Well, no because…
1) a country has been invaded and its citizens are being bombed
2) those kleptocrats rely on international economics to build their wealth
1. Refer to the Monroe doctrine. This is no domestic politics but international strategic positioning. Nukes are the deterrent for all sides.
2. There is no reason to expand NATO because of kleptocrats and to go to war over them.
Are we talking about the people in Russia, or in the countries Russia invades?
1. Refer to Monroe doctrine. Ukraine is currently testing Russia's own "Monroe doctrine".
Look at Cuba a tiny nation but for US they see them as existential threats and 60 later they are still under embargo. In the case of Cuba US is applying the Monroe Doctrine.
2. There is no reason to expand NATO because of kleptocrats and to go to war over them.
Are we talking
Finland & Georgia looking at Ukraine & thinking that may not be the case
You stated why they might think that before...
Russia has Never invaded a NATO member state, fact.
Putin being worried about Nato encroachment doesn't justify him invading another country & killing its citizens
This is no domestic politics
Agreed.
1. Refer to the Monroe doctrine.
The Monroe document is 200 years old. The world has changed a bit since then. Most importantly, the United Nations was established after WW2. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is exactly the sort of thing the UN was intended to stop.
Finland & Georgia looking at Ukraine & thinking that may not be the case
You stated why they might think that before…
Yes, but they need to tread the situation very carefully. Russia has not threaten Finland for a long time so it might not be wise to currently add fuel to fire.
Putin being worried about Nato encroachment doesn’t justify him invading another country & killing its citizens
... so are Cuba where ordinary folks are just going about their daily life but is it fair to embargo Cuba for 60 years?
The Monroe document is 200 years old. The world has changed a bit since then. Most importantly, the United Nations was established after WW2. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is exactly the sort of thing the UN was intended to stop.
No, it has Not changed at all. Hence, the case for Cuba.
No, it has Not changed at all. Hence, the case for Cuba.
The U.S. hasn't invaded Cuba. Russia has invade Ukraine. What you are saying is that the U.S. would be justified in invading Cuba. Nobody agrees with you on that.
Cuba hasn’t been invaded for over 50 years. If the USA were flattening Havana right now, I, and I suspect many of us, would be incensed.
If the USA were flattening Havana right now, I, and I suspect many of us, would be incensed.
Exactly.
The U.S. hasn’t invaded Cuba. Russia has invade Ukraine. What you are saying is that the U.S. would be justified in invading Cuba. Nobody agrees with you on that.
Yes, US have not directly but the Bay of Pigs is the example of indirect intervention or "invasion". US protested very strongly about Cuba having the missiles and succeeded in getting their way. This is a well known case and any alternative interpretation is inaccurate.
Cuba hasn’t been invaded for over 50 years. If the USA were flattening Havana right now, I, and I suspect many of us, would be incensed.
Then why is Cuba still under embargo? They are such a tiny country by comparison to the superpower US and yet US still feel threaten by them. Why? The answer is the strategic position.
I do wonder if Chewie has ever actually met any Ukrainians. He seems to talk of them as though they are merely sheep or cattle, to be herded from one field to another at the whim of whichever corrupt and incompetent shepherd happens to be living in the Kremlin at the time.
Then why is Cuba still under embargo?
An economic embargo is not a military invasion. If you're an anti-globalist, an embargo should be seen as a good thing, it prohibits free trade and protects local industry. To Lefties, an embargo should be a good thing.
Then why is Cuba still under embargo?
You would need to ask Trump. Obama tried to thaw relations but he wanted none of it.
I do wonder if Chewie has ever actually met any Ukrainians. He seems to talk of them as though they are merely sheep or cattle, to be herded from one field to another at the whim of whichever corrupt and incompetent shepherd happens to be living in the Kremlin at the time.
Pretty much. He's arguing that Russia should be judged on Great Power politics from the 19th century. Poor people had no rights. If a bunch of farm boys got sent off to be slaughtered in a war, the mothers could just be told to serve their Emperor by having more babies.
Monroe doctrine not changed apart from being changed and reinterpreted.
"After 1898, the Monroe Doctrine was reinterpreted by Latin American lawyers and intellectuals as promoting multilateralism and non-intervention. In 1933, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the U.S. affirmed this new interpretation, namely through co-founding the Organization of American States.[6] Into the 21st century, the doctrine continues to be variably denounced, reinstated, or reinterpreted."
To Lefties, an embargo should be a good thing.
Jesus. I know chewy gets some stick on here but rarely has he/she said something this stupid. Care to elaborate on what you mean? I could infer all sorts of things about your views of 'the left' from this one ill-informed comment but I suppose I should at least give you the chance to explain yourself before jumping to conclusions.
Care to elaborate on what you mean?
