Ukraine

[Seanchaidh]

Is the problem that I'm just surrounded by people who refuse to read? I swear to fuck.

Hey, remember when Ukraine received a security guarantee from the USA, Britain and Russia as a condition for disarming its massive nuclear stockpile..

Bet they feel kinda silly now, huh.

It didn't really have a massive nuclear stockpile, or even a single functional missile that it could ever actually control. The Ukrainian stockpile wasn't functional without codes held by Russia. But anyway, that's beside the point. This is the point:

(NATO membership would naturally obviate any compunction to abide by the Budapest Memorandum, because what would be the point? Some minor concessions on economic pressure that Russia was not apparently respecting anyway so far as I can tell; the Budapest memorandum would be superfluous for Ukraine given NATO membership).

I also love how this entire argument is contingent on the idea that ICBMs don't exist.

*blink*

The entire argument is contingent on the fact that ICBMs do exist (otherwise Russia would be able to intervene on Ukraine after NATO membership but before nuclear missiles are placed)

Nuclear missiles stationed in Ukraine would be absolutely unacceptable in a situation in which the United States and Russia are the pillars of an international order based on the mutually assured destruction of both; it is simply too close for it to be reasonable for Russia to be able to figure out whether they're under attack in the case of any anomalous radar or other intelligence data, so you would virtually guarantee a Russian launch by accident.

5 minutes vs. 45 minutes (or whatever the precise numbers actually are) to figure out whether you're under nuclear attack and should launch your nearly 2000 nuclear missiles. Seriously, this is not a hard concept.

 

[Seanchaidh]

OK. And you see this as grounds for a pre-emptive invasion and annexation of a country that didn't actually threaten them.

But as before, please apply the same logic to the US. Ukraine applies to join CIS. From the US perspective, its Ukraine without nukes or CIS membership -> Ukraine with CIS membership -> Ukraine with nukes!

...And so the US plans invasion. To "defend" itself. US warhawks blather that its the only way to prevent unacceptable risk of nuclear war.

Would you be here advocating that Ukraine should have capitulated to the US, changed their own policy to suit US paranoia, and that any break of the peace is the fault of Ukraine for failing to appease them, and not the US for actually invading?

The appropriate comparison is if it were Mexico or Canada... or Cuba, perhaps. Not Ukraine. How are you not following this? And we'd also have to assume that membership in the Commonwealth of Independent States would necessarily obligate all members to come to mutual defense. (I'm not actually sure whether it does or doesn't; if it doesn't-- if it has no equivalent of NATO's articles 4 or 5-- then this is not "the same logic" for another reason).

So let's set up the comparison and assume that:

The CIS is a mutual defense treaty with an equivalent of NATO's article 5 and/or 4. Russia has a first strike policy like the United States. Ontario separates from Canada and seeks membership in the CIS. United States says that's threatening. Russia and other CIS members ignore the United States, as does Ontario with Russian encouragement. Unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis, United States is met with nothing but silence. Alaska switched sides and joined CIS around twenty years ago and Brazil is also a recent new member of CIS. The United States offers to guarantee non-aggression against Ontario if it will abandon the goal of joining CIS. No one cares. Eight years pass. Now come on. In this situation do you really expect that Ontario would still be around after those eight years? Would Russia in this scenario not have quite some brass to hold itself blameless for Ontario getting junked by an invasion from Minnesota and New York?

This is a fair comparison. And if you can't see the point here, I don't know what to tell you; I would only ask whether you've actually followed the argument.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It didn't really have a massive nuclear stockpile, or even a single functional missile that it could ever actually control. The Ukrainian stockpile wasn't functional without codes held by Russia.

Do you think Ukraine, which had been building ICBMs for the Soviet Union for years, lacked the expertise to reverse engineer nuclear warheads?

It would have taken about a year to establish control over Ukraine's nuclear arsenal. Now, you could argue that Russia would have invaded Ukraine immediately had it not agreed to nuclear disarmament so the deterrent effect wouldn't have worked, but is this not an interesting conundrum for a die-hard anti-Imperialist like yourself? If Russia has a right to defend itself against hypothetical aggression from the USA, does Ukraine not have a right to possess nuclear weapons too?

I mean, would Ukraine not be in a stronger position to defend itself and thus not need NATO membership were it a nuclear state itself? I wonder why our heroic champions of anti-Imperialism in Russia didn't see it that way?

The entire argument is contingent on the fact that ICBMs do exist (otherwise Russia would be able to intervene on Ukraine after NATO membership but before nuclear missiles are placed)

Okay, why does it even matter?

Even discounting the fact that ICBMs fired from the continental United States or Russia could trivially end all life on earth, American nuclear weapons are already in Turkey thanks to NATO weapon sharing agreements. What is this arbitrary line in the sand, and why is the mere threat of it being violated suddenly a reasonable pretext for blatantly annexing territory from independent states?

This is literally the logic of the war on terror. A hypothetical threat as a justification for blatant Imperialism..

5 minutes vs. 45 minutes (or whatever the precise numbers actually are) to figure out whether you're under nuclear attack and should launch your nearly 2000 nuclear missiles. Seriously, this is not a hard concept.

NATO nuclear sharing agreements are all in the low tens, mostly low-yield tactical weapons. The full scale retaliatory attack you're talking about is essentially a decision to end human civilization. So yeah, it is somewhat difficult for me to wrap my head around the logic here.

The logic you're proposing here seems to be "you have to accept our military occupation now, or else we would have had to destroy human civilization and kill billions of people at some point in the future." Yeah, not particularly compelling.

