter and the recognised rules of inter-state conduct whenever it suited their narrow national interests.

They have been guilty of gross interference in the internal affairs of other states, overthrown foreign governments that they did not like, assassinated foreign leaders, and even invaded foreign countries at will. The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the latest example - but not the only one - of blatant acts of aggression and violation of the principles of the UN Charter by some Western countries. So it is nothing less than hypocritical for them to lecture others to abide by the so-called rule-based order.

The demand by the US-led West upon China and other emerging powers to abide by the rule-based order is a thinly veiled attempt by them to safeguard their narrow national interests and their global political, economic and cultural dominance. The emergence of new world powers like China will inevitably lead to demands for the transformation of the present world order to accommodate their legitimate interests.
Click to expand...

tl;dr The rule based order is a synonym for Western (US-led) hegemony and it always goes unsaid when mentioned.
 
spiriticon said:
True, but a rampant Russia controlling Europe is really not in the US's larger interests. Who knows though. As others have said, Biden is pretty meek.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Domino reaction comes. Usa (under pressure of US people) could leave alliance. Then Italy and Spain, who are not in danger of Russia, can say that also. Then some smaller countries can change side (better a puppet then complete destruction) etc.....
War is a bitch.
 
Wittmann45 said:
Hasn't Putin been pretty consistent lately stating that NATO have continued to break a series of promises that it would not expand eastward (whether that is true in fact is irrelevant)? His message has continued to be that NATO is not to be trusted and has been duplicitous in the past so would gaining a promise from NATO over Ukraine really be seen as a victory in Russia? Would that not make him look weak in light of his messaging in the last decade or so?
Click to expand...
Anything that might have been mentioned verbally between officials is transient. What matters is that being put into writing and ratified. Thats how the normal world operates. Not for the likes of Putin and Trump though.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Exactly. Domino reaction comes. Usa (under pressure of US people) could leave alliance. Then Italy and Spain, who are not in danger of Russia, can say that also. Then some smaller countries can change side (better a puppet then complete destruction) etc.....
War is a bitch.
Click to expand...

The good thing is, if that unlikely scenario really happens, there is a high chance I'll already have been blown to smithereens by a bomb. I won't have to worry too much about it :lol:
 
Lecland07 said:
Stalin managed to kills millions without a war. Hardly a sheep; it is just what he did isn't as well known. Stalin was pure evil.

Stalin forced a famine that killed 3.9m people. Holodomor. He executed over 1m of his own people. Forced labour. The Great Purge. He is expected to be responsible for the death of 6m non-combatants without including the famine.

Debating levels of evil by numbers is pointless when it reaches this many deaths. Hitler and Stalin were very much the same.

In the end, the point of whether someone is far left or far right is mute as their reasoning does not matter. Their capability of doing things like this is what really matters. Stalin and Hitler evidence that it is a pointless argument whether Putin is right or left; what matters is whether he has the capability and want to do similar things to them.
Click to expand...

Churchill did many bad things in India. Would you ever compare Churchill to Hitler? I hope not.
 
Mihai said:
I don't want to derail any more, but i don't agree with this and I find this comment disrespectful to the millions who were oppressed, deported, tortured, starved to death and killed for absolutely no reason.
Click to expand...

i agree. It was over the top. Just wanted to point that from the two, he was the lesser eveil. If it matters anyway.
 
The Firestarter said:
What matters is that being put into writing and ratified. Thats how the normal world operates.
Click to expand...
Oh, really? Why didn’t Biden insist on Zelensky abiding with Minsk agreements, then? :)

Minsk agreements were in writing and duly ratified, and Zelensky had to grant Donbas a special constitutional status and conduct the elections. For some mysterious reason it didn’t happen (maybe, just maybe it was because Ukraine wouldn’t be in a position to join NATO then?)
 
led_scholes said:
Err what? When?
Click to expand...
I dunno to what level the poster meant "wanted to join them", but with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and following trade agreements, the USSR and Germany were in a sort of uneasy cooperation in both divvying up Eastern Europe and essential industrial materials, goods and even prospective military equipment trade. Stalin was generally more suspicious of the UK and the US, since those countries had actively fought against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution. He was also in a sort of denial when reports in 1941 from both his own intel services and the UK's kept indicating that a German invasion was imminent.
 
