Ukraine
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
Yeah, it's working out well for them.
Sorry, but if a country wants to join NATO, the EU or whatever then it's up to them to ask - and there's no justification for other country to invade and cause mass civilian casualties.
Just because they ask doesn't mean their request should be entertained.
I did't argue that it should. I argued that threats of violence and actual violence if they did make a request were totally unjustifiable
But that's not the reality of the situation. If NATO wasn't expanding and providing consideration as early as 2008, there'd be no invasion.
It is the reality of the situation. You've just said that when you stated there'd be no invasion if countries like Poland hadn't applied to join NATO.
I don't see Poland being attacked. The issue is Ukraine.
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
Of course it is - by mutual agreement neither side will let them join their own private club.
Actually it isn't. I think you're confusing the right of an independent country to decide it's own foreign & security policies with that of other states agreeing to alliances with them.
I'm doing no such thing. An independent country can decide it's own foreign and security policies. That doesn't expand to an obligation on other countries to accede to those wishes.
Isn't that what I said?
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.
I understand that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a key driver of Uncle Vlad's actions. However, what I don't understand is why Russia is so threatened by this. I am not saying Russia should not be threatened by this - I am ambivalent about this - but I want understand why it is. I am very ignorant about the whole NATO / Russia thing, so if someone could explain or provide a link to an explanation that would be really appreciated.
There's so much more potential for trouble (and more trouble can be created) when your enemy (NATO) is right on your doorstep.
I don't think there is much appetite from the EU nations inside NATO to collectively decide to pick on Russia. As Trump pointed out, many if not all weren't meeting their military funding obligations as a percentage of GDP anyway.
What does the EU gain by trying to spark tensions? Nobody has successfully invaded Russia for a reason, and nor would they want to when the most valuable resources it has - gas and oil - can be pumped out of the joint without issue and are necessary for trade @ 60% of GDP.
Just sounds like Vlad is your typical KGB renaissance man. His oligarchs must be unhappy with his strategy. Its very bad for business
-
Interesting few days of good debate on this thread last few days. Here's my thoughts on a few comments:
@kiwiwomble said in Ukraine:
@winger dont we see all those western leaders get lambasted some way or other too? i dont think biden, boris or even scomo and jacinda have avoided some sort of inflammatory headline...and they havent invaded another country in the last few weeks
Boris popularity has had a huge leg up in the last couple of weeks. He was completely toast less than a month ago.
I am worried the one-sided propaganda we are seeing on the cable networks - "Putin BAD, West blameless!!!" is a reflection of the ignorance of the general population.
Two things can be true, what Putin has done is wrong and it was wrong of the West to flagrantly dangle Ukraine NATO membership in front of Putin and expect him to do nothing.Those bordering countries should always have been neutral buffer zones.
This greatly depends on your definition of wrong. This war has been caused what I call an impossible circular process. Ukraine wanted NATO membership to avoid Russian invasion, and they've invaded because Ukraine wanted NATO membership.
@reprobate said in Ukraine:
Those bordering countries should always have been neutral buffer zones.
why? they should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they like.
Of course they can. But when your larger more volatility ex-owner neighbour says if you apply for NATO membership, we'll fuck you up ... There is an argument that they bought this on themself (my view on this is not relevant for this point - more to follow below).
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
But that's not the reality of the situation. If NATO wasn't expanding and providing consideration as early as 2008, there'd be no invasion.
Do you honestly believe this? It's an entirely valid conclusion don't get me wrong, but you have to have the assumption that this has never been Putin's master plan, regardless of anything. It certainly doesn't go along with the Putin is a madman narrative, being pushed heavily by pretty much so all MSM
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
Absolutely not. Which is why NATO troops are NOT in Ukraine. Yet.
TBH Ukraine was asking for it, walking through Eastern Europe with that "NATO fans" low cut top and skirt on.
Fair, well made point. However, it comes back to whether or not you think Russia was going to do this regardless, which many do.
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
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?
As it turns out, a sitting duck.
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
anyone else uncomfortable with Governments seizing private assets just because of where they are from?
Extremely. However, I am glad that the UK Followed due process and hence didn't do it instantly. It's about the first Conservative thing that Boris has done in a few months & his popularity is on the up partly because of it. People were demanding Abramovich sanctions weeks ago, but all he did was follow the process that was in place. Critics argue this process was being deliberately slow so the Tories could get their Russian mates money out, but it was actually more to do with ensuring due law was followed.
