Should we still be backing Ukraine?

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

I’m not dismissing it, I’m asking what it would take to falsify the theory. If you say Ukraine will win and Russia will attack NATO if Ukraine is out of the picture, but if Ukraine loses and Russia still doesn’t attack NATO that doesn’t disprove the claim, it’s an unfalsifiable claim and impossible to bring up counter arguments that you’ll entertain 

You are asking a what-if question. Neither of us will ever be able to answer a what-if question adequately for the other at this stage, because we have polar opposite views on this. What is your answer for why Russia wouldn't have invaded had we not resisted their expansion, or blunted their military and soft/hard power? It'd be a what-if scenario. I'm sure you'll list plenty of things off, but it'd be an unfalsifiable claim as you put it. People don't want to take that risk.

I can point to historic appeasement scenarios of dictators wanting territory or again list the many reasons people are taking the Russian threat against their countries seriously, both due to past experiences or present ongoing conflicts, and the campaign of terror being waged against a civilian population they have connections with.

From my point of view, the practical question you are asking me is:

What would it take for Europe to be relatively safe again from the possibility of Russian invasion? Because again these cycles are maintained and start by the perception of a threat, the perception is enough to generate the conflict long before a tank crosses a border on a map overtly. How do we get people out of a state of fear and into everyday peaceful coexistence again, which is what much of the propaganda broadcast here is focused on of late.

Some of a few things.

• Removal or death of Putin or former KGB officers from Russian positions of power.
• Removal of Russia from Ukraine, and/or a disarmament zone of 50km either side.
• Germany and other central and western EU countries getting serious about their military, not just talking.
• A successful effort in diplomacy over the next few decades (whoever does so or initiates it).
• Successfully holding Russia up in Ukraine and keeping them from being able to invade elsewhere.
• Russia drawing closer to the EU instead of forever opposing it. The EU making strong efforts to approach Russia to address their concerns.
• Moving in the opposite direction from fascism in Russia. and/or the entire world moving in the opposite direction from fascism which has enchanted it and is leading to more and more global tension or wars.
• America stopping its isolationist trajectory and maintaining its shield across Europe.
• A lessening of unrestrained covert reprisals by Russia, which seem to think they can kill anyone they want in other countries if it suits them, and interfere as they like in our elections or domestic politics. Ditto the west.
• Strong signs of NATO and BRICS cooperation as opposed to competition.
• Signs of other BRICS-aligned countries lessening their offensive rhetoric, as it's obvious that its somewhat coordinated opportunism now between China, Iran and Russia.
• All countries lessening their colonial ambitions. New and old.
• People to stop hating globalism on mass and stop using it in their propaganda, like they do homeless people, gay people, the poor, immigrants etc.
• Putting Ukraine in NATO, or another form of military alliance, or treaty for mutually stronger defense in the east.

Let me see if I can put this another way.

Many of the people in these countries expected Russian invasion before the Ukraine war, because it has happened many times in their history, and again now. They expect Russian aggression, and this has just proved them right once again. To reassure them and Europe as a whole, the best method of controlling this uncertainty is to stop or hold up Russia in its current war.

Edited March 4 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

23 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

And what about this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelganger_(disinformation_campaign)

I appreciate the link. It's good to see mention of things like this listed for public awareness. Too many people repeat Russian talking points over things like youtube comments or videos without thinking. 

[Raze]

13 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

You are asking a what-if question. Neither of us will ever be able to answer a what-if question adequately for the other at this stage, because we have polar opposite views on this. What is your answer for why Russia wouldn't have invaded had we not resisted their expansion, or blunted their military and soft/hard power? It'd be a what-if scenario. I'm sure you'll list plenty of things off, but it'd be an unfalsifiable claim as you put it. People don't want to take that risk.

I can point to historic appeasement scenarios of dictators wanting territory or again list the many reasons people are taking the Russian threat against their countries seriously, both due to past experiences or present ongoing conflicts, and the campaign of terror being waged against a civilian population they have connections with.

