Once again, NATO and US foreign policy have lost a war - this time Ukraine

[Leo Gura]

@Devin

 

[Girzo]

Ukraine and Moldova have started official talks for accession to the EU. Or rather EU started it with them, opened its arms. It was yesterday I think.

[How to be wise]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That sounds good in theory but in practice you might live to regret such a policy.

Geopolitics is too complicated and intertangled to just allow one large country to gobble up another large country without any pushback. If you just let Russia run amok it will build itself into an empire and spread its corruption around the world like a virus. Look at Dugin's gameplan. It basically leads to civilizational war between the West and Eur-Asia.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with letting Russia build an empire (not saying that I want that), but there’s inherently nothing wrong with it. In fact, it could keep China busy for us.

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with letting Russia build an empire (not saying that I want that), but there’s inherently nothing wrong with it. In fact, it could keep China busy for us.

1) Russia is a very kleptocractic and corrupt state which will spread that corruption around the globe. That will not be a good world to do business in.

2) There are international laws against invading and annexing soverign countries, which Russia itself signed and agreed to. There is an international order to maintain. Otherwise any country can invade whoever it wants. We've already lived in that kind of world and it ends in disaster and genocide.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Karmadhi]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Russia has lost over 300,000 troops.

Ukraine put up an amazing fight for its size. But Ukraine can only do so much given the size disparity.

From what I have seen the 70 to 80% of Ukraine are ethnic Ukranians and they hate Russia since Stalin's time. They are the nationalistic ones fighting and the most anti Russia and pro the war continuing. 

Meanwhile you have the territories that Russia currently occupies which used to be before the war close to 50/50 between Ukranians and Ethnic Russians and those territories were easily invaded by Russia. Meaning perhaps they do not want to be in Ukraine but in Russia. Is it really that wrong for Russia to take the territories that perhaps do not want to be in Ukraine at all? I am specifically talking about Donbass and Donetsk regions where there was already war there. Same logic with Crimea that is mostly Russians. Is it that wrong for Russia to take them? ESPECIALLY Crimea. Is it really stealing them? I am talking from an ethical pov more than legal pov.

[Devin]

2 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

From what I have seen the 70 to 80% of Ukraine are ethnic Ukranians and they hate Russia since Stalin's time. They are the nationalistic ones fighting and the most anti Russia and pro the war continuing. 

Meanwhile you have the territories that Russia currently occupies which used to be before the war close to 50/50 between Ukranians and Ethnic Russians and those territories were easily invaded by Russia. Meaning perhaps they do not want to be in Ukraine but in Russia. Is it really that wrong for Russia to take the territories that perhaps do not want to be in Ukraine at all? I am specifically talking about Donbass and Donetsk regions where there was already war there. Same logic with Crimea that is mostly Russians. Is it that wrong for Russia to take them? ESPECIALLY Crimea. Is it really stealing them? I am talking from an ethical pov more than legal pov.

It's wrong for them to take them, they should have purchased them from Ukraine.

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

From what I have seen the 70 to 80% of Ukraine are ethnic Ukranians and they hate Russia since Stalin's time. They are the nationalistic ones fighting and the most anti Russia and pro the war continuing. 

Meanwhile you have the territories that Russia currently occupies which used to be before the war close to 50/50 between Ukranians and Ethnic Russians and those territories were easily invaded by Russia. Meaning perhaps they do not want to be in Ukraine but in Russia. Is it really that wrong for Russia to take the territories that perhaps do not want to be in Ukraine at all? I am specifically talking about Donbass and Donetsk regions where there was already war there. Same logic with Crimea that is mostly Russians. Is it that wrong for Russia to take them? ESPECIALLY Crimea. Is it really stealing them? I am talking from an ethical pov more than legal pov.

I understand your point. It's not unreasonable. But Russia is clearly doing this in a bad-faith, underhanded, authoritarian, corrupt, and illegal way. Disrespecting the sovereignty of Ukrainians. Putin doesn't really care about what the people in Donbas think or want. He's just looking to gain geopolitical advantage and to sabotage Ukraine as a sovereign democratic state.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Ajay0]

Russia enjoys a lot of support from most of the second and third world, who had bitter relations with the West due to past colonialism and interference. 

