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

[Devin]

31 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

You seem to confuse me with justifying the invasion. I do not.

I am just saying that fighting more will just cause you to loose more territories and get colonized more.

Now if you think Ukraine has a chance to kick out Russia from the Ukranian territories they currently occupy then ok, I do not think they can.

They tried and it failed.

No, I consider you deflecting from considering Ukraine becoming part of NATO rather than Russia.

I see it completely opposite, if you don't fight they'll take more. And yes Ukraine can easily retain all of their territory and regain Crimea, embolden Georgia, and even help liberate Chechnya eventually, they have almost indefinite unlimited backing, the cold war is back in full gear and just getting started until Putin is gone.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Devin

[BlueOak]

30 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

No I did not call Ukranians Nazis, i think that is Russia propaganda to justify the invasion. I meant that the Western Ukranian hatred towards Russia, especially after Stalin starved intentionally millions of them in the 1930s was so great that they saw the Nazis as liberators and supported them in the beginning (before it became clear the Nazis saw ethnic Ukranians also as subhuman and began wiping them out). I honestly do not blame Ukranians in 1941 for supporting the Nazis considering the shit they had to endure under Stalin's dictatorship. It was just to showcase that Western Ukraine which is ethnic Ukranians have historically disliked Russia and I fully support them dying for their territory. However, considering that the CURRENT territory Russia has occupied is like 50% ethnic Ukrainian I am unsure whether they should die for it. Is it worth dying for Russians to live under Ukraine rather than Russia? Does that make sense? Perhaps those Russians want to be under Russia instead? Proof of that is the fact that Russia easily steamrolled those regions compared to the rest of Ukraine where it was deadlock stopped. What do you think?

First I will apologize for assuming, I have to call that out, as it's often put into discussions and I go through the same old response each time to it. I also want to thank you for giving me a connection I had not made between the starvation and the second world war.

Russia steamrolled them because back then Ukraine was not fully militarized and had only limited Western weapons, mostly infantry carried anti tank or anti air weapons, which did a lot better in urban areas further from Russian supply lines. There was a Russian convoy early in the war for example, in the North of Ukraine that was just completely blocked and chipped at from every direction. Ukraine has a very big border to defend, a huge countryside to move about in, there was also a general or two who betrayed Ukraine early on, I believe the betrayal was in the south, and a few officials were arrested. Plus a lot of countries were not taking the threat seriously, and many civilians in Ukraine also right up until the moment didn't believe it was coming. If you think Mariupol was easy for the Russians though you need to go rewatch the war footage there, they lost generals there, loads of manpower, and the city was utterly destroyed in a siege. The battles there were horrific, close-quarter vehicles shooting at each other street to street.

Then the tide turned and Russia was forced back in Kyiv where it got utterly annihilated, special forces cut off with no good support, and police units rushed into spots where infantry should have been, which didn't last. The Sumy area was very bloody but they were forced out there, fighting was more difficult further from Russian supply in the north. At Kharkiv, the open ground meant the tables could be flipped on the Russians, and just a few brave breaches in the line sent them into retreat. In Kherson, is where the war started to reach parity, and that was a bitter fight, with Ukraine just getting the upper hand because of the river being a point they could cut the Russians off. 

Now the south is heavily mined, and entrenched, closer to Russian supply, and Russian air superiority makes attacking it really tough. Its not to say there are not areas Ukraine can make gains but direct attacks on the south have been extremely hard.

https://www.youtube.com/@EnforcerOfficial
This channel, if you can stand the obvious cavalier bias, covered the war from Day 1. I watched a lot of it.  They had/have a map updated every day of the war. I don't doubt a lot of the old footage links are gone now, perhaps the maps too, but you can still learn a lot about the reality of the war.

Did the people there want to be governed by Russia or Ukraine? Well none of them wanted war, only the Russian militias. Most of the men in the occupied areas have been force conscripted and are now no longer with us. Many of those that could run did run from those areas, and many of the remaining Ukrainians were taken to Russia. I don't think you'll ever get an answer to your question, not an honest one. I would guess like anywhere people just wanted to live in peace, and they didn't care much either way.

You also have to consider, that Ukraine's national identity is stronger than it ever was or will be. They fully feel separate from Russia now, and have a great deal of understandable hatred. To consider things like should aggression like this be rewarded, should people just let others take whatever land they want, whenever they want? Should nuclear, energy and food threats be tolerated, sabotage, and spying overseas get no response? My answer is no, you've got to be strong defending your home and your neighbors, otherwise, people walk all over you. 