From my point of view, the practical question you are asking me is:

What would it take for Europe to be relatively safe again from the possibility of Russian invasion? Because again these cycles are maintained and start by the perception of a threat, the perception is enough to generate the conflict long before a tank crosses a border on a map overtly. How do we get people out of a state of fear and into everyday peaceful coexistence again, which is what much of the propaganda broadcast here is focused on of late.

Some of a few things.

• Removal or death of Putin or former KGB officers from Russian positions of power.
• Removal of Russia from Ukraine, and/or a disarmament zone of 50km either side.
• Germany and other central and western EU countries getting serious about their military, not just talking.
• A successful effort in diplomacy over the next few decades (whoever does so or initiates it).
• Successfully holding Russia up in Ukraine and keeping them from being able to invade elsewhere.
• Russia drawing closer to the EU instead of forever opposing it. The EU making strong efforts to approach Russia to address their concerns.
• Moving in the opposite direction from fascism in Russia. and/or the entire world moving in the opposite direction from fascism which has enchanted it and is leading to more and more global tension or wars.
• America stopping its isolationist trajectory and maintaining its shield across Europe.
• A lessening of unrestrained covert reprisals by Russia, which seem to think they can kill anyone they want in other countries if it suits them, and interfere as they like in our elections or domestic politics. Ditto the west.
• Strong signs of NATO and BRICS cooperation as opposed to competition.
• Signs of other BRICS-aligned countries lessening their offensive rhetoric, as it's obvious that its somewhat coordinated opportunism now between China, Iran and Russia.
• All countries lessening their colonial ambitions. New and old.
• People to stop hating globalism on mass and stop using it in their propaganda, like they do homeless people, gay people, the poor, immigrants etc.
• Putting Ukraine in NATO, or another form of military alliance, or treaty for mutually stronger defense in the east.

Let me see if I can put this another way.

Many of the people in these countries expected Russian invasion before the Ukraine war, because it has happened many times in their history, and again now. They expect Russian aggression, and this has just proved them right once again. To reassure them and Europe as a whole, the best method of controlling this uncertainty is to stop or hold up Russia in its current war.

My point is falsifiable, if Russia loses in Ukraine or Russia wins in Ukraine than attacks NATO I will be wrong as I’ve said Russia will win and won’t attack NATO.

Ukraine joining NATO would not make Europe safer as Russia would be more likely to now attack a NATO country with Ukraine and European countries would be obligated to declare war on them and attack.

[BlueOak]

10 hours ago, Raze said:

My point is falsifiable, if Russia loses in Ukraine or Russia wins in Ukraine than attacks NATO I will be wrong as I’ve said Russia will win and won’t attack NATO.

Ukraine joining NATO would not make Europe safer as Russia would be more likely to now attack a NATO country with Ukraine and European countries would be obligated to declare war on them and attack.

You've made two unfalsifiable points 

One here: Ukraine joining NATO makes it less safe. That is your unfalsifiable opinion. I have the complete opposite opinion for the many reasons I've listed over and over again.

The other one you often give is:
That we would have been better off not defending Ukraine or giving them ammunition and supplies, is also an unfalsifiable opinion.

What I can't get you to see or look at is, that people make decisions, including you surmising the available data before it has happened. This is common in life, people have to pick the scenario they think will work out for the best. In the case of this war, world leaders have decided that they can control Russian aggression if they hold the war in Ukraine in a frozen state. They can take an uncertain threat and make a certain outcome. They have decided this because they feel threatened for the many reasons I've listed here and during our posts together.

Edited March 4 by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

These fear mongering that "Russia will invade Poland if they take Ukraine" is absolutely ridiculous. 

They first cannot take on NATO head on.

Secondly, why would they even take Poland? No Russians there like in Ukraine. Also Poland does not have the same relationship with Russia that Ukraine has.

Russians and Ukranians are super close historically.

You can make the case for the Baltics but even there I doubt they would go through the trouble. There is a very slim chance but not worth worrying about imo.

Moldova is way more likely since they are so small and not in NATO.

Edited March 4 by Karmadhi

[Danioover9000]

Apparently Elon Musk is preparing to divide up the NATO:

 

[BlueOak]

21 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

These fear mongering that "Russia will invade Poland if they take Ukraine" is absolutely ridiculous. 

