War with Russia

[bobzmyunkle]

You sure you aren't just a sore loser who took the wrong side of the argument?

Right and wrong? Black and white?
Good and evil?

 

[Milzy]

I don’t think it’s healthy you guys arguing over this. There’s the fog of war and lots of propaganda and censorship. Only the very top brass knows exactly what’s going on. You’d be better on the Israel conflict thread which is more transparent.

 

[Deleted member 121]

Not so long ago you would have protested screaming and kicking when I said you all were actually cheering the warmongers in an unwinnable war at a huge self-inflicted cost. Now, not a single counter argument is made as events have demonstrated none can be made.

You could have 1) admitted it, 2) kept mum, or 3) reacted like a sore loser like you have - I am not the one who told you the porkies you believe(d) in. Can't say I am surprised.

I have literally ZERO inclination to interact with YOU in a meaningful way. You put words into peoples mouths, you make wildly incorrect assumptions about other posters and you have massive delusions of grandeur. My opinions on this war, which im amazed you even call it that BTW, have not changed and are certainly not impacted by the spewed mince that i see on my screen from yourself.

 

[stowie]

Think you are imagining I ever suggested Russia invaded to "securing it's Western border".

Russia's principal demand has long been for Ukraine to stay neutral, in particular committing not to join NATO (or for NATO to agree not to admit Ukraine). It sounds like you have gone down some rabbit hole like land topology, a bit like a tabletop wargame to me...

Why do you think Russia wants Ukraine to "remain Neutral"?

The NATO expansion argument rests upon NATO expansion causing Russia to invade Ukraine as a defensive measure - that is to provide a buffer between NATO in the West and Russia in the East. That is what is meant by securing its Western border. Similar to the position of Finland until recently.

The irony is that Ukranian governments after 2010 - both pre and post Maidan revolution - had stated they intended on NOT joining NATO. It was only after Russia invaded in 2014 that the Ukraine government talked about NATO membership again. Pre 2010, Ukraine had an express intention to join NATO, which was backed initially by US presidential candidates and Bush, but Bush government pulled back from MAP in 2008 alongside other NATO countries that were highly sceptical throughout (and NATO membership needs unanimous agreement).

The double irony is that - if Russia's goal was indeed keeping NATO from its borders - then it has failed at pretty much every level. Finland joining has added over 1000km of border, which is difficult for Russia to defend, plus the addition of highly trained, sophisticated armed forces which were already at a high level of integration with NATO equipment. Russia has been re-deploying troops from the Finnish border into Ukraine area which probably shows better than anything that Putin isn't considering NATO invasion as a serious concern.

 

[the snail]

...

The double irony is that - if Russia's goal was indeed keeping NATO from its borders - then it has failed at pretty much every level. Finland joining has added over 1000km of border, which is difficult for Russia to defend...

It didn't really need to defend against NATO, there is zero chance of NATO invading Russia. The west were more than happy to live peacefully with Russia, buy their gas and oil, invest in their industry, and reduce defence spending post cold war. The invasion of Ukraine is a massive own-goal by Putin, driven by his imperial fantasies and fragile ego.

 

[Deleted member 121]

It didn't really need to defend against NATO, there is zero chance of NATO invading Russia. The west were more than happy to live peacefully with Russia, buy their gas and oil, invest in their industry, and reduce defence spending post cold war. The invasion of Ukraine is a massive own-goal by Putin, driven by his imperial fantasies and fragile ego.

Curse the "buffer zone" countries who want to choose prosperity over impecuniousness, living in knackered old five floor commie blocks with a D-20 152mm 1940's Artillery piece shell to finish off their crumbling home for daring to put a pen to paper with a vague hope that they really can change their lives for the better.

Curses, the lot of em...

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Right and wrong? Black and white?
Good and evil?

Dunno, you tell me - you are the one who offered no argument, only personal attack.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

The double irony is that - if Russia's goal was indeed keeping NATO from its borders - then it has failed at pretty much every level. Finland joining has added over 1000km of border, which is difficult for Russia to defend, plus the addition of highly trained, sophisticated armed forces which were already at a high level of integration with NATO equipment. Russia has been re-deploying troops from the Finnish border into Ukraine area which probably shows better than anything that Putin isn't considering NATO invasion as a serious concern.