I've not understood the Kasparov criticisms showing US / EU sanctioning 500 people whilst UK only 16. In my view, thats just a government over reach by US/EU & something I'm extremely uncomfortable with. Jacinda could do something really stupid and Boris gets my house? Fuck that.
Side thought - rapid electrification of EU nations is a massive threat to Russia's balance of trade.
I think this a rapid under estimation on EU fossil fuel dependency. Greta can be as idealistic as she likes, we won't reach anything close to removing fossil fuel dependency in my lifetime. I'd be surprised if it even drops.
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
Another strawman. No one as far as I can tell has even implied Ukraine couldn't ask. I certainly haven't. Quite the opposite in fact. It should be quite clear I've argued the fault lies with NATO entertaining and encouraging the request in light of the long held position of the Russians. And now people seem surprised at the outcome, with NATO members predictably treating the situation as half pregnant. "Sure you can become a member. Ohh, Russia is doing what they said they'd do if we let you become a member. Well best of luck with it, if you were a member we'd step in to help but you're not."
What would you have done if you were NATO and had the decision in your hands when Ukraine came a begging to join? Honest question.
The more I look into it, the more I come around to the conclusion that Putin is a madman.
-
@majorrage said in Ukraine:
Interesting few days of good debate on this thread last few days. Here's my thoughts on a few comments:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:But that's not the reality of the situation. If NATO wasn't expanding and providing consideration as early as 2008, there'd be no invasion.
Do you honestly believe this? It's an entirely valid conclusion don't get me wrong, but you have to have the assumption that this has never been Putin's master plan, regardless of anything. It certainly doesn't go along with the Putin is a madman narrative, being pushed heavily by pretty much so all MSM
I do, if only because the messaging was clear and consistent, coupled with the fact Putin made no move during his first and second terms despite numerous additions to NATO.
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
Another strawman. No one as far as I can tell has even implied Ukraine couldn't ask. I certainly haven't. Quite the opposite in fact. It should be quite clear I've argued the fault lies with NATO entertaining and encouraging the request in light of the long held position of the Russians. And now people seem surprised at the outcome, with NATO members predictably treating the situation as half pregnant. "Sure you can become a member. Ohh, Russia is doing what they said they'd do if we let you become a member. Well best of luck with it, if you were a member we'd step in to help but you're not."
What would you have done if you were NATO and had the decision in your hands when Ukraine came a begging to join? Honest question.
I'd take it a step backwards and consider the original aims of NATO, the promise(s) made by Bush Snr and consider the oft stated concerns of Russia. Admittedly that position is framed somewhat by recent events, but I've always subscribed to the theory of realpolitik having seen humanity at its worst and an earnest if somewhat average student of history.
Ultimately doing nothing when Russia annexed Crimea gave Putin a green light knowing NATO members were riven by self-interest and hence weren't motivated by singular focus.
-
@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?
Certainly not a neutral buffer zone as far as Putin is concerned - he annexed Crimea don't forget.
Ultimately doing nothing when Russia annexed Crimea gave Putin a green light knowing NATO members were riven by self-interest and hence weren't motivated by singular focus.
This 100%. And don't forget the shrugged shoulders when he was doing his stuff in Syria. It's no great surprise the likes of Obama, Merkel & Miliband have been so quiet.
-
I understand that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a key driver of Uncle Vlad's actions. However, what I don't understand is why Russia is so threatened by this.
There's a whole school of thought that NATO on Russia's borders and being "threatened" has little to do with this (Latvia's been in NATO for nearly 2 decades) and it's more about re-establishing a Greater Russia. Here's the man himself:
-
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
anyone else uncomfortable with Governments seizing private assets just because of where they are from?
Not comfortable, but as long as due process is followed and there's a right of independent appeal I think freezing assets might be necessary.
I'm finding some of the pro-Ukraine stuff a bit childish, TBH. A symphony orchestra refusing to play Tchaikovsky is plain silly to me.
-
@victor-meldrew I thought I saw Miliband on BBC breakfast a couple of days ago?
-
@victor-meldrew I thought I saw Miliband on BBC breakfast a couple of days ago?
Ed or David? The former was almost a Putin apologist.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
anyone else uncomfortable with Governments seizing private assets just because of where they are from?
Not comfortable, but as long as due process is followed and there's a right of independent appeal I think freezing assets might be necessary.
> I'm finding some of the pro-Ukraine stuff a bit childish, TBH. A symphony orchestra refusing to play Tchaikovsky is plain silly to me.
It does seem silly on its own. But when you think about it as as part of a global cancellation of Russia (that's the times we live in! ), it's part of a bigger cog. I can't get too upset about it, but I also see what they're doing, and you wonder of it all adds up to something useful in the end ?
