Thanks for the detailed post. Appreciate it.
Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Like I said earlier, the cases have little in common. Ukraine has been democratic for a while (even under Yanukovich). Comparing that to Taliban era Afghanistan is therefore radically inappropriate.
I think there’s more quarrels between posters in this thread than there is between the Ruski’s and the Western Infidels.
I found out about the Iranian plane being shot down because it was covered extensively at the time as a major international controversy with possible retaliations from Iran, the UN Security Council being in session, and foreign governments including the UK caught up in the diplomatic aftermath. This was huge news at the time with the US election months away and in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war and was also part of Nat Geo's air crash investigation program aired five years before the Korean airline episode.
We already have a very recent precedent that the present situation shouldn't be casually brushed off as an alleged threat. It is a real threat to Ukraine, and by extension every neighboring country.
The idea that everyone aspire to be like western countries, to have the same political organizations or see the exercise of power the same way. There is also the strange idea that people outside of western countries need to be enlightened and that certain leaders are scared of it.
What do I think is a fact? In what context? In the context of this thread, I have read claims from the british and american governments but not much else.
Who remembers The Day Today and Its War episode? This crisis reminds me of that episode. Eat My Goal.
Pigdogs, surely?
Are you talking about the Malaysian Boeing? Because that wasn't Russia that did that, although it's easy to get confused in all of that mess. It was DNR militia that had Russian weapons. It's a very complicated hierarchy there since Russian soldiers aren't there officially so the usual chain of command is a bit broken, but DNR's forces are a separate entity. Also it does look (even from the Dutch investigation, which seems to be the most objective one on the matter) that it was a tragic accident or, rather, a case of a criminal negligence and complete incompetence — there are reports of the same guys boasting about shooting down a Ukrainian fighter jet that quickly died out when they found out what actually happened.
Russia did start a horrendous PR campaign to deflect the blame onto Ukraine, knowing fully well that it wasn't them who did it, so it's not like I'm saying that they shouldn't be held responsible, but in this particular case it was certainly not a political move by Putin. Although I'm pretty sure that if it was required of him, he would've given the order.
@berbatrick Still waiting on your reasoning why the annexation of Crimea can be consired somewhat understandable.?
It remains an alleged threat regardless of recent precedents. And maybe that only applies to me, I have no issue talking seriously about the topic while acknowledging that at the moment these are allegations.
It was Russian territory through the Tsars and the early USSR, and given away in the 50s. There was a civil war in Ukraine, with pro-Russians dominating in Crimea. Which makes sense given the apparently long-standing sentiments there: https://www.refworld.org/docid/469f38ec2.html
If you mean the troop buildup in BLR and RU , I came across some Ukrainian slides that provide similar dispositions (from December though). So the actual units are there, the only thing that is disputed on both sides are the exact locations and of course intentions. According to Russian media the locations are 100s of km away from the border, and the intention is "training exercises" both in BLR and RU. @harms can confirm about the location reporting.
When you have over 100,000 troops pointing their guns at your territory from borders on your northern, eastern, and southern flanks; then that's not an alleged threat. That is a real and tangible threat. It is literally the last step from an "alleged" invasion and annexation of another nation.
I think with the regards to whether they would go to war with Russia over Ukraine - there are many aspects to consider. Crimea and Ukraine are completely different situations. If NATO were to let Russia invade Ukraine, what is to stop them doing it to the remaining nations that used to be part of the USSR. Plus, with a population of 44m people, this could potentially result in millions dying, which the world just can't stop and ignore (and yes, I do get starting a bigger war would result in more deaths, but it's about stopping a tirant)
And I completely agree that the UK and France will have limited impact if it were to result in conflict. Even Europe combined, excluding the US, would struggle to contain a full on Russian assault should they chose to do so.
But it's not the first time, the same thing happened in April and it's also worth mentioning that the claim isn't even new it's from November.
And a very important point that I want to make. Russia have form for this, they do provocating exercises all the time, whether it is with the navy(they use subs to troll Nato members everywhere) or near their borders. A few years ago they did one with 300k troops. Nato has decided to reciprocate with the Navy and I wouldn't be surprised if they start doing it with the Air Force, if it's not already the case.
Of course I could be wrong but people need to take a step back and realize that these people do those things all year long, they lie and troll each others. I know that you follow military news, so I know that you are aware of Russia's ways which is one of the reasons why I do want to see the US and UK answer the question that France asked, what make them believe that this is different to what Russia generally do?
The world fairly regularly sits back and watches wars wipe out enormous numbers of people. Did we see the US leap into action to stop the Second Congolese War? That one cost over 5 million lives. Does anyone even remember it? It happened only about 20 years ago and was the most deadly war since WW2. I don't recall anyone in the western world really giving a feck.
I understand that the region had troubled history. However, in 1994 it was recognised as part of Ukraine by all sides that signed the Budapest memorandum. Quoting the first two points:
And Congo is a massive strategic area, whoever controls it directly or indirectly is guaranteed to have rare earth and pretty much everything that we consider valuable.
Except the Ukrainian side, having recently experienced a Russian invasion, don't have the luxury of not taking troop buildups on their borders seriously. This would also be the case if Putin didn't invade recently. You just can't casually ignore or trivialize 100,000 troops pointing their guns onto Ukrainian land.