Alemar said:
Russian army is stronger than NATO European forces (unless USA army joins, of course, and USA won’t join as it will lead to a nuclear war with guaranteed destruction of all the parties involved).

So it probably is not a big threat for Putin.
Click to expand...
No it's not, even if you take the UK out of the equation along with America, the EU members have enough. Russia has more numbers in some aspects ( tanks, planes etc) but that's mostly bulked up with a lot of cold war era old tech. If we're removing nuclear and naval battles out of the equation as it would mostly be a land war then Europe has enough to hold them off and create a stalemate. In terms of Navy the biggest threat is from Subs on the Russian side while the Euro members have more aircraft carriers and modern vessels. The biggest issue is the lack of automatic central command and communications. Everyone forgets that Russia is operating with an economy less than that of Italy. If the European members needed to quickly level up they would be able to a lot quicker than Russia larger population and money. It would end up with initial Russian gains into Eastern Europe eventually though they would not be able to hold it and be driven back. Even so it's all hypothetical.
 
MTF said:
I dunno to what level the poster meant "wanted to join them", but with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and following trade agreements, the USSR and Germany were in a sort of uneasy cooperation in both divvying up Eastern Europe and essential industrial materials, goods and even prospective military equipment trade. Stalin was generally more suspicious of the UK and the US, since those countries had actively fought against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution. He was also in a sort of denial when reports in 1941 from both his own intel services and the UK's kept indicating that a German invasion was imminent.
Click to expand...

Yes but that came after the Munich Agreement. Commintern (thus Stalin) in mid 30s was pushing for popular fronts in Europe against Hitler. So, that's far from "wanted to join them". The last part is absolutely true. Even when the Germans started attacking, he believed it was just some meaningless skirmishes.
 
ManchesterManchester said:
Putin is a communist, right wingers are capitalists.

You should go to the Trump thread so you can continue to agenda there. This thread is for Ukraine vs Russia.
Click to expand...

Hold up there, son.

Oligarchs and business magnates don't tend to be keen on the proletariat controlling the means of production. For a period in the 2000s, there were more billionaires in Moscow than any other city in the world.

Putin formed the political coalition People's Front which holds deeply conservative, populist and right wing/nationalist beliefs.

Russia is absolutely not a communist country. Not since the small matter of the Soviet Union collapsing. Russia is a capitalist country and has been since 1991. Yeltsin possibly leaned further left than Putin, but he was no communist either.
 
led_scholes said:
Churchill did many bad things in India. Would you ever compare Churchill to Hitler? I hope not.
Click to expand...
Alexander the Great, August, Ceasar, Trajan, Dzingis kan(can't remember English spelling of his name)...all destroyed dozens nations and civilisations. But are labelled as "great conquerors". What that tells us? That winner writes history. Which is sad thing actually

Anyway, sorry for going off topic here.
 
frostbite said:
Says who?

For example, for the people who lived under Franco it was very relevant. Those who where fascists had a good life, those who were communists were thrown in prison. There is an obvious difference.
Click to expand...
Same goes for Cubans and Fidel, or Eastern Europeans under Soviet regimes.

It's got feck all to do with wings. In all cases it's oppressive totalitarianism vs man's search for freedom.

Once they get rid of <insert name> people who were with the regime may well end up voting completely different parties, same goes for those against it.

There's no relevance in wings or political ideology in fighting against Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot. Freedom or the lack of it supersedes all that opinionated nonsense.
 
VorZakone said:
Literally from Wiki:
Click to expand...
I know he joined the Bolsheviks but Stalin was nothing but Stalinist. He never gave two shits about anything else.

The post I replied to was referring to Stalin as representative of Bolshevism. You could only say that insofar as you are referring to those being Bolsheviks as (appropriately) the best means to an end, but not to make an assessment of genuine Bolsheviks, if you catch my drift.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.