With their vast resources, Russia can keep going for a very long time. They enjoy China's formidable political and financial support too, as China knows that they are next on the list and wants Russia to fight their war as well without backing down. Russia submissive to U.S-Nato can change from an ally at present to an opponent in the future , so China's support for Russia is firm and unwavering.

I think the U.S-NATO failed to take this into account.

[Devin]

8 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

Russia enjoys a lot of support from most of the second and third world, who had bitter relations with the West due to past colonialism and interference. 

With their vast resources, Russia can keep going for a very long time. They enjoy China's formidable political and financial support too, as China knows that they are next on the list and wants Russia to fight their war as well without backing down. Russia submissive to U.S-Nato can change from an ally at present to an opponent in the future , so China's support for Russia is firm and unwavering.

I think the U.S-NATO failed to take this into account.

No one is trying to end Russia, that's impossible without scorched earth war anyway. That's just Russian propaganda playing victim.

[How to be wise]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

1) Russia is a very kleptocractic and corrupt state which will spread that corruption around the globe. That will not be a good world to do business in.

2) There are international laws against invading and annexing soverign countries, which Russia itself signed and agreed to. There is an international order to maintain. Otherwise any country can invade whoever it wants. We've already lived in that kind of world and it ends in disaster and genocide.

World War II was technically initiated by Britain and France, not the nazis. Britain and France declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland. It could have not done that, and almost certainly there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust. In fact, we could’ve left the Nazis and the Soviet Union fight each other. Remember that the Nazis were looking eastward for expansion, not westward. Britain and France brought the war to themselves.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, How to be wise said:

Remember that the Nazis were looking eastward for expansion, not westward. Britain and France brought the war to themselves.

I highly doubt that would have works.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Leo Gura

[PurpleTree]

it’s not over yet

but i do wonder if it would be over if ukraine would ever give up or if it would just to go to „rebel“ tactics and attacks inside or crimea, donbass, and even russia for years and years or decades 

[BlueOak]

@How to be wise
Russia has fought 8 wars to rebuild the USSR. They are not going to stop if someone gives them more territory, that precisely rewards the behavior causing international conflict. It didn't stop them 7 times before, why would it stop them on the 8th?

Even if the US had not given arms, and people were just left to respond any way they liked, then somehow Europe didn't get dragged in by choice or consequence by some miracle, what makes you think there wouldn't have been constant efforts to overthrow the Russian proxy leadership again? Both by internal and external forces? In the occupied regions there will be constant attempts even now to overthrow the Russia governance for the next 100 years. That's what happens when people act unilaterally as if they were the only country on the planet.

6 hours ago, How to be wise said:

World War II was technically initiated by Britain and France, not the nazis. Britain and France declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland. It could have not done that, and almost certainly there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust. In fact, we could’ve left the Nazis and the Soviet Union fight each other. Remember that the Nazis were looking eastward for expansion, not westward. Britain and France brought the war to themselves.

People have agency in their own actions. Germany's actions caused others to react as they did. People's weak behavior before that emboldened Germany.

Taking over vast sways of territory, exterminating populations, disrupting trade, killing friends/family, and causing waves of refugees, affects the surrounding countries. People do not live in a vacuum.

 

Quote

'and almost certainly there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust.'

 Germany specifically used Jews as a reason to fight the war. Fascists do that. They single out a group and demonize them to legitimize their actions.

All this shows me exactly how WW3 can come about or suffering is eternally cycled. People think in a vacuum. Like there is no choice and consequence and nothing has subsequence effects.

Edited December 16, 2023 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

8 hours ago, Girzo said:

Ukraine and Moldova have started official talks for accession to the EU. Or rather EU started it with them, opened its arms. It was yesterday I think.

This type of thing is the best news. Because if Ukraine get into the EU and NATO Russia will not invade again. Its the end to all of this cyclic violence, it might even reign in attempts at insurrection in the occupied territories and just cause a permanent locked-in border again.

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Because if Ukraine get into the EU and NATO Russia will not invade again.

This is very much in question.

I don't see how Putin will let Ukraine enter NATO at this point. He fight it.

From what I can tell, the only way there will be a peace settlement with Putin is if Ukraine agrees to be a neutral state and never enter NATO. Otherwise Putin will just continue the war and Ukraine will eventually run out of troops and supplies.

