Ukraine
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
Why not? The West loves rogue States like the USA doing it.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
I don't see Poland being attacked. The issue is Ukraine.
You could have said the same about Ukraine when Russia invaded Georgia.
It's what I said, You've mistakenly inferred that by not agreeing to a request to join that means States aren't free to determine their own foreign and security policies. They aren't mutually exclusive. Ukraine could've been pro-West in it's outlook and NATO could still refuse them membership which negates the threat of NATO being on Russia's doorstep.
Not sure I've inferred anything. I simply said an independent country has every right to want to join NATO or the EU (without fear of invasion and killing of its citizens) but that doesn't obligate NATO or the EU to accept them.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
Why not? The West loves rogue States like the USA doing it.
Great whataboutery, but no cigar.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
I don't see Poland being attacked. The issue is Ukraine.
You could have said the same about Ukraine when Russia invaded Georgia.
I'd have said it about Georgia. NATO shouldn't have entertained it in 2006.
It's what I said, You've mistakenly inferred that by not agreeing to a request to join that means States aren't free to determine their own foreign and security policies. They aren't mutually exclusive. Ukraine could've been pro-West in it's outlook and NATO could still refuse them membership which negates the threat of NATO being on Russia's doorstep.
Not sure I've inferred anything. I simply said an independent country has every right to want to join NATO or the EU (without fear of invasion and killing of its citizens) but that doesn't obligate NATO or the EU to accept them.
Which is what I said originally. Remember you said 'And it certainly isn't up to any country - Western or Eastern - to arbitrarily decide whether a country is a neutral buffer zone or not'. Refusing Ukraine membership makes it a buffer zone.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
Why not? The West loves rogue States like the USA doing it.
Great whataboutery, but no cigar.
Ahh yes, throw out the old tu quoque fallacy rather than acknowledge the simple truth of the matter; if we conduct ourselves in one way, we have no grounds to complain that others do the same thing. We're dealing with the reality of realpolitik here, not sitting around singing kumbaya.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
Refusing Ukraine membership makes it a buffer zone.
Bit of a stretch to say not being a NATO member means a country is forced into being a neutral buffet zone.
-
So you're OK with Russia invading Ukraine and shelling civilians then as they disagree with Ukraine's policies.
No Im not just to be clear. I hoped Russia wouldn't invade. And was sure they wouldn't.
But Im just not an expert and will withdraw. Thanks for the reply
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
Why not? The West loves rogue States like the USA doing it.
Great whataboutery, but no cigar.
..if we conduct ourselves in one way, we have no grounds to complain that others do the same thing.
Totally agree with you. The only difference is I don't accept it's OK for countries like Russia to invade other countries any more than the US.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
Refusing Ukraine membership makes it a buffer zone.
Bit of a stretch to say not being a NATO member means a country is forced into being a neutral buffet zone.
That's the reality of the situation, so no, I don't think it is a stretch. If they can't become a NATO member, and aren't going to join Russia, what does that make them?
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
Why not? The West loves rogue States like the USA doing it.
Great whataboutery, but no cigar.
..if we conduct ourselves in one way, we have no grounds to complain that others do the same thing.
Totally agree with you. The only difference is I don't accept it's OK for countries like Russia to invade other countries any more than the US.
Recognising the reality does not mean I'm "OK" with it thanks very much. I've always been non-interventionist. I said we shouldn't go into Iraq, that we should leave Afghanistan, that we had no business in Syria, Libya etc.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
We've been doing that with Crimea, Georgia and Syria and it hasn't worked out very well, has it?
Yes (in some situations).
So please provide a list of the disposable countries. Are you volunteering yours?
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
Refusing Ukraine membership makes it a buffer zone.
Bit of a stretch to say not being a NATO member means a country is forced into being a neutral buffet zone.
That's the reality of the situation, so no, I don't think it is a stretch. If they can't become a NATO member, and aren't going to join Russia, what does that make them?
That may have been an arguable position before 2014 but Russia decided it had the right to annex part of Ukraine and did so with impunity. Quite clearly Russia isn't content to let Ukraine remain a disinterested buffer zone, they require that Ukraine accepts vassal state status.
Ukraine's understandable reaction to the Crimea annexation was to assume that what Russia had done once they may be disposed to do again, and believed an alliance might be a good idea to deter the possibility. Who can blame them?
I get that that fed into Russia's paranoia about Nato being on their borders. but at some stage we have to accept that we aren't responsible for the demons that live in other people's heads.
-
anyone else uncomfortable with Governments seizing private assets just because of where they are from?