They first cannot take on NATO head on.

Secondly, why would they even take Poland? No Russians there like in Ukraine. Also Poland does not have the same relationship with Russia that Ukraine has.

Russians and Ukranians are super close historically.

You can make the case for the Baltics but even there I doubt they would go through the trouble. There is a very slim chance but not worth worrying about imo.

Moldova is way more likely since they are so small and not in NATO.

1) The classification of centuries of history as merely fearmongering is why we are in this scenario. A complete lack of understanding of the region. I don't blame you I was the same before all of this, I didn't listen to eastern Europe and I didn't appreciate their point of view.

2) Why can they not attempt to take NATO on head on? NATO was fracturing and you've still got blind fools like Musk saying we don't need it anymore. Putin has unified it somewhat by his threats and aggression, but some of that is lip service. Until the central and western powers get serious about their militaries or America's isolationist trend stops. Russia's expansion into former USSR territories or extending their control over them has been over decades. Decades from now NATO could be a memory if some powerful people have their way, or at least America's involvement in it is vastly reduced if they carry on their current trajectory, meanwhile, BRICS is pushing its influence and hard power outward in terms of its military bases or naval ports.

For Putin to take the Baltics he has to do one good tank push to Kaliningrad, he cuts them off, and that's it its a siege. This was a very real possibility and still is a possibility. Less so now as Sweden and Finland have aligned with NATO as they better control the baltic sea, which brings a lot more stability to that region.

Russia considers half of Poland's territory 'gifted' to it, that's why they keep saying that and that's why Poland is now taking this threat the most seriously. Many times during this war they have threatened poland, and the UK for that matter. We get threatened to be nuked every other month, and I get people telling me that isn't happening, it's frustrating to be told what i've just listened to didn't happen. Putin wants to rebuild the USSR. You can call that fearmongering if you like, but if a larger country than you nearby even had a 10% chance invading your country over the coming decades, and there is a long history of hostilities, as well as interference in elections, it's wise to take that threat seriously.

Moldova is very likely. Any territory they can take is likely, the goal is to make it very difficult and not worth what they'd lose to do so.

Edited March 5 by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

1) The classification of centuries of history as merely fearmongering is why we are in this scenario. A complete lack of understanding of the region. I don't blame you I was the same before all of this, I didn't listen to eastern Europe and I didn't appreciate their point of view.

We did not have nuclear weapons in the past. Now we do. Like 12.000 of them. That is why I say big scale war will not happen. It did not happen during the Cold War and it will not happen now. We all die if it happens.

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

2) Why can they not attempt to take NATO on head on?

NATO has like 7000 nuclear weapons. 

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

For Putin to take the Baltics he has to do one good tank push to Kaliningrad, he cuts them off, and that's it its a siege. This was a very real possibility and still is a possibility. Less so now as Sweden and Finland have aligned with NATO as they better control the baltic sea, which brings a lot more stability to that region.

Because Baltics are in NATO. Too risky of a move. It is like taking on someone with a shotgun in his hand. If Baltics were not in NATO then It would likely happen.

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Russia considers half of Poland's territory 'gifted' to it, that's why they keep saying that and that's why Poland is now taking this threat the most seriously

Outside of being in NATO, Poland has a powerful military. Much stronger than Ukraine. Also they are super nationalists so they will fight hard. Not to mention Russia will be very tired after the Ukraine war. They cannot take on another strong opponent anytime soon.

Moldova is a different story because not only they have pro Russian parts but the whole country is small, weak, and not in NATO.

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Putin wants to rebuild the USSR.

I think he wants Russia to be a respected superpower more than rebuilding the USSR. USSR entails annexing 15 countries. And Poland was never in USSR. I doubt that is his goal. He wants for Russia to be feared and respected like the USA is rather than be circle jerked by the West like it did in the 1990s. Also he wants every ex USSR country to have a pro Russian government. How come Kazakstan is not at risk at being invaded but Moldova is? Georgia was attacked in 2008 and Ukraine too. Because these countries have or had a pro Western government. That is equated to "please invade me". If they are smart, they will keep a friendly Pro Russian foreign policy. Ukraine learned it the hardest way.