An embargo is the opposite of free trade. If free trade is bad, then an embargo should be good. It's basically an infinite tariff on imports and exports. If you think tariffs are good, then embargos should also be good.
An embargo is the opposite of free trade. If free trade is bad, then an embargo should be good. It’s basically an infinite tariff on imports and exports. If you think tariffs are good, then embargos should also be good.
I am really not sure that you believe this.
An embargo is the opposite of free trade.
Ha ha you don't have to give me a patronising economics lesson, I know what an embargo is. I'm more interested in why you think 'lefties' are pro-embargoes.
I do wonder if Chewie has ever actually met any Ukrainians. He seems to talk of them as though they are merely sheep or cattle, to be herded from one field to another at the whim of whichever corrupt and incompetent shepherd happens to be living in the Kremlin at the time.
I have Ukrainians and Russian friends. All good laugh.
None of them wanted war(s) and all are very nice people (the ones I know).
All of them (the ones I know) agree that their system is imperfect but so is liberal democracy.
One of my Ukrainian friend gave me a bottle of Vodka (have not drank it yet as the bottle is so nice) and is now in Oz.
An economic embargo is not a military invasion.
How do you describe the Bay of Pigs?
You would need to ask Trump. Obama tried to thaw relations but he wanted none of it.
That's where you are wrong. Both Presidents have no say in this matter. The Foreign Office (the Blob) controls the narrative. As with their foreign policies both Republicans and Democrats are roughly the same but none could override the Blob. In one occasion Obama (can't remember exactly which one now) had to take the matter to the Congress but was still unable to change.
Pretty much. He’s arguing that Russia should be judged on Great Power politics from the 19th century. Poor people had no rights. If a bunch of farm boys got sent off to be slaughtered in a war, the mothers could just be told to serve their Emperor by having more babies
The argument that they belong to 19th century people is a weak one. You should look at how powerful nations govern themselves and the way they perceive threats.
Bottom line, powerful nations do not feel comfortable living side by side especially when they have nuclear capabilities.
I’m more interested in why you think ‘lefties’ are pro-embargoes.
Well, if you're opposed to free trade, then you would logically support a disruption to free trade. An embargo is a disruption to free trade. Unless you think that the world is complex and free trade brings benefits as well as problems. (I think the world is complex, just to be clear.)
Then why is Cuba still under embargo? They are such a tiny country by comparison to the superpower US and yet US still feel threaten by them. Why? The answer is the strategic position.
For the last 30 years the Cuban embargo is about US domestic politics rather than any strategic reason. Provides a communist bogeyman for the the right wing to rile their base about and the Cuban exile community is an important electoral bloc in a key swing state.
Well, if you’re opposed to free trade
Lefties are opposed to free trade? News to me. 🤷🏻♂️
What has lead you to this incorrect opinion?
For the last 30 years the Cuban embargo is about US domestic politics rather than any strategic reason. Provides a communist bogeyman for the the right wing to rile their base about and the Cuban exile community is an important electoral bloc in a key swing state.
Why extend US domestic politics to Cuba? What is there to gain?
Nothing to do with right wing politics.
Is JFK right wing? It was in his administration that started Cuba embargo.
How do you describe the Bay of Pigs?
A USA backed invasion that shouldn’t have happened, that occurred before I was born. Before you were born?
For the last 30 years the Cuban embargo is about US domestic politics rather than any strategic reason.
Exactly this. There’s votes in it.
If I was loaded, I’d be holidaying in Cuba, and spending big there. In my dreams…
This is quite a side step though: Cuba in the 1950/60s has nothing to do with Russia’s current invasion of a country that the USA and UK helped to remove its nuclear weapons to stop them becoming a threat to Russia or anyone else.
A USA backed invasion that shouldn’t have happened, that occurred before I was born. Before you were born?
Irrelevant. This is history and it sets the precedent. Monroe doctrine was written long ago but still use today.
Exactly this. There’s votes in it.
If I was loaded, I’d be holidaying in Cuba, and spending big there. In my dreams…
This is quite a side step though: Cuba in the 1950s has nothing to do with Russia’s current invasion of a country that the USA and UK helped to remove its nuclear weapons to stop them becoming a threat to Russia or anyone else.
Many people holiday in Cuba but that has nothing to do with strategic position.
Again, refer to Monroe doctrine.
Cuba was about the Russians placing nuclear weapons on Americas back door. It’s very similar to Ukraine where the US & UK were party to a deal which removed nuclear weapons from Russia’s border. Not much of a difference.
I'm not normally affected by the news but I'm finding the whole thing quite desperate and pretty upsetting. This is 2022 monsters like Putin shouldn't get away with this nowadays.