-
@mariner4life a little bit yeah, unless they can prove some sort of direct connection to the russian government, its one thing to stop future business through sanctions, its another to take things earned when there were no sanctions
-
Well, that’s the al-Qaeda argument: you pay taxes, they argue, then you’re fair game. Don’t differentiate between a war machine and the pawns that bankroll it through their confiscated wages. It was only a matter of time before the West accepted the same psycho mentality.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
Refusing Ukraine membership makes it a buffer zone.
Bit of a stretch to say not being a NATO member means a country is forced into being a neutral buffet zone.
That's the reality of the situation, so no, I don't think it is a stretch. If they can't become a NATO member, and aren't going to join Russia, what does that make them?
That may have been an arguable position before 2014 but Russia decided it had the right to annex part of Ukraine and did so with impunity. Quite clearly Russia isn't content to let Ukraine remain a disinterested buffer zone, they require that Ukraine accepts vassal state status.
That statement ignores preceding events. It ignores the geostrategic shift in Russia no longer having a Black Sea Fleet with NATO having control through the Kerch Strait and no capable home for the Black Sea Fleet until they could make the necessary amendments to Novorossiysk.
Ukraine's understandable reaction to the Crimea annexation was to assume that what Russia had done once they may be disposed to do again, and believed an alliance might be a good idea to deter the possibility. Who can blame them?
I don't blame Ukraine at all. I blame NATO.
I get that that fed into Russia's paranoia about Nato being on their borders. but at some stage we have to accept that we aren't responsible for the demons that live in other people's heads.
Why else would NATO expand eastwards if not to resurrect the Iron Curtain closer to Russia?
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
Refusing Ukraine membership makes it a buffer zone.
Bit of a stretch to say not being a NATO member means a country is forced into being a neutral buffet zone.
That's the reality of the situation, so no, I don't think it is a stretch. If they can't become a NATO member, and aren't going to join Russia, what does that make them?
That may have been an arguable position before 2014 but Russia decided it had the right to annex part of Ukraine and did so with impunity. Quite clearly Russia isn't content to let Ukraine remain a disinterested buffer zone, they require that Ukraine accepts vassal state status.
That statement ignores preceding events. It ignores the geostrategic shift in Russia no longer having a Black Sea Fleet with NATO having control through the Kerch Strait and no capable home for the Black Sea Fleet until they could make the necessary amendments to Novorossiysk.
How is that at all relevant? That’s Ukraine’s fault is it? It justifies invading and annexing Crimea? It may have been a logical action from Russia’s point of view but Ukraine’s response was equally logical.
Ukraine's understandable reaction to the Crimea annexation was to assume that what Russia had done once they may be disposed to do again, and believed an alliance might be a good idea to deter the possibility. Who can blame them?
I don't blame Ukraine at all. I blame NATO.
For what? You don’t think the countries to Russian’s west that joined Nato might have been legitimately concerned that they needed a collective defence against Russian adventurism? Because I’m willing to bet that right now they’re think they were right to be concerned and thankful they joined.
I get that that fed into Russia's paranoia about Nato being on their borders. but at some stage we have to accept that we aren't responsible for the demons that live in other people's heads.
Why else would NATO expand eastwards if not to resurrect the Iron Curtain closer to Russia?
Nato is not an organism. It doesn’t expand autonomously, nations join it. States ask to join and the other members consider the request. Each nation state that makes that request does so of its own free will, and if we respect their sovereignty we also respect their right to conduct diplomacy however they see fit. At several points over the last 20 or so years Russia has raised the possibility of joining Nato. We’re they not entitled either?
Ukraine’s apparent guilt in all this is to have the temerity to ask and that in itself is enough for Russia to “free” them. I guess they should have known their place.
Realpolitik be damned, I don’t buy the “now look what you’ve made me do” response from bullies, whether they’re abusive husbands or failed states. Bullies are what they are, and rarely need a legitimate excuse to act like one. Trying to rationalise it is pandering.
-
Realpolitik be damned, I don’t buy the “now look what you’ve made me do” response from bullies, whether they’re abusive husbands or failed states. Bullies are what they are, and rarely need a legitimate excuse to act like one. Trying to rationalise it is pandering.
Why can't they (they meaning Russia and NATO members seeking to expand closer to Russia) both be wrong? (albeit the Russians being worse here because obviously they are the ones who invaded)
You act like NATO expansionism may have no underlying intent other than benevolent ones.
-
Kissinger (even Kissinger ffs!) said Gorbachev wouldn’t accept NATO on Russian borders. They saw it as a provocation the same way United States was prepared to wage war when Soviets had missile bases in Cuba. Paranoia on all sides. Probably didn’t help that four days before invasion VP Kamala Harris was telling Ukraine they’d be happy to bring them into NATO. I always hated Kissinger, but I’ll take his realpolitik over Harris’s reckless facepalm.