Bizarre that anyone would think that.It's amazing you're claiming Iran 665 is more famous than Koran 007.
It's amazing you're claiming Iran 665 is more famous than Koran 007.
Are you seriously using this as a retort? I lived through both incidents. One was significantly bigger news than the other globally and had significant diplomatic consequences. But in your mind that doesn't match up to an Irish guitarist (have you heard of him?), a Sri Lankan singer (have you heard of him?), an episode of a German TV show (have you heard of the show?), and three obscure video games -one of which is a card game. Are you serious?
Look if you weren't old enough or even born then that's ok. Learning about something years or decades after the event is the study of history and they say the people who lived through it see the first draft of history. I wasn't born when the Suez Canal crisis in the 1950s occured and it isn't something that is in "popular culture" and is yet historically a known event. The Cambridge Five spawned loads of popular culture media according to wikipedia but can you name all of them? Do you think the public can name even one of them?
First there isn't 100k troops pointing their guns onto Ukrainian land, yet. It is alleged since November that 100k troops are supposed to move to the border and it is also alleged that an invasion could happen between late January and early February.
While it's fair to take the potential threat seriously, it's not correct to be alarmist and claim that the threat is imminent without providing anything to support it. As far as I can see that's what has come out of Ukraine in the last 24 hours with questions about why the US and UK have taken the stance and tone they took.
https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/features-60112868
Had it stuck in my head since reading this thread yesterday.
Not convinced everyone here believes the Russians do love their children too.
One of the most important developments in the Cold War and a major diplomatic and espionage events was when US airman Gary Powers was shot down during his spying mission in Soviet airspace and captured. But I suppose because his "in popular culture" section on wiki is so short it really was no big deal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers
I'm hoping. Believing in the paternal instinct of mankind as a species.
They might have not had serious intentions initially but Putin sort of backed himself into the corner with these ultimatums and demands. He was told to feck off and mind his own business on a worldwide stage after acting billy big bullocks, if he retreats now he will be seen as even bigger clown domestically than previously which he cannot afford really.
I dunno, as a European I don't want Russia thinking they can impose their will on European democracies. Ultimately you can sit here and make what sound like smart remarks about Russia == USA because of South America or something, or you can recognise that values are at the centre of it. What values should we preserve and what values do we defend? A European Democracy is being threatened with invasion and occupation by a dictatorship. Where do you stand on that?
I don't think that @berbatrick calls it legitimate or anything like that — he calls it understandable (or even somewhat understandable). From a legal point of view the case is not even that interesting. But historically Crimea has more ties with Russia than with Ukraine, it was given to Ukraine while both sides were parts of the same country for logistical reasons mostly (so that the water supply would come from the same republic) and a lot of Crimeans wanted to go back to Russia before the whole annexation thing. And that's certainly enough for it to be understandable — especially the last point.
I'm really wondering how I would've processed the potential return of Crimea if it wasn't done by a military coup but somewhat legitimately. Not that Ukraine would've ever allowed them to have an independent referendum... Obviously, the way that Putin handled everything didn't leave us with much choice of how to feel about the matter.
We can't let it happen but we need to make the consequences of it happening obvious to try and avoid the catastrophic outcome that will happen if Russia try to walk across Europe again.
It's pretty much one single man you have to put your hope in right now.
I didnt imply he called it legitimate - as its seen in my post you quoted. AFAIK the region already had some autonomy - even somewhat of a separate republic (maybe wrong on this particular point), so I can totally see Ukraine accepting breaking ties with Crimea if that was required for Putin's blessing for Ukraine joining the EU. Of course, you can't join the EU without NATO so thats a moot point. And Putin already played that card, so no going back.
There’s a few EU members who are not in NATO
Sweden , Finland, Cyprus I know about and its is understandable why, but didn't expect to see Austria and Ireland there.
For the last wave of members I thought it was more or less required.
That's the entire argument, isn't it? There are no real values involved except military positioning. If this wasn't the case NATO would have intervened in countless other wars on the side of "good" and "right" and that, historically, has not been the case.
Post-1991 when America/NATO was the sole power in the world, how many times did it go to war to help "good" or "morally correct"? I'm thinking of Rwanda, Congo, and countless other wars. Then I'm thinking about Iraq in 2003.
@harms thanks
Sure, it was not a result of a previous invasion because some saudi terrorist
We could argue as well that there was a legitimately referendum for annexing Crimea then?
We can bicker as much as you want. US pushes its influence legally and illegally, mostly the last one externally and Russia does the same. Will never be comparable because is not 100% the same case by case but like drugdealers motto, silver or lead is how these superpowers acts
Hypocrisy is valid when US and Russia are involved, how US-EU can ask something to Russia that is guilty to do the same during decades. And i will mention it as much as I see fit.
Seems like when US does it he has the right as a dominant superpower, no matter what (thats what you said to me) but seems that Russia can't huh
'
There was no legitimate referendum in Crimea. It was literally conducted at gunpoint with Russian troops walking the streets. This is why Crimea is still considered Ukrainian territory (or at best contested territory).
Precisely. The world is a dominance hierarchy and the most powerful state can do what it wants with little to no repercussions. Those below it do have to deal with the repercussions of their actions, and in the case of Russia, it will have to deal with not just the US, but a galvanized NATO who don't want authoritarian with nukes threatening their borders.