Ukraine

nickc
Full Member
They won’t invade a country if NATO is not trying to creep into their space or backyard.

Apart from all those countries that they’ve already invaded regardless; Georgia, Abkahzia, Transnistria, North Ossetia (twice), Tajikistan, Chechnya (Twice), Dagestan, Crimea. which are all countries in Russia backyard who aren’t looking to join NATO or the EU.

Parroting Putins’ propaganda about NATO encroachment isn’t a great argument

Neither is overblowing the Russian intent either tbh. Chechnya and Dagestan are in Russia, and Abkhzia and North Ossentia was what the Georgian war was about(And it was only 4 months after NATO announced the intention to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO eventually).

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

Russia attacked Georgia, 4 months later. (It’s completely Russia blame as they are the military aggressor, but it’s still a very real thing, it’s not imagined..)

So, completely ignoring that NATO is a big factor in Russian minds is a bit silly too. (Whether you believe it to be true or not.) It’s not an excuse, but it is an important point to consider.

And not even just in relation to Russia tbh, I think a question needing discussed is how much is NATO actually going to expand in the future? Considering the US really considers China to be the issue, is it eventually going expand to China’s borders? tbh f that. I’m not a fan of the need for NATO in general tbh, it should have been dismantled in the late 90s imo. But the expansion doesn’t seem to me, given America’s obvious desire to dominate China going forward, that it’s going to be limited to North America and Europe.

And not even just in relation to Russia tbh, I think the question needs discussed is how much is NATO actually going to expand in the future, consider the US really considers China to be the issue, is it eventually going expand to China’s borders? tbh f that.

The U.S. already has defense treaties and bases in Japan and South Korea. They have a policy of ambiguity about Taiwan, but they already supply equipment. If China did try to invade Taiwan, it’s certain that the U.S. would at least support them similarly to the support they are giving Ukraine and it would not be surprising if they joined combat. China has had U.S. forces on its borders for many decades and has not invaded those countries.

Yeah, I’m aware, it’s a situation that will only get worse as time goes and China gets stronger.

The US supplying arms to Taiwan isn’t particularly ambiguous.

The rf just seem to have so much more hardware, although where it is its unrepairable even if lightly damaged.

There’s no point in having 10 000 tanks if you don’t have trucks to supply them with fuel. There’s no point in having supersonic attack planes if you don’t have smart bombs to arm them with.

The Ukrainians are operating on familiar terrain and ambushing Russian convoys. The Ukrainians can operate in small groups, choose where and when they want to fight, and melt away into the countryside if things go bad. The Russians are limited to driving along roads where they are easy to ambush. Having more tanks just means more targets for the Ukrainians to shoot at.

One analyst had an interesting article a couple of weeks ago about the U.S. aid to Ukraine. There’s pressure to supply big-ticket items like fighter planes or Rapier missile systems, but those need months or years of training and a lot of support infrastructure so they’re not really much use. Instead, they have been supplying much simpler systems like Stinger and Javelin missiles which negate the Russian superiority in aircraft and tanks but don’t need the intensive training and infrastructure. Also, things like body armour and night-vision gear are a huge advantage for Ukraine – they can wait till dark and then the Russian troops are helpless. The Ukrainian railways are still running so Ukraine can supply its troops with food, fuel, and ammunition, and they can also retrieve tanks and weapons from the front and ship them back to repair depots. The Russian troops seem to be just abandoning anything that breaks down.

Remember if Russia falls..

Who’s taking about Russia falling? I’m quite happy for Russia to exist. It’s the invasion of other countries I’m not keen on.

Utter nonsense. It is not “their way of life,” why would you say something so ridiculous? The region is not “full of nukes”. Russia has nukes. The other countries in the region do not.

Unfortunately they disagree with the West’s interpretation. The more the NATO/West insists the more they will stand their ground just like when the NATO/West stand their ground during the Cuba missile crisis. If West/NATO wishes to test this theory then the situation will escalate. They do have nukes.

Time will tell, but I’m not sure how much active help China will want to give to Russia. Probably the most useful thing they could give is trucks and food, but the Russians are probably asking for bigger guns, which frankly won’t help them!

China CCP is not fully ready yet but their involvement will only prolong the current situation. Remember India is also on the Russian side albeit not getting involve much.

Someone should tell chewie that the Soviet Union has gone and all that’s left is a very nasty kleptocracy which the sensible people of Ukraine don’t want to be part of.

That’s their domestic affairs with their kleptocrats. Dealing with other nations over their kleptocrats is just going to complicate matters. Domestic politics have no place in the affairs of other nation state and international politics especially when they also have nukes.

Apart from all those countries that they’ve already invaded regardless; Georgia, Abkahzia, Transnistria, North Ossetia (twice), Tajikistan, Chechnya (Twice), Dagestan, Crimea. which are all countries in Russia backyard who aren’t looking to join NATO or the EU.

Those countries listed above are in their domain. That is their domestic affairs.

Russia has Never invaded a NATO member state, fact.

Parroting Putins’ propaganda about NATO encroachment isn’t a great argument

If the West/NATO cannot even this very basic reason than the escalation is inevitable. Both sides have propaganda and if West/NATO thinks that only one side is effective at propaganda than the West/NATO is no different.

Are we to assume that the above countries are all trying to join NATO & the EU, and therefore cross Putins red lines too?

Only those that Russia/Putin perceives as existential threats near Russia (Refer to 2008 Bucharest summit and Monroe Doctrine (i.e. US version and currently Russia/Putin’s views) Remember the NATO membership is expanding towards the East and now reaching Russia. Russia/Putin has been letting go of former Soviet Bloc joining NATO but there come a time where the line is draw and this is the currently situation.

You are making a strong case for more countries joining NATO.

To Russia/Putin that is provocation and evidence has pointed Russia/Putin has never invaded a NATO member state. The case to join NATO will only encourage a retaliation even if that means confrontation. Again NATO will not come to their aid openly if there is a retaliation from Russia/Putin. Russia is Not expanding but “shrinking” and they do not want to be surrounded by NATO member states.

Anyway, you do know that Putin has called for NATO to pull out of the Czech Republic, Poland etc. Should that complied with to “let Russia be”?

He might be showing his displeasure but there is no evidence he would invade NATO member states.

Can the Ukrainian Army actually defeat the Russia without help from Nato?

No. Even with the hardware supplied by the West/NATO will not defeat Russia. Human cost on both sides will be high unfortunately.

Who’s taking about Russia falling? I’m quite happy for Russia to exist. It’s the invasion of other countries I’m not keen on.

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.

That’s their domestic affairs with their kleptocrats.

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

They don’t like other systems of governance.

Are we talking about the people in Russia, or in the countries Russia invades?

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.

Why Russia sucks at war.

What we have seen so far in Ukraine is a Russian inability to operate the systems they would need to succeed and the Ukrainians able to operate the systems they need to stop them–often by disrupting Russian communications. Sorry for the length!

— Phillips P. OBrien (@PhillipsPOBrien) March 20, 2022

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 Member

Tolstoy 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.