Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[MTF]

And even if they were in a position to do something. What are the actual strategic benefits?

The US especially, and France/UK to a slightly lesser degree, are status quo powers. They designed this world order after the end of WWII, and for Eastern Europe specifically got a re-design after the demise of the USSR. In this order Ukraine was supposed to have sovereignty. Their strategic play overall is just to keep the order. It's uninspiring but its what you do when you're a status quo power.

I think because Ukraine means much more to Russia than it does to NATO, Russia will ultimately take this round. But even a status quo power does have to decide at what point they will commit force merely to keep the existing order, again as uninspiring and seemingly not beneficial it seems.

Also put another way, if this for some reason were a smaller non-nuclear state instead of Russia threatening a country not in NATO/any other alliance, then the US would react more forcefully even if the benefit is nothing more than just keeping status quo, because the costs to them would be much lower.

 

[Denis79]

And I can't dislike all of those things? Plus I can't complain that this situation also has implications on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

I dislike this as well and hope this shit calms down fast as feck but the main argument around this has been "Ukraine's sovereignty" which I'm saying is a hypocritical argument.

 

[Raoul]

It was @berbatrick's point. We do not have to deal with hypothetical scenarios when we have historical and current scenarios to draw from where the US does exactly what Russia is doing right now. I merely agree with Berbatrick.

These are all outdated scenarios that have zero applicability in the present. All kinds of bad things happened in previous generations, none of which are useful in resolving the current crisis of Russia imminently invading Europe.

 

[Denis79]

Honest question - do you think NATO would let Russia invade Ukraine and topple a democratic government whilst standing by doing nothing (other than supply them with weapons - which they probably don't know how to operate)?

I just can't see that happening

Ofcourse they will. Nato will not risk an armed altercation with Russia for a non-member. I'm 100% sure about this.

 

[MTF]

I dislike this as well and hope this shit calms down fast as feck but the main argument around this has been "Ukraine's sovereignty" which I'm saying is a hypocritical argument.

Why is it hypocritical? Why can I not say that Ukraine should have a right to sovereignty (even if that sovereignty might cease to exist in practice in a few months), because the US has violated other countries' sovereignty in the past? I am not the United States, I am just me.

 

[Raoul]

Every discussion around Russia has to devolve into ’oh yeah but the US is bad too’. It’s a Caf rule.

Which is usually accompanied by someone proclaiming hypocrisy due to things that happened will before most of the CAF were born.

 

[neverdie]

These are all outdated scenarios that have zero applicability in the present. All kinds of bad things happened in previous generations, none of which are useful in resolving the current crisis of Russia imminently invading Europe.

OK, but then what about the Middle East? The US support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt during the Arab Spring. Its current support of Sisi in Egypt right now? These are brutal autocracies which crushed democratic movements with the consent and help of the United States because the US saw its strategic interests as aligned (and still aligned) with the autocratic ruling classes of those countries. That is not outdated, but very much current.

Similarly, the ruling class in Ukraine which America is currently supporting is essentially neo-fascist. That is also current (the topic we're talking about right now, and confirmed as such via UN reports). None of this is whataboutism, it all bears directly on the topic at hand (at least if people insist on simplifying to "good" versus "bad" or "democracy must be upheld" and other such tropes that have begun and maintained war action in the past, present, and threatens to do so in the future).

Wouldn't it just be more honest to say that the US does horrendous things to maintain military and economic status quo and that Russia does the same kinds of horrendous things to maintain its own status quo, also? To discuss what is happening in terms of why the states involved are actually involved instead of talking about democracy, will of the people, and morality, all of which is secondary at best and in many cases entirely irrelevant.

 

[Denis79]

Why is it hypocritical? Why can I not say that Ukraine should have a right to sovereignty (even if that sovereignty might cease to exist in practice in a few months), because the US has violated other countries' sovereignty in the past? I am not the United States, I am just me.

Fair enough, but I would say most people will let the US do the same thing Russia is doing now without even raising an eyebrow. I'm not saying you but the majority would.

 

[Raoul]

OK, but then what about the Middle East? The US support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt during the Arab Spring. Its current support of Sisi in Egypt right now? These are brutal autocracies which crushed democratic movements with the consent and help of the United States because the US saw its strategic interests as aligned (and still aligned) with the autocratic ruling classes of those countries. That is not outdated, but very much current.

Similarly, the ruling class in Ukraine which America is currently supporting is essentially neo-fascist. That is also current (the topic we're talking about right now, and confirmed as such via UN reports). None of this is whataboutism, it all bears directly on the topic at hand (at least if people insist on simplifying to "good" versus "bad" or "democracy must be upheld" and other such tropes that have begun and maintained war action in the past, present, and threatens to do so in the future).