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew I thought I saw Miliband on BBC breakfast a couple of days ago?
Ed or David? The former was almost a Putin apologist.
I paid zero attention sorry
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
anyone else uncomfortable with Governments seizing private assets just because of where they are from?
Not comfortable, but as long as due process is followed and there's a right of independent appeal I think freezing assets might be necessary.
> I'm finding some of the pro-Ukraine stuff a bit childish, TBH. A symphony orchestra refusing to play Tchaikovsky is plain silly to me.
It does seem silly on its own. But when you think about it as as part of a global cancellation of Russia (that's the times we live in! ), it's part of a bigger cog. I can't get too upset about it, but I also see what they're doing, and you wonder of it all adds up to something useful in the end ?
Good job the internet wasn't invented by the Russians.
Or the telephone.
Or the wheel.
Childish and pathetic.
-
@mikethesnow said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
anyone else uncomfortable with Governments seizing private assets just because of where they are from?
Not comfortable, but as long as due process is followed and there's a right of independent appeal I think freezing assets might be necessary.
> I'm finding some of the pro-Ukraine stuff a bit childish, TBH. A symphony orchestra refusing to play Tchaikovsky is plain silly to me.
It does seem silly on its own. But when you think about it as as part of a global cancellation of Russia (that's the times we live in! ), it's part of a bigger cog. I can't get too upset about it, but I also see what they're doing, and you wonder of it all adds up to something useful in the end ?
Good job the internet wasn't invented by the Russians.
Or the telephone.
Or the wheel.
Childish and pathetic.
I hear you, but I just don't know. Does it have any impact? Who knows. Does it have any downside? Basically zero.
It connects all Russians to the events at hand, in the same manner as the property repossession.
But I hear you, we will certainly only ban things that are irrelevant to us - qn back, why we should we do anything else???
-
@mikethesnow said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
anyone else uncomfortable with Governments seizing private assets just because of where they are from?
Not comfortable, but as long as due process is followed and there's a right of independent appeal I think freezing assets might be necessary.
> I'm finding some of the pro-Ukraine stuff a bit childish, TBH. A symphony orchestra refusing to play Tchaikovsky is plain silly to me.
It does seem silly on its own. But when you think about it as as part of a global cancellation of Russia (that's the times we live in! ), it's part of a bigger cog. I can't get too upset about it, but I also see what they're doing, and you wonder of it all adds up to something useful in the end ?
Good job the internet wasn't invented by the Russians.
Or the telephone.
Or the wheel.
Childish and pathetic.
I hear you, but I just don't know. Does it have any impact? Who knows. Does it have any downside? Basically zero.
It connects all Russians to the events at hand, in the same manner as the property repossession.
But I hear you, we will certainly only ban things that are irrelevant to us - qn back, why we should we do anything else???
Play the man
Denounce Putin and his cronies
Not long dead composers -
@mikethesnow said in Ukraine:
Play the man
Denounce Putin and his cronies
Not long dead composers10/10
-
@mikethesnow said in Ukraine:
@mikethesnow said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@mariner4life said in Ukraine:
anyone else uncomfortable with Governments seizing private assets just because of where they are from?
Not comfortable, but as long as due process is followed and there's a right of independent appeal I think freezing assets might be necessary.
> I'm finding some of the pro-Ukraine stuff a bit childish, TBH. A symphony orchestra refusing to play Tchaikovsky is plain silly to me.
It does seem silly on its own. But when you think about it as as part of a global cancellation of Russia (that's the times we live in! ), it's part of a bigger cog. I can't get too upset about it, but I also see what they're doing, and you wonder of it all adds up to something useful in the end ?
Good job the internet wasn't invented by the Russians.
Or the telephone.
Or the wheel.
Childish and pathetic.
I hear you, but I just don't know. Does it have any impact? Who knows. Does it have any downside? Basically zero.
It connects all Russians to the events at hand, in the same manner as the property repossession.
But I hear you, we will certainly only ban things that are irrelevant to us - qn back, why we should we do anything else???
Play the man
Denounce Putin and his cronies
Not long dead composersThey're not mutually exclusive proposals though!
-
It does seem silly on its own. But when you think about it as as part of a global cancellation of Russia (that's the times we live in! ), it's part of a bigger cog. I can't get too upset about it, but I also see what they're doing, and you wonder of it all adds up to something useful in the end
I take your point. Just as as long as it doesn't get cringe-worthy I guess