So did Cuba when it decided to become anti USA while being near the USA. It got both invaded and had an embargo. So its not a Russian only thing. It is the nature of big powers. Smaller weaker countries next to them need to accommodate them otherwise they will suffer either by sanctions, embargo, economic pressure, invasions etc. I dont know why it is so hard to understand. 

Edited March 5 by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

@Karmadhi

Russia has fought over 30 conflicts with Poland or the related Polish territories. Do you see what I am saying, and why if you were in that nation you'd understandably be looking to increase your protection, keeping Russia's new territorial ambitions as far from your borders as possible? You have to put yourself in that mindset to even understand this. 

Source for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_Poland_against_Russia

The USSR did contain Poland at one time, that's the argument they made, but any excuse will do, its territory and population Putin wants. They even harp on about Alaska mocking the Americans. Them putting in pro Russian governments to other countries is no better than everyone complaining when America did or does it, I objected then and I object now.

Put aside your personal bias as best you are able and answer this one question, because its a big one. Assuming NATO stays together, and America, and other major world powers continue to back it over the next decades. 

Do you think NATO would launch nuclear weapons and end the planet if the baltics or half of poland was occupied or under attack?

I don't. I think it'd be a conventional battle and the Baltics would be in real danger, because of how they can be cut off, as would Polish territory. That's why everyone wants to keep the war far from their borders, and all this effort has been put in to stop it. Also why Germany for example needs to get its act together and get serious about its military, the projection of conventional power will mean nukes never get close to being used.

Edited March 5 by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

On 05/03/2024 at 1:28 PM, BlueOak said:

Do you think NATO would launch nuclear weapons and end the planet if the baltics or half of poland was occupied or under attack?

I mean I do not know. But this is the status quo which kept peace until now.

Also during the cold war which was super tense at some moments, this is what kept war from breaking out.

The only reason USSR did not storming in and taking Western Europe during cold war was the fear of MAD.

So I assume it is the same situation now.

If there is a difference you can tell me.

Also, even in a conventional war, I doubt Russia can take on all of NATO. They are struggling with Ukraine. Afterwards they will need rest. Also NATO has far more troops and budget than Ukraine does. So it is not a war Russia can win regardless. Whole reason Putin attacked Ukraine is because Ukraine was not in NATO and it is next to Russia. Also Ukraine is far more important to Russia than Poland is. Basically they see Ukraine as part of Russia. Poland they do not.

 

Edited March 11 by Karmadhi

[Danioover9000]

@Karmadhi

On 2024-03-11 at 10:05 AM, Karmadhi said:

I mean I do not know. But this is the status quo which kept peace until now.

Also during the cold war which was super tense at some moments, this is what kept war from breaking out.

The only reason USSR did not storming in and taking Western Europe during cold war was the fear of MAD.

So I assume it is the same situation now.

If there is a difference you can tell me.

Also, even in a conventional war, I doubt Russia can take on all of NATO. They are struggling with Ukraine. Afterwards they will need rest. Also NATO has far more troops and budget than Ukraine does. So it is not a war Russia can win regardless. Whole reason Putin attacked Ukraine is because Ukraine was not in NATO and it is next to Russia. Also Ukraine is far more important to Russia than Poland is. Basically they see Ukraine as part of Russia. Poland they do not.

 

   Are you assuming the USSR fears MAD, or that it feared the USA at that time as a close peer competitor?

   Is that only Putin's reasoning to attack Ukraine, just because they're not in NATO? What if Putin attacked Ukraine because of the 2 oil sources that are discovered, the homogenous problem in Russia, and that not just Putin but past Russian rulers have been warning the west that Ukraine joining NATO is to them an existential crisis? According to John Mearsheimer. 

[zazen]

Jeffrey Sachs on the Moscow attack:

On Macron:

 

[Karmadhi]

On 3/13/2024 at 11:57 PM, Danioover9000 said:

Are you assuming the USSR fears MAD, or that it feared the USA at that time as a close peer competitor?

I am talking purely from a military POV, MAD is what kept the Soviets from storming in and taking all of Europe during the Cold War.