Tolstoy described Russia as Genghis khan with the telephone 150 years ago, not much seems to have changed.
thols2
Free Member
Care to elaborate on what you mean?An embargo is the opposite of free trade. If free trade is bad, then an embargo should be good. It’s basically an infinite tariff on imports and exports. If you think tariffs are good, then embargos should also be good.
It's no really that good if you are a proponent of international socialism.
It is not for the West/NATO to interpret but for Russia/Putin. They don’t like other systems of governance. The “Russia falling” is referring to system of governance i.e. democracy.
Well call me an idealist if you like but I think every person has the right to vote in free and fair elections.
Caher
Full MemberTolstoy described Russia as Genghis khan with the telephone 150 years ago, not much seems to have changed.
Fundamentally, what's different from the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, compared to the invasion of Ukraine?
I'm not going down the America bad route here, I just don't really see a great deal of difference tbh. And I find the whole Putin is the evilest man alive stuff a bit overly contrived tbh.
I'm talking about Ukraine here, the one happening now. Enough of the whataboutery.
You're the one walloping on about Tolstoy and Genghis Khan.
Fundamentally, what’s different from the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, compared to the invasion of Ukraine?
Iraq and Afghanistan actually were run by brutal oppressive regimes. I'm not saying that justified the invasion, that's another debate entirely, but that's the difference.
The invasions arguably had a worse effect though, plus I'd dispute those were the real reasons for the invasions either.. Ukraine isn't a shining light in all that's right in the world either, there's reasons why the EU and NATO are very stand-offish in terms of membership.
^^ In fairness Caher is right. Crap as some/all of the recent wars were, this is the one happening now and I'm hoping it finally dissuades any and all powers from these explorative little "adventures" on foreign soil.
I know, hopelessly naive.
And I find the whole Putin is the evilest man alive stuff a bit overly contrived tbh.
You got any nominations for anyone currently worse - beyond invading a sovereign nation, war crimes and now allegations of ethnic cleansing?
MoreCashThanDash
Full Member
You got any nominations for anyone currently worse – beyond invading a sovereign nation, war crimes and now allegations of ethnic cleansing?
I've no interest in measuring them, I'm struggling to see much difference in recent history though. I just don't really see the point in building Putin up to be something more than he is.
slowoldman
It is not for the West/NATO to interpret but for Russia/Putin. They don’t like other systems of governance. The “Russia falling” is referring to system of governance i.e. democracy.
Well call me an idealist if you like but I think every person has the right to vote in free and fair elections.
I don't want to call anyone idealist/utopian etc (coz sometimes it is healthy to imagine things) but when they finally meet in the realm of realism the result of the clash can be catastrophic in the context of powerful nation states.
Liberalism (democracy) is good thing in western domain but theirs is not the only system in the world.
I just don’t really see the point in building Putin up to be something more than he is.
It's that attitude that allowed him to invade Ukraine in the first place.
He's a piece of work and it definitely needs calling out.
Navalny, Kordokovsky, Litvenenko, Skripal, Magnitsky, Checnya, Crimea, Georgia, Allepo.
He was a tyrant and a war criminal well before invading Ukraine and the atrocities we're seeing in Mariupol.
That deserves calling out and building him up to be the **** that he is.
That deserves calling out and building him up to be the **** that he is.
But he has nukes as deterrent.
andrewreay
Full Member
I just don’t really see the point in building Putin up to be something more than he is.It’s that attitude that allowed him to invade Ukraine in the first place.
Here a piece of work and it definitely needs calling out.
Navalny, Kordokovsky, Litvenenko, Skripal, Magnitsky, Checnya, Crimea, Georgia, Allepo.
He was a tyrant and a war criminal well before invading Ukraine and the atrocities we’re seeing in Mariupol.
That deserves calling out and building him up to be the **** that he is.
He a c..., no doubt but he can go up quite a few levels of madness yet... I'm not into self fulfilling prophecies myself, I'd rather we left roads back from the brink.
We're as well nuking Russia the now the way some go on.
Those who are unable to see a difference are intentionally blinding themselves. I marched against the war in Iraq because it was based on nonsense principles and was really a follow-up to the emotional reaction to 9/11. I called it out then and the horrors that occurred in Iraq are unspeakable. The current situation is fundamentally different in scope however. We have a tyrant in charge of several thousand nukes gradually extending his reach geographically with the aim to resurrect some form of hallucinatory motherland. Europe's future is at stake as is the future of democracy. Democracy is flawed but I'm going to pick it every single time over a Europe under the thumb of a Putin.
speedstar
Full Member
Europe’s future is at stake as is the future of democracy.
Utter bollocks mate.
Liberalism (democracy) is good thing in western domain but theirs is not the only system in the world.
What makes it undesirable elsewhere?