*Adding a lesser thing, but the southern ports and trade routes are required for Ukraine to maintain most of its industry, though they are working on rail connections now. Without them and the industrial south, or the gas supplies for example, Ukraine will be a poorer country.

Edited December 16, 2023 by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

I think it's a bad idea to let Ukraine into NATO. NATO expansion needs to just stop, otherwise it will provoke Putin needlessly.

The purpose of NATO should not be expand as far as possible up to Russia's border. This is clearly a threatening move.

NATO as a block is safe. They don't need to be paranoid.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Devin]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I think it's a bad idea to let Ukraine into NATO. NATO expansion needs to just stop, otherwise it will provoke Putin needlessly.

The purpose of NATO should not be expand as far as possible up to Russia's border. This is clearly a threatening move.

NATO as a block is safe. They don't need to be paranoid.

I think they would wait for a strategic time like when Putin dies or something. I don't see why they would stop, no NATO countries have ever had armed conflict amongst themselves and before NATO they were killing each other for a thousand years.

I don't see NATO expansion as a means of defense, but as global stability, the nations have worked better together with it, it's a unifying and stabilizing force.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Devin

[Karmadhi]

5 hours ago, Devin said:

No, I consider you deflecting from considering Ukraine becoming part of NATO rather than Russia.

I see it completely opposite, if you don't fight they'll take more. And yes Ukraine can easily retain all of their territory and regain Crimea, embolden Georgia, and even help liberate Chechnya eventually, they have almost indefinite unlimited backing, the cold war is back in full gear and just getting started until Putin is gone.

Does it ever occur to you than Russia has 4x the manpower of Ukraine? Ukraine cannot replace lost soldiers. Weapons are useless if you have nobody to use them. 

 Basically Russia can loose another 100.000 men and be fine. Ukraine cannot. They are already sending old men.

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I think it's a bad idea to let Ukraine into NATO. NATO expansion needs to just stop, otherwise it will provoke Putin needlessly.

The purpose of NATO should not be expand as far as possible up to Russia's border. This is clearly a threatening move.

NATO as a block is safe. They don't need to be paranoid.

I understand what you are saying, I also get that that NATO thinks if Ukraine is a buffer state we have less contact. That isn't true in anything but a technicality if Ukraine falls to Russian rule, it'll just be Belarus version 2. 

NATO is safe, that's exactly the point. How is anyone going to avoid another war without Ukraine in NATO? Another war with Ukraine becoming a Russian puppet, means the borders will be there anyway, just with a hell of a lot more suffering and violence. I see that Ukraine has hurt Russia enough to discourage it but a big part of me thinks we'll all do this again if Ukraine isn't in NATO. Again I keep coming back to Russia did gain land, and it's a long-standing pattern that Russia is fanatically ideological in retaking all the USSR territory, the few old KGB fossils running Russia are still going to be there in 10 or 20 years even if somehow Putin falls dead tomorrow. 

When it comes to threats it was threat overload, every threat that could be made was. Everything from nuking the Queen's funeral, to a full Russian mobilization, to the absurdity of retaking Alaska. The actual impact of another threat at this moment is almost nothing at all, just one more on a pile of a hundred that was made all over the world.

[Devin]

59 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Does it ever occur to you than Russia has 4x the manpower of Ukraine? Ukraine cannot replace lost soldiers. Weapons are useless if you have nobody to use them. 

 Basically Russia can loose another 100.000 men and be fine. Ukraine cannot. They are already sending old men.

Ukraine has lost 50,000 soldiers, Russia has lost 350,000, that's 6x.

Ukraine has 2 million soldiers. You have a big glass of Kool-aid.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Devin

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Devin said:

I don't see NATO expansion as a means of defense, but as global stability

Except this backfires when pushed too far. The paranoia for defense has turned into a threat to Russia and lead to this needless war.

Putin is not unreasonable in asking for some breathing room around Russia's border. It's NATO who is unreasonable in wanting to expand without any limits. This is a solution in search of a problem.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Devin]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Except this backfires when pushed too far. The paranoia for defense has turned into a threat to Russia and lead to this needless war.

I can't see Russia attacking NATO. NATO is not a threat to Russia, it's a threat to Russian expansionism. For example, pre Ukraine war Russia was a large trading partner with NATO members, do you believe NATO threatens conquering Russia? I don't see that at all.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Devin

[MysticalSnow]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Except this backfires when pushed too far. The paranoia for defense has turned into a threat to Russia and lead to this needless war.

Putin is not unreasonable in asking for some breathing room around Russia's border. It's NATO who is unreasonable in wanting to expand without any limits. This is a solution in search of a problem.

Bring on the nukes.