On 3/13/2024 at 11:57 PM, Danioover9000 said:

Is that only Putin's reasoning to attack Ukraine, just because they're not in NATO? What if Putin attacked Ukraine because of the 2 oil sources that are discovered, the homogenous problem in Russia, and that not just Putin but past Russian rulers have been warning the west that Ukraine joining NATO is to them an existential crisis? According to John Mearsheime

I do not know Putin reasoning fully.

I think partly he does not want Ukraine to be in NATO because basically it will Russia open to a huge front and having its sworn enemy at its door. I am sure USA would also loose its shit if Russia made a military alliance and put Mexico or Canada in it. Last time they tried with Cuba, Cuba ended up getting invaded by the USA. So that alone is enough for Russia to invade Ukraine, their security concerns.

But I think also historically Ukraine is seen as an extension of Russia. Since Ukraine started to ally itself with the West, it was seen as a betrayal by Russia and this war is partly revenge of that and partly an attempt to keep it within Russia influence, even if it has to be done by force.

I fear that Ukraine 's destiny  due to its location is bound to be tied with Russia.

At least until Russia becomes a liberal democracy and embraces the West.

Until then, it will be a Russian puppet state and its bitch whether they want to or not.

The Ukranian government acted very carelessly in my opinion.

No only they started openly embracing the West but they doubled down on anti Russian policies, banning Russian language and even questionable military action towards Russians living in Ukraine. Most of it is boosted up by Russian propaganda but I think after 2014, there was a policy change towards anything Russian in Ukraine. And that was a deadly mistake which lead to them being invaded and destroyed.

Geopolitics is not fair, you need to pick a superpower and stay with it.

Like picking a gang to protect you in prison.

Ukraine picked the wrong gang, the West which could not protect it against the gang that actually can destroy it and get away with it (Russia).

I have a lot of empathy for the Ukranian people but I fear when this war is over they will be either half gone or all gone as a sovereign country.

I hope they loose as little as possible which is why I am unsure whether prolonging the war would just allow Russia to get more and more of their land.

 

 

 

Edited April 4 by Karmadhi

[Breakingthewall]

Ukraine and Russia have had a long-standing nationalist conflict, see Holodomor, Stephan Bandera, etc. The US saw the possibility of a fire and provided all the possible gasoline in the form of arming Russia's enemy, supporting coups d'état, and finally threatening to nuclearly arm Ukraine. What else was necessary?

[Bobby_2021]

On 3/3/2024 at 3:02 AM, martins name said:

2. Nato expansion threatens Russia. The story is that Russia has a long history of being invaded and is therefore right to take NATO as a threat. The problem is that it has never been invaded since it acquired nukes. Mershimer never paints a scenario of how NATO would damage Russia. Well, actually NATO does threaten Russia, but only in the way that the police threaten gangsters. Also, Putin feels threatened by NATO because he thinks it's puppeteered by the same deep state that he thinks caused the Orange Revolution. He is fighting a ghost.

NATO expansion might have caused Putin to fall for these insane ideas but it's not obvious that the cause isn't instead thatUkraine is liberalizing and democratizing. 

Imagine if Texan secedes from the US. Not the newly independent puppet state of Texas is now the base for China and Russia and they do joint military operations.

That's what's happening to Russia.

You guys are playing to the exact traps of the military industrial complex who were looking forward to push Nato expansion to the east to trigger tensions.

Else

1. why would the NATO exist?

2. who will the US sell arms to?

NATO lost all reason to exist the moment Soviet Union collapsed.

Buying US arms was the easiest way to get entry into NATO and escalating tensions so that they can sell even more arms. Brutal. 

[martins name]

@Bobby_2021 The main reason for the invasion is not Nato expansion, but democratization and the Maidan/orange revolution. Putin has said that he believes America orchestrated the revolution and is looking to do the same in Russia. There is very little evidence for this conspiracy and the people who came up with it are complete crackpots. 
This vid goes into depth on the origins, evolution and introduction to Russian politics of the conspiracy:

Nato poses no threat to Russia. ZERO. Well except for the threat of taking away Russia's ability to invade its neighbors. The invitation of Ukraine would have happened even if there were no threat of Ukraine joining NATO. Putin has no real reason to fear NATO militarily and I don't think he does. What he fears is his stupid idea of the American deep state's soft power in Ukraine. The deep state that supposedly orchestrated the Maidan. 