If Russia has a right to do what it wants because it has the power to enforce its demands at the point of a nuclear-tipped sword, then so does the US. That's how mafia Imperialism works.

 

[bluegate]

Because a NATO security guarantee on Ukraine opens the door to nuclear missiles being placed in Ukraine, for reasons outlined above.

Yeah... that's a Russia problem, not a Ukraine problem.

So, why should Ukraine humor Russia's request that it not join NATO?

The only reason right now is; Ukraine should listen to Russia or else Russia aggressively invades Ukraine.

That's nothing more than a base threat of aggression. "Do what I tell you to do or else I'm going to smack you in the face".

Why should Ukraine care about Russia being scared of sharing YET ANOTHER border with a NATO country? Provide us with a proper answer other than "Because Russia says so".

 

[Seanchaidh]

This is literally the logic of the war on terror. A hypothetical threat as a justification for blatant Imperialism..

I remember when your country and my country both suffered under crippling economic sanctions as a result of our invasion of Iraq. That was really tough, wasn't it? Well, at least Tony Blair and George W. Bush didn't escape justice.

 

[Silvanus]

This is a fair comparison. And if you can't see the point here, I don't know what to tell you; I would only ask whether you've actually followed the argument.

No, it's not, because yet again you've twisted it beyond recognition: added extra details that don't carry over (such as equating a Canadian province with the sovereign nation of Ukraine, echoing the counter-historical guff Putin came out with to invalidate Ukrainian statehood) and entirely ignoring other elements of context which aren't convenient (such as Russia sponsoring and arming an insurgency in the breakaway region for 8 years).

There's not really anything else to be said. You're offering endless apologia (after outright denial became untenable) for imperialism and denial of sovereignty. When it helps you in other threads, you'll rightly point to the grotesque violence of US or US-aligned forces overseas; and here, you're studiously ignoring it as Russian troops obliterate residential areas and kill civilians in their own capital.

It's the taste of far-right boot leather of a different flavour, nothing less or more.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Leaked document shows Russia is preparing for 'a massive medical emergency' of Ukraine war casualties

Russian servicemen take part in a review of the Chechen Republic's troops and military hardware at the residence of Ramzan Kadyrov, head of the

www.businessinsider.nl

well this document doesn't sound good

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

https://www.reddit.com/comments/t20u4i

They have just been kicked out of Swift, holy shit

 

[Terminal Blue]

I remember when your country and my country both suffered under crippling economic sanctions as a result of our invasion of Iraq.

Yeah, wouldn't it be awful if we lived in a timeline where the US government borrowed vast sums of overseas capital in order to wage two illegal and immoral wars, and all the other countries in the world, instead of limiting their financial involvement or trying to restrict the economic capacity of the US to do that, just did nothing.

That would be awful, wouldn't it.

 

[Avnger]

Yeah, wouldn't it be awful if we lived in a timeline where the US government borrowed vast sums of overseas capital in order to wage two illegal and immoral wars, and all the other countries in the world, instead of limiting their financial involvement or trying to restrict the economic capacity of the US to do that, just did nothing.

That would be awful, wouldn't it.

*Seanchaidh frantically reading twitter to find out whether his "principles" are now for or are still against the Iraq war*

 

[Silvanus]

Bit of context for the accompanying crackdown on the freedom of press & freedom to assemble in Russia;

* Over 1,700 (as many as 2,600, according to OVD) protesters in Russia have been detained, some beaten in full view of cameras.

* Press outlets (such as Novaya Gazeta or Prospekt Mira, ones which haven't towed the Kremlin line so far) have been told to only use government sources when reporting, and have been instructed by the government not to use words like "attack", "invasion", or "war".

* Numerous journalists and reporters have been illegally detained and dragged from protests.

‘Don’t call it a war’ – propaganda filters the truth about Ukraine on Russian media

Kremlin clamps down on Facebook and threatens to muzzle outspoken independent news outlets

www.theguardian.com

Russia: Journalists reporting on Ukraine war face censorship and detentions - https://ipi.media

The IPI global network today condemns the efforts by Russian authorities to censor independent media reporting on the invasion of Ukraine and the multiple detentions of domestic and international journalists covering anti-war protests across the country last night. Hours after the invasion...

ipi.media

 

[thebobmaster]

Let's not forget this little tidbit.

Russia blocks Twitter as Ukraine invasion escalates

Access is still possible through VPNs

www.theverge.com

ETA: Man, the US is so evil for drones killing innocents! Russia would never do anything like that.

 

[Trunkage]

Man, I'm getting some serious flashbacks to 2002/3

Is the problem that I'm just surrounded by people who refuse to read? I swear to fuck.

No. We read. We just dont agree with you. You making about as much sense as Bush did before Iraq

 

[Trunkage]

Can I just say, I would never have predicted Tankies and Trumpers being on the same side.

But, reflecting on their attitudes to the world, the parallels are quite obvious

 

[crimson5pheonix]

 

[Gergar12]

I just realized something, if we wanted to; the west could do a no-fly zone in Western Ukraine. In the Korean War, the Soviets did the same thing in North Korea, and China invaded and helped North Korea despite the communists having a poorer nuclear arsenal than the US. In fact, China had no nukes as of 1951.

Biden could end Russian airpower, and down those Su-34, Su-35, Su-27, Su-30, and Mig-29 aircraft along with Su-24s, and Su-25s. They could even shoot down Ka-52 attack helicopters.

Would it be an escalation yes, would it be riskier than what we are doing now; yes.

My question is how come the USSR, and China gets to help North Korea, and we can't help Ukraine despite France, the UK, and the US having more