You think Finland in NATO is significant, when NATO overreach in Ukraine and Western gunboat diplomacy at the Taiwan Strait have succeeded in cementing a military and energy superpower to another military and sole industrial superpower? Meanwhile, having witnessed "our" defeat by sandal wearers on mopeds, how can the World not be entertained by us slowly and surely losing this proxy war and abandoning our pawn to an army supposedly reliant on scavenging washing machine parts? You think Germany, let alone Finland, hasn't succeeded in self harm with their own version of Brexit, and isn't learning their expensive lesson?

Then there is the spectacle of 5 million elves, known for little except their saunas, "democratically" joining Team Orcs now famous for arming and defending Holocaust Mk2, while NATO's very existence is at risk at every future US presidential election, not least the one in November.

Doesn't Finland sound like scraping the barrel for copium to you?

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Russia has a historic issue with its Western Frontier. It is impossible for Russia to defend with its infrastructure due to the geography (its very flat). Russia has historically managed this by controlling other countries to create pinch points in the geography. Controlling Ukraine does no good at all in securing this border, it would need all of Eastern Europe and part of Germany to create an effective frontier that Russia could defend.

It isn't my opinion. It is geography. If we assume you are correct and that Russia is invading Ukraine to secure it's western border then just invading Ukraine does nothing to further this goal. Because Ukraine is also very flat and open to invasion (as has been seen...).

The NATO expansion argument rests upon NATO expansion causing Russia to invade Ukraine as a defensive measure - that is to provide a buffer between NATO in the West and Russia in the East. That is what is meant by securing its Western border. Similar to the position of Finland until recently.

I was hoping not having to shine too much light on this rabbit hole you got yourself into. But since you insist on repeating this same argument over and over...

Essentially, what you are saying is:

If Ukraine is an adequate geographical buffer, it could be useful for Russian security.
Ukraine is not an adequate geographical buffer, therefore it couldn't be useful for Russian security.

Your argument is analogous to:

If Stowie is Ukrainian, he is a European.
Stowie is not Ukrainian, therefore he is not a European.

Such fabulous 'logic' has been used by snake oil salesmen since the beginning of time. Your argument is non sequitur, a formal fallacy.

If still not obvious, Ukraine being a red line to Russia could be influenced by its ethnic composition, its historic connection, its size, it being the last straw after successive NATO expansions despite the "not one inch" assurance, etc., etc. The key though is it should be obvious even to a teenager that Russian opinion is all that matters on this issue, not what you, or I, or Biden might believe/speculate - i.e. your argument on this point is not only logic nonsense, it is also a waste of time.

You have repeatedly avoided answering the simple questions I asked previously, why don't you just give clear and cogent answers to them?

 

[the snail]

...

If Ukraine is an adequate geographical buffer, it could be useful for Russian security.
Ukraine is not an adequate geographical buffer, therefore it couldn't be useful for Russian security.

...

No, that's not what he said. He said that Ukraine is not an adequate buffer. You criticise his logic, but can't even understand the simple point that you quoted.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

No, that's not what he said. He said that Ukraine is not an adequate buffer. You criticise his logic, but can't even understand the simple point that you quoted.

That is exactly what I said he says (repeatedly). I suggest you reread what I wrote.

 

[fozy tornip]

I trust we're talking about a Ramrod-Straight NATO Buffer?

 

[albion]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/23/poland-restoring-democracy-harder-donald-tusk

Nightmare stuff if you add the Hungarian problem onto the Trump problem onto the Brexit crisis.

 

[albion]

That US Jordan drone strike could easily be Putin's doing.
He will be busting a gut to get his mate elected president.

 

[Deleted member 121]

That US Jordan drone strike could easily be Putin's doing.
He will be busting a gut to get his mate elected president.

Well, im glad i read the "busting a gut" part twice...