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Russian imminently invading Ukraine ?

 

[JPRouve]

Every discussion around Russia has to devolve into ’oh yeah but the US is bad too’. It’s a Caf rule.

I think that it is relevant when people are essentially asked to take a side based on moral grounds more than interests. On moral grounds you have to consider that the US, France or the UK are on the scumbags team, the fact that it's my team doesn't erase the fact that they are all morally bankrupt and generally conniving. That reality means that whenever we have a situation like the current one, I have to questions what serves my interest and the interests of my fellow citizens but also why are these cnuts(France, the US and the UK) talking the side that they are currently taking because it sure as hell isn't for moral or democratic reasons, since we all know that they don't care about that at all.

 

[neverdie]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Russian imminently invading Ukraine ?

"Wouldn't it just be more honest to say that the US does horrendous things to maintain military and economic status quo and that Russia does the same kinds of horrendous things to maintain its own status quo, also? To discuss what is happening in terms of why the states involved are actually involved instead of talking about democracy, will of the people, and morality, all of which is secondary at best and in many cases entirely irrelevant."

Amended part of above post. If we've moved beyond the morality (NATO good, Russia bad, this is all about democracy) aspect, then I'll happily concede.

 

[Raoul]

"Wouldn't it just be more honest to say that the US does horrendous things to maintain military and economic status quo and that Russia does the same kinds of horrendous things to maintain its own status quo, also? To discuss what is happening in terms of why the states involved are actually involved instead of talking about democracy, will of the people, and morality, all of which is secondary at best and in many cases entirely irrelevant."

Amended part of above post. If we've moved beyond the morality (NATO good, Russia bad, this is all about democracy) aspect, then I'll happily concede.

I don't know which military or economic status quo you're referring to ?

 

[11101]

Honest question - do you think NATO would let Russia invade Ukraine and topple a democratic government whilst standing by doing nothing (other than supply them with weapons - which they probably don't know how to operate)?

I just can't see that happening

They've done it before and they will do it again.

The only calculation going on in the corridors of US government is how much they can tolerate Russia expanding it's borders right up to their NATO Allies. Morals won't come into it, though they will be wheeled out as a justification if they do decide to react.

 

[neverdie]

I think that it is relevant when people are essentially asked to take a side based on moral grounds more than interests. On moral grounds you have to consider that the US, France or the UK are on the scumbags team, the fact that it's my team doesn't erase the fact that they are all morally bankrupt and generally conniving. That reality means that whenever we have a situation like the current one, I have to questions what serves my interest and the interests of my fellow citizens but also why are these cnuts(France, the US and the UK) talking the side that they are currently taking because it sure as hell isn't for moral or democratic reasons, since we all know that they don't care about that at all.

Exactly. That's my position. Not that Russia is good/bad, or US good/bad, but that it is about self-interest and good/bad almost never matters. Which makes me question any military action from a different frame of reference (especially when such is sold on moral grounds).

I don't know which military or economic status quo you're referring to ?

The Russian's north-western border buttressed by Belarusia and Ukraine, is the primary issue. If Ukraine falls, or is unstable, the Russian border becomes more unstable, too (than it already is).

For the US, the Middle East and general anti-Russian, anti-Chinese military manouvers (Iran, China, and Russia are currently undergoing joint naval exercises in that - Iranian - region). Also, the Belt and Road initiative which the US wants to counter in any way it can.

More generally again, I am talking about Western (US) hegemony and its potential to fade within this century. How the US has eight hundred military bases around the world and Russia, China, and so on can barely muster a dozen between them (Russia has three, I think).

 

[The Firestarter]

OK, but then what about [...]

Every post you made can be shortened to this line. It will be hard to find more than two posters here who condone what the US did under pretext for "war on terror". That has no relation to the situation in Ukraine, unless you are of the opinion that Russia is owed the right to one more invasion , and the Ukrainians should have no voice n this whatsoever.

 

[Rektsanwalt]

Every post you made can be shortened to this line. It will be hard to find more than two posters here who condone what the US did under pretext for "war on terror". That has no relation to the situation in Ukraine, unless you are of the opinion that Russia is owed the right to one more invasion , and the Ukrainians should have no voice n this whatsoever.

which is funny because "whataboutism" became popular as a term to describe russian propaganda methods and rhetorical patterns

 

[Raoul]

The Russian's north-western border buttressed by Belarusia and Ukraine, is the primary issue. If Ukraine falls, or is unstable, the Russian border becomes more unstable, too (than it already is).

This sounds like a good argument as to why Putin should not destabilize Ukraine by invading it.

More generally again, I am talking about Western (US) hegemony and its potential to fade within this century. How the US has eight hundred military bases around the world and Russia, China, and so on can barely muster a dozen between them (Russia has three, I think).

