War with Russia

[multitool]

Think you might have missed the point, if your comments as highlighted aren't contradictory already.

Not as intended ie. direct intervention being NATO forces on the ground in Ukraine.

Voices of pragmatism and compromise essential for diplomacy is now a sell-out, instantly exploitable by political opponents, and cursed as "Putin apologists" - who cares if they might be right and would save the people/planet?

Weird comment.

Russia invaded a sovereign country. That really is the end of it. There is no reason why Ukraine should "compromise". The Russians have no legitimate grievance here. Perhaps you should revisit the utterly unhinged speeches Putin gave in the week before the invasion. He spelt out what he thought; that Ukraine is part of Russia.

WRT nuclear weapons, Putin's threats are from a position of weakness. It isn't going to happen.

You mention Mearsheimer, but his position is essentially to deny Ukraine self-determination. There is no reason why Ukraine should be compelled (by threats) to remain in the Russian sphere of influence, any more than any of the former constituent parts of the Soviet Union, or indeed the Eastern bloc. Indeed given their experiences it makes perfect sense that once freed from the yoke of Russian rule they should take steps to prevent its reoccurrence.

 

[Mr Celine]

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Weird comment.

Russia invaded a sovereign country. That really is the end of it. There is no reason why Ukraine should "compromise". The Russians have no legitimate grievance here. Perhaps you should revisit the utterly unhinged speeches Putin gave in the week before the invasion. He spelt out what he thought; that Ukraine is part of Russia.

-----

You mention Mearsheimer, but his position is essentially to deny Ukraine self-determination. There is no reason why Ukraine should be compelled (by threats) to remain in the Russian sphere of influence, any more than any of the former constituent parts of the Soviet Union, or indeed the Eastern bloc. Indeed given their experiences it makes perfect sense that once freed from the yoke of Russian rule they should take steps to prevent its reoccurrence.

Like most here, you are now reading the Ukrainian tea leaves through a moralistic, idealistic lens. The slight problem is what have your resulting conclusions got to do with the price of fish, except they make you sound virtuous to the wilfully blind? They didn't and won't help Ukrainians just like they did not help even more millions of Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans, Syrians, Palestinians, Yemenis etc. who are in the same boat, and as you are aware, they have also been attacked by invaders with no more legitimate grievance.

Fact is Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine and Yemen etc. were invaded because they were / are weak just like Ukraine, and also deemed inconvenient by a great power and their proxies / vassals. Doesn't it therefore strike you as odd then that this same power has been shouting loudest in support of Ukraine's sovereignty and citizens, when they have just trodden on so many more? Please don't confuse this with whatabouterism - what this shows is their real reason for "supporting" Ukraine has nothing to do with such lofty principles you seemingly are holding on to.

In reality, both sides of this proxy war have been perfectly happy to sacrifice Ukrainian sovereignty and lives as collateral damage for power / security competition. What has not escaped most in the rest of the world is how SO few in the West have the honesty and courage to admit this. How can the huge contradictions of Western rhetoric and actions be reconciled otherwise?

To get a cure of cognitive dissonance on the subject, and the tools to identify mistakes and real culprits any future Zellensky would be wise to adopt, one could do worse than ponder Mearsheimer's "5 basic assumptions" here starting at 6:40 - conveniently, it is also the first part of a superlative assessment and Q&A of these issues.

 

[multitool]

Like most here, you are now reading the Ukrainian tea leaves through a moralistic, idealistic lens. The slight problem is what have your resulting conclusions got to do with the price of fish, except they make you sound virtuous to the wilfully blind? They didn't and won't help Ukrainians just like they did not help even more millions of Iraqis, Libyans, Afghans, Syrians, Palestinians, Yemenis etc. who are in the same boat, and as you are aware, they have also been attacked by invaders with no more legitimate grievance.

Fact is Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine and Yemen etc. were invaded because they were / are weak just like Ukraine, and also deemed inconvenient by a great power and their proxies / vassals. Doesn't it therefore strike you as odd then that this same power has been shouting loudest in support of Ukraine's sovereignty and citizens, when they have just trodden on so many more? Please don't confuse this with whatabouterism - what this shows is their real reason for "supporting" Ukraine has nothing to do with such lofty principles you seemingly are holding on to.