For Ukraine to have a real chance of jointing NATO it would have had to win the war, which seems impossible at this point.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Leo Gura

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

This is very much in question.

I don't see how Putin will let Ukraine enter NATO at this point. He fight it.

From what I can tell, the only way there will be a peace settlement with Putin is if Ukraine agrees to be a neutral state and never enter NATO. Otherwise Putin will just continue the war and Ukraine will eventually run out of troops and supplies.

For Ukraine to have a real chance of jointing NATO it would have had to win the war, which seems impossible at this point.

Ukraine won the war enough. They did enough damage to Russia to give them a window to enter NATO.

What's Putin got left to fight it with? Realistically. No surplus stockpiles of tanks or arms anymore. A population that's already fed up with the death toll. They are using weapons and shells that can barely be called the name, because the border they are fighting on is massive. Right now is the best time for Ukraine to join NATO, because Russia is crippled and can't stop it. Without that the war doesn't end, it just stalls until Russia is ready to attack again, I can only keep highlighting this is the 8th war to retake USSR Land or influence, and Putin is clearly keen to keep doing so. I take him at his word.

One reason among many of Putin fighting this war, was to shorten his borders, he talks about it often enough, all he's done is lengthen them. If he has to sit troops on that border forever now, with an uncertain neighbor who hates him, it ties up all his forces there. If NATO is that border, their response to Russia has had nearly a hundred years of predictability, so he doesn't need a hundred thousand troops, he can make do with ten thousand. Not to mention all the land Putin has to police, because a dozen countries are going to take potshots covertly, a dozen countries have reason to, as well as the local population partisans.

Instead, if Ukraine is in NATO, and these occupied lands are recognized as Russian (at least behind the scenes), its predictable, any action NATO takes inside agreed Russian land has a diplomatic fallout. So it doesn't happen near as much. If this stays unrecognized territory, people can do what they want covertly, and will. Its going to be like Ireland and the UK for 50 or 100 years, only with even more countries getting involved. Russia will just wait or engineer the predictable justification for war 10 years from now and we'll all be back here again.

[Devin]

I think people are also overlooking how well Ukraine is still operating normal activities.

 

 

And to those emphasizing the disproportionate manpower, Russia is not Switzerland, Russia has many other enemies that have interests in attacking them, many people don't know that Japan and South Korea are Russian adversaries that have land disputes with Russia, they obviously also stand to lose the Arctic to encroachment from the West. The rest of the world will not just stand by with a weakened Russia. They have Georgia along with Chechen Rebels at their South they've had armed conflict with forever. Russia cannot expose itself with great losses, it has a large area and enemy list to defend.

[Karmadhi]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He's just looking to gain geopolitical advantage and to sabotage Ukraine as a sovereign democratic state

That is defiantly wrong but something that is common among the big powers.

From what I seen also with Georgia, Putin does not want the countries that border him to be Western's bitches but his own bitches. Which is why he invaded Georgia in 2008 and overthrew the current pro Western government with a pro Russian one. I think that was his plan with Ukraine when he first invaded it (among other reasons). 

That is clearly wrong because each country should do what they want to do but also USA is guilty of this. They did basically the same in the Middle East and tried to do in Cuba during the  1962 Missle Crisis.

Interesting how when Russia tries to put nuclear missiles in Cuba, USA invades it and that is fine, but when Russia tries to invade Ukraine because USA might want to put missiles there, everyone looses their shit.

The part where I disagree heavily with Russia is first trying to annex land and secondly committing terrible war crimes while doing so. 

In terms of simply invading to change the government to a pro Russian one, it is basically normal among big powers so I cannot call it anything new or unusual.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Karmadhi

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

 

That is clearly wrong because each country should do what they want to do but also USA is guilty of this. They did basically the same in the Middle East and tried to do in Cuba during the  1962 Missle Crisis.

They also supported right wing dictatorships in latin america who killed lots of people and then talk about democracy and freedom fries

[Devin]

I don't understand why non-Ukrainians are gung ho for Ukraine to concede territory, why do you care about it? I don't hear about masses of Ukrainian soldiers defecting to Russia, they want to defend their territory why are you so opposed to that?

Edited December 16, 2023 by Devin