Empires come and go over time. That's a natural thing that happens at various times throughout history. The US has bases around the world because it has bilateral agreements with the nations where those bases are (ie., they are there by invitation).

 

[neverdie]

Every post you made can be shortened to this line. It will be hard to find more than two posters here who condone what the US did under pretext for "war on terror". That has no relation to the situation in Ukraine, unless you are of the opinion that Russia is owed the right to one more invasion , and the Ukrainians should have no voice n this whatsoever.

The current situation in the ME and with China, Russia, Iran has a direct relation on this thread. Also, the neo-fascist Ukranian sections supported by NATO also bear directly.

Looking at an event like this in isolation is not intelligent. Many things related to it, directly and indirectly, are happening simultaneously.

 

[Raoul]

which is funny because "whataboutism" became popular as a term to describe russian propaganda methods and rhetorical patterns

100%.

 

[neverdie]

This sounds like a good argument as to why Putin should not destabilize Ukraine by invading it.

More generally again, I am talking about Western (US) hegemony and its potential to fade within this century. How the US has eight hundred military bases around the world and Russia, China, and so on can barely muster a dozen between them (Russia has three, I think).

Empires come and go over time. That's a natural thing that happens a various times throughout history. The US has bases around the world because it has bilateral agreements with the nations where those bases are (ie., they are there by invitation).

I think we probably agree on the issue of motive because you have always viewed international events from within the dominance hierarchy standpoint and my point of view is quite close to that here. We will most likely just disagree on the issue of framing and whether it is problematic to frame war as moral instead of self interest.

I agree on your last point.

 

[Ramshock]

Look at Northern Ireland. Is that a British-identifying area or British? Because the population split was less than 75-25 when the annexation occurred and is 50-50 as of now. Is it a sovereign nation? Not really, but isn't it better than the alternative? The relentless and never ending civil war?

I have to note that you're right but also wrong - they are Russian nationals intermixed with Russian-Ukranians. That is, many of these people have dual passports and many just have Russian passports, so you're point is only half accurate.

Uh........what?

 

[The Firestarter]

The current situation in the ME and with China, Russia, Iran has a direct relation on this thread. Also, the neo-fascist Ukranian sections supported by NATO also bear directly.

Looking at an event like this in isolation is not intelligent. Many things related to it, directly and indirectly, are happening simultaneously.

Russia wanting control of Ukraine has no relation to ME or Iran.

 

[Ramshock]

No one really knows but best case scenario would be security talks which addressed the right of Ukraine to maintain its own course but also denies it the right of NATO membership. Ukraine is split like 75-25 with the Russian areas being in the east and centre and the dominant Ukranian areas being in the West. Around Kiev and so on. Russia doesn't want to invade Ukraine because it would cause enormous losses. But if Ukraine attacks Russian areas, there might be a response.

Jaw jaw is better than war war in this scenario, too.

thank feck Neville Chamberlain is dead then

 

[Ramshock]

Look at Northern Ireland. Is that a British-identifying area or British? Because the population split was less than 75-25 when the annexation occurred and is 50-50 as of now. Is it a sovereign nation? Not really, but isn't it better than the alternative? The relentless and never ending civil war?

I have to note that you're right but also wrong - they are Russian nationals intermixed with Russian-Ukranians. That is, many of these people have dual passports and many just have Russian passports, so you're point is only half accurate.

Thats your two choices? The current state or civil war?

You arent from around these parts are you?

 

[Simbo]

Honest question - do you think NATO would let Russia invade Ukraine and topple a democratic government whilst standing by doing nothing (other than supply them with weapons - which they probably don't know how to operate)?

I just can't see that happening

I agree,

Ofcourse they will. Nato will not risk an armed altercation with Russia for a non-member. I'm 100% sure about this.

I'm the opposite 100% sure there would be intervention, assuming we're talking about a full conquest of Ukraine.

There are levels that Putin could go to which would meet different responses, as Biden has already alluded to.

An attempt to take over the entire country however... There is no scenario we can compare this to since the German invasions of Czech Republic and Poland, people seem to be under the impression it'll be another Crimea or something. Ukraine can't be taken overnight, it would require a sustained campaign utilising all the brutality of modern warfare, the bodycount could enter the millions. We arn't sitting back and watching that all unfold on live TV. The pressure will mount the second civilian casualties enter the hundreds, never mind the thousands and beyond.

I remind that NATO countries can act on their own accord, alone or with others. Poland, Czechia, Lithuania, etc could decide to send in Troops if they wanted to, or aid in air support. Nobody in Ukraine is asking for troop reinforcement however.

For the reasons above, I hightly doubt there will be a full scale invasion.

 

[neverdie]

Uh........what?