[How to be wise]

@Leo Gura But why should Ukraine’s freedom be constricted because of another country? That’s like saying the US needs to take Mexico’s permission for nato membership. 

[Girzo]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Except this backfires when pushed too far. The paranoia for defense has turned into a threat to Russia and lead to this needless war.

Putin is not unreasonable in asking for some breathing room around Russia's border. It's NATO who is unreasonable in wanting to expand without any limits. This is a solution in search of a problem.

There's two layers two it. Ukraine joining the EU is not the same as joining NATO at all. Yet, Putin would have also been vehemently opposed to this idea. So it's clearly not just a military fear, but a desire for that land grab. Ukraine is not only a breathing ground but also a potential resource to exploit. He wants to exploit it regardless of anything NATO does.

IMO access to ports, not paying for the use of gas pipes, consolidating control over the world's agriculture, control over mines, etc., these were all much more probable causes to start this war than whatever NATO does or thinks.

Now who knows what's in Putin's head.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Girzo

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, How to be wise said:

@Leo Gura But why should Ukraine’s freedom be constricted because of another country? That’s like saying the US needs to take Mexico’s permission for nato membership. 

Because a country as large and powerful as Russia needs to be accommodated to some degree. Not all countries are equal. Large countries have more influence. Ukraine cannot behave however it pleases because it's not in a strong enough position to get away with it.

Pissing off your neighbors is not a good survival strategy if you're a small country.

It's just not worth expanding NATO if it causes so much threat in the minds of Russian leaders. That's counter-productive to world peace. When you make geopolitical strategy you have to think about how it threatens states around you and leads to escalation. For this same reason the US should not just continue to multiply its nuclear arsenal endlessly, because that will force Russia to do the same. That's what's happening with NATO. It's needless escalation for little benefit. It's not like NATO is weak unless Ukraine joins in. NATO is many times stronger than Russia already.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Leo Gura

[How to be wise]

@Leo Gura It’s not nato that wants Ukraine, it’s Ukraine that wants nato. They want to know that if Russia attacks it, the other countries will come to its aid. As for Russia being a big country, its population isn’t that much bigger than Mexico’s. If Russia gets to choose whether its neighbours are nato members, why can’t Mexico have the same choice?

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, How to be wise said:

@Leo Gura It’s not nato that wants Ukraine, it’s Ukraine that wants nato.

Tough shit.

2 hours ago, How to be wise said:

They want to know that if Russia attacks it, the other countries will come to its aid.

That fear has already caused Russia to attack.

[Joel3102]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Tough shit.

That fear has already caused Russia to attack.

What if Russia would already be in the Baltics or Poland by now, if it weren’t for NATO expansion? The causality could be just as easily reversed 

[PurpleTree]

4 hours ago, How to be wise said:

@Leo Gura It’s not nato that wants Ukraine, it’s Ukraine that wants nato. They want to know that if Russia attacks it, the other countries will come to its aid.

Well yea ukraine also wants to be under natos nuclear umbrella

but i say just give ukraine nukes anyway and let them defend themselves against and even attack russia, enough is enough

sing it
 

nuke that ish

nuke that shit

nuke that shit

nuke that borschtsh

and now the girls

nuke that putler

nuke that ish 

nuke that borsht

ella ella ella e e e

(girls voice)

[BlueOak]

I can't fault people for thinking they'd rather have no risk at all to themselves, and leave it all on Ukraine. I feel the threat is less in one unified block, rather than an everlasting proxy war on the continent. 

With another highly predictable war to come, if another wave of refugees, missiles and threats start flying, if people are constantly losing family and friends, feeling ever more threatened, Then there is no guarantee a more militarized and fed-up Europe will react with the same restraint, especially with increasingly right-wing governments, selling inaction to their populations will be increasingly difficult. No guarantee that some chest-beating moron in Belarus's military or leadership won't push things too far one day, that some act of sabotage or espionage will go badly wrong and cause a flare-up.

On the other side of that we have Putin's Ego, which is not insubstantial, but his military forces are crippled for the moment, and never likely to recover to the same level they were at, due to their USSR stockpiles being depleted, and their population issues.

Edited December 17, 2023 by BlueOak

[Vrubel]

Ukraine needs rock-solid security guarantees. The West should provide that. This can take on many forms, such as a guarantee that Ukraine will always have the latest and most modern weapons and helping it develop an internal arms industry. Ukraine should have some serious firepower to deter Russia.

[LSD-Rumi]

Engaging in war will weaken your economy for years if not decades and will destroy your infrastructure. I don't know How Ukranian leaders saw it as a wise choice not to drop the idea of joining NATO after Putin threatened to invade.