Would he have been scared of this ghost if NATO didn't approach Ukraine? Hard to say but Ukraine wants to economically integrate with the West because 30 years ago Poland and Ukraine had the same GDP per capita, now Poland's is 3x higher than Ukraine's. So Putin might have seen the ghost of the American deep state in Ukraine´s economic integration with the West. Hard to say

Lack of NATO expansion seems to trigger Russian aggression as much as NATO presence does:

 

On 4/5/2024 at 7:49 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

why would the NATO exist?

Both to prevent smaller European countries from attacking each other like the Bosnian-Serbian war. But mainly to counter Russian aggression. The Baltic states for example would be very unsafe if they weren't in NATO. 

On 4/5/2024 at 7:49 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

Imagine if Texan secedes from the US. Not the newly independent puppet state of Texas is now the base for China and Russia and they do joint military operations.

There would be nothing wrong with this morally. America, like Russia is nuclearly armed, and thus can't be invaded. If you want to make the point that maybe NATO would give Ukraine nukes. The evidence against this is 'The Budapest Memorandum' where Russia, the UK and the US agreed to give a security guarantee to Ukraine in return for it giving up its nukes. So, NATO simply doesn't want Ukraine to have nukes. 

There is a difference between Texas joining with China and Ukraine joining with the West. It's natural for Ukraine to integrate economically with the West because it would lead to much greater prosperity. While Texas joining with China would just be to spite the US, there is no economic or cultural reason to do so.

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, martins name said:

Nato poses no threat to Russia. ZERO.

That's from your perspective. 

What's ZERO is the empathy of the Americans or the collective west. They just can never put themselves in the shoes of other nations and see the world from their perspective.

NATO is basically controlled by Washington. And Washington is controlled by the military industrial complex which needs endless wars to fatten it's pockets. 

It's a sick denegerate system and any country is wise to not Trust America and their flimsy promises.

NATO itself was created to counter the Soviet Union. So they don't even have a legit purpose to stay alive and was in the process of decay. So as the military industrial complex. They need a new enemy to stay relevant.

So the policy to push NATO eastwards started way back in the 90s Clinton Administration. Who do you think persuaded to push NATO expansion?

The Military Industrial Complex.

Of course.

Sell weapons. Spill blood. Billions in profit. Of course their end goal was to get a long lasting war with Russia.

You have to be beyond oblivious to not see this especially in the light of all that is happening right now. 

Edited April 7 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

The second video you linked is utter trash and riddled with subtle western biases that I couldn't even keep watching it.

NATO is not here to provide security for the Baltic states and to protect them from Russian aggression.

Lol. You have to relinquish the idea that US/NATO is some sort of global police that comes to heroically save helpless nations from the scary giant evil Russia. Real world is not Hollywood lol.

NATO is here to secure their own interests. Which is to create wars to the profits of Lockheed Martin and Boeing. 

I can comment on more bullshit in the video if you want but I don't see the point.

I agree with most of what Mearsheimer asserts.  Americans are too myopic to get the point he is making.

[martins name]

@Bobby_2021 Can you paint a single scenario of how NATO expansion could plausibly pose a military threat to Russia? Keep in mind that Russia has nukes.

Different American presidents have different policies toward NATO expansion. Here is a video explaining the reasoning of different presidents. The explanations seem to make sense without pressure from the military-industrial complex. 

 

[Breakingthewall]

us has provoked this war for economic reasons, to cushion the crisis that was predicted. They have achieved this, but things are not going as they thought. They have managed to unite Russia as a country and turn it into the leading military power. US are being expelled from Africa, the same as France, and their plan is only useful in the short term. selling weapons and energy to alleviate the crisis, but they strengthen their enemy, backed by China and India. The United States, as always, is governed by the sole ethic of profit, like a company, and the foreign deaths are just numbers.