In reality, both sides of this proxy war have been perfectly happy to sacrifice Ukrainian sovereignty and lives as collateral damage for power / security competition. What has not escaped most in the rest of the world is how SO few in the West have the honesty and courage to admit this. How can the huge contradictions of Western rhetoric and actions be reconciled otherwise?

To get a cure of cognitive dissonance on the subject, and the tools to identify mistakes and real culprits any future Zellensky would be wise to adopt, one could do worse than ponder Mearsheimer's "5 basic assumptions" here starting at 6:40 - conveniently, it is also the first part of a superlative assessment and Q&A of these issues.

What?

I didn't even mention western intervention. WTF are you talking about?

Given that you are quoting my post and then going off on your own tangent about western intervention in other countries, then your post is PURE whataboutery.

Geo-politics is about influence and stability. NATO intervened in Yugoslavia because the turmoil was on Western Europe's doorstep. Every country pays great attention to wars in neighbouring countries because they are inevitably affected. The same is true with Ukraine. It borders Poland. Poland borders Kaliningrad. The consequences of ignoring Russian expansionism are pretty obvious.

Does anybody believe the invasion of Iraq was a moral act? I don't think so. But it has little bearing on anything. Geo-politics is by its very nature hypocritical.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Does anybody believe the invasion of Iraq was a moral act?

Blair did.

 

[multitool]

Blair did.

I doubt it. I think he thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat to US oil hegemony and by extension a threat to UK interests.

 

[Deleted member 49]

I doubt it. I think he thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat to US oil hegemony and by extension a threat to UK interests.

Blair was lobbying for Putin to become President of Russia when so-called "Putin-apologist" Jeremy Corbyn was condemning him for war crimes in Chechnya.
On morals...
"Mr Blair keeps telling us that he wouldn't be going to war if he didn't think it was moral. He wouldn't be doing it if his Christian conscience wasn't clear. He says he genuinely believes he's right. He's not doing it for ulterior or craven motives. He would be sleeping soundly if he wasn't making all those telephone calls."

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

What?

I didn't even mention western intervention. WTF are you talking about?

Given that you are quoting my post and then going off on your own tangent about western intervention in other countries, then your post is PURE whataboutery.

Geo-politics is about influence and stability. NATO intervened in Yugoslavia because the turmoil was on Western Europe's doorstep. Every country pays great attention to wars in neighbouring countries because they are inevitably affected. The same is true with Ukraine. It borders Poland. Poland borders Kaliningrad. The consequences of ignoring Russian expansionism are pretty obvious.

Does anybody believe the invasion of Iraq was a moral act? I don't think so. But it has little bearing on anything. Geo-politics is by its very nature hypocritical.

I brought up Western interventions because your comments were moralisitc, idealistic nonsense, e.g.:

- Russia invaded a sovereign country. That really is the end of it. There is no reason why Ukraine should "compromise".

- You mention Mearsheimer, but his position is essentially to deny Ukraine self-determination.

Geopolitics is not about morals or ideals because nothing can make major powers pay for their crimes - I brought up those wars waged by the West to prove the shallowness of those comments, and worse they mirror the West's current shamelessly hypocritical rhetoric. How is that whatabouterism?

But perhaps my "whatabouterism" worked! Not unreasonably, you now say "Geo-politics is by its very nature hypocritical." and "Geo-politics is about influence and stability. NATO intervened in Yugoslavia because the turmoil was on Western Europe's doorstep."

But if NATO couldn't tolerate turmoil in Yugoslavia and took military actions leading to its breakup, what made you think Russia could/should tolerate "turmoil" in Ukraine - including Russian speaking Ukrainians being pushed to the East and slaughtered in Donbas, at Russia's doorstep, by a Ukrainian army trained and armed by the West since 2014?

Or are you now accepting that given the circumstance, predictably Russia walked all over Ukraine's sovereignty and self-determination? Or is there one rule for the goose, and another for the gander?

 

[multitool]

The war in the east is a Russian separatist war, sponsored by Russia and started by separatists. Russia could easily have "compromised" by offering the ethnic Russians some land. It is not like Russia is short of land. But no. You prefer that Russia annexes Crimea (not ethnically Russian) then attempts to annex the entire country (not ethnically Russian) via all-out invasion with Putin actually telling you that he believes the entire country of Ukraine should be owned by Russia. Do you not believe Putin's own words?