The "troubles", or the civil war. And sovereignty I mean the border and GFA in general. How the border is an issue and will remain one indefinitely. Something similar could be negotiated in the Ukraine.

 

[Ramshock]

Every discussion around Russia has to devolve into ’oh yeah but the US is bad too’. It’s a Caf rule.

Hey its okay, just wait another century and that can be all forgot about just like the good old British empire which didnt do anything bad your honour!!

 

[neverdie]

Thats your two choices? The current state or civil war?

I don't imply the civil war is current, I imply that it doesn't exist because of a bipartisan negotiation between various states which produced the framework for the GFA.

 

[Ramshock]

The "troubles", or the civil war. And sovereignty I mean the border and GFA in general. How the border is an issue and will remain one indefinitely. Something similar could be negotiated in the Ukraine.

Yeah no theres another option and also there is a valid practical reason the IRA gave up the armed struggle and it would be the same reason that loyalism wouldnt be able to mount much of a struggle post a New Ireland.

 

[Ramshock]

I don't imply the civil war is current, I imply that it doesn't exist because of a bipartisan negotiation between various states which produced the framework for the GFA.

Yes but thats not the only two options

 

[Simbo]

I think that it is relevant when people are essentially asked to take a side based on moral grounds more than interests. On moral grounds you have to consider that the US, France or the UK are on the scumbags team, the fact that it's my team doesn't erase the fact that they are all morally bankrupt and generally conniving. That reality means that whenever we have a situation like the current one, I have to questions what serves my interest and the interests of my fellow citizens but also why are these cnuts(France, the US and the UK) talking the side that they are currently taking because it sure as hell isn't for moral or democratic reasons, since we all know that they don't care about that at all.

This is Ukraine vs Russia, not the West vs Russia.

 

[JPRouve]

This is Ukraine vs Russia, not the West vs Russia.

In that case why are we talking about Nato and whether it should be involved or not?

 

[neverdie]

Yes but thats not the only two options

What are the other options, then? How could they be implemented within the Ukraine? I think a GFA type deal could work in Ukraine, but much different according to sections. I'm not saying a direct replica, but a formal similarity.

 

[Ramshock]

What are the other options, then? How could they be implemented within the Ukraine? I think a GFA type deal could work in Ukraine, but much different according to sections. I'm not saying a direct replica, but a formal similarity.

I just think it was a poor comparison at best and I am very particular when someone uses the place where I live in comparisons. The other option is the democratic mandate enabled by the GFA which means an island wide referendum can be triggered in the event of a willing nationalist majority in the North which is within reach in my opinion.

 

[neverdie]

I just think it was a poor comparison at best and I am very particular when someone uses the place where I live in comparisons. The other option is the democratic mandate enabled by the GFA which means an island wide referendum can be triggered in the event of a willing nationalist majority in the North which is within reach in my opinion.

I agree with that but I see that majority as being a problem. When the border poll is called, unionist sectarianism will surely rise? That's why I see NI as a kind of perpetual border problem because technically only a majority is needed but practically you'll need a majority of unionists, too, or else you'll have a rerun of the troubles except with the sides inverted and that is what everyone wants to avoid. But this is probably legitimate "whataboutism" on my part so I won't continue it.

 

[The Firestarter]

That's what Putin bots do, derail every thread into oblivion.

 

[Simbo]

In that case why are we talking about Nato and whether it should be involved or not?

Well firstly its mainly a Russian propoganda talking point to frame it all as Russia vs NATO. Their work is very effective, so that theme bleeds into western media and the people that digest it (me/you).

Secondly if anyone is going to help Ukraine, it is going to be countries that just so happen to be members of NATO, so its easier to just say NATO?

Thirdly, there is a genuine element of increased threat to NATO members in this scenario that may cause them to act in some way.

 

[JPRouve]

Well firstly its mainly a Russian propoganda talking point to frame it all as Russia vs NATO. Their work is very effective, so that theme bleeds into western media and the people that digest it (me/you).

Secondly if anyone is going to help Ukraine, it is going to be countries that just so happen to be members of NATO, so its easier to just say NATO?

Thirdly, there is a genuine element of increased threat to NATO members in this scenario that may cause them to act in some way.

Who are the countries that you are referring to?

 

[neverdie]

Well firstly its mainly a Russian propoganda talking point to frame it all as Russia vs NATO. Their work is very effective, so that theme bleeds into western media and the people that digest it (me/you).

Russian propaganda works opposite to this. Russia likes to frame NATO action as being only the US and maybe the UK.

It is the US which likes to frame its moves as NATO inspired or motivated. You can see that now by reading the new york times, the post, or watching any number of press conferences.

 

[TheReligion]

Who are these Nato pilots?

The Red Baron and Ace Rimmer are en-route I’ve heard