Are you mad, bro?

 

[multitool]

I mean, have you not bothered to watch Russian TV?


View: https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1625195276993544193?s=20&t=G6YrH7j1d8wrNBcPwWk6lQ

 

[the snail]

I brought up Western interventions because your comments were moralisitc, idealistic nonsense, e.g.:

- Russia invaded a sovereign country. That really is the end of it. There is no reason why Ukraine should "compromise".

Do you ever take a moment to think about what you are posting. The rights of a sovereign nation are not "idealistic nonsense", they are the bedrock of international law. Meershawmer may be a professor, but his analysis of this conflict a seriously flawed imo, and the way you and he swallow putin's justifications is pitiful frankly.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

The war in the east is a Russian separatist war, sponsored by Russia and started by separatists. Russia could easily have "compromised" by offering the ethnic Russians some land. It is not like Russia is short of land. But no. You prefer that Russia annexes Crimea (not ethnically Russian) then attempts to annex the entire country (not ethnically Russian) via all-out invasion with Putin actually telling you that he believes the entire country of Ukraine should be owned by Russia. Do you not believe Putin's own words?

Are you mad, bro?

For a moment I thought you got the gist. If you can't learn some simple principles I served you on a plate, you certainly wouldn't know what I think or prefer.

You are again looking at this conflict as if it matters which side is right or wrong, black or white. Not only does that depend on point of view, it actually hardly matters because great power politics is largely governed by the law of the jungle, as my last two posts explained / proved.

FWIW, given geopolitics is anarchic, a national leader has to be wise to that to pick paths that are best for their country and citizen (and hopefully the planet too). In this proxy war none did, but it should be obvious to even a simpleton that Zellensky took the biscuit - that, is Ukraine's tragedy.

Do you ever take a moment to think about what you are posting. The rights of a sovereign nation are not "idealistic nonsense", they are the bedrock of international law. Meershawmer may be a professor, but his analysis of this conflict a seriously flawed imo, and the way you and he swallow putin's justifications is pitiful frankly.

You are absolutely correct that sovereignty is a bedrock of international law, but how effectively has it been upheld? By whom? If it matters as much as you say, a string of US presidents and UK PMs would be in clink by now, if not at the end of nooses in place of Saddam, Gaddafi, etc. found themselves. Trillions of $s/£s should have to be paid for compensation too... Am I wrong? How so?

The two fundamental mistakes you have made are: 1) you have subconsciously equated geopolitics with living in a society where there is some semblance of rule of law which by and large reflects morality, and 2) you have accepted what your political leaders and the mass media say hook, line and sinker - which is why the vast majority around the world aren't on "our side". You say I have accepted Putin's justifications - I actually think he need not justify anything to us (who is going to judge and sentence him?), all that mattered was whether he and his people (not you or I) felt adequately threatened by Western primarily US' hostility and acts over time, to the point where he felt he was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't.

Instead of just saying Meresheimer's analysis is flawed, please do tell why with some relevant facts and logic.

 

[multitool]

I don't think you bother to read people's posts.

 

[stowie]

Let's assume that Putin's primary motivation for the Ukraine war is security of Russian borders. I don't believe this, and think it is much more to do with Putin's narcissistic desire for a legacy harking back to the USSR but it is worth considering this motivation.

Russia has a geographic problem on the western border and has done for centuries. Defending it is incredibly difficult and impossible for Russia with its poor infrastructure.

Occupation of Ukraine does nothing for Russian western border security. It would merely be a stepping stone to get to the countries that would provide geographic security.

To provide Russia with geographic security would take most of Eastern Europe and quite possibly a bit out of Western Europe as well. And it would have to be assumed that for Russia to be secure these areas would need to have administrations highly compliant and dependent upon Russia and Putin.

To give Russia a feeling of security would require approximately 180M people living under regimes similar to that in Belarus.

 

[multitool]

I don't believe this, and think it is much more to do with Putin's narcissistic desire for a legacy harking back to the USSR

Well Putin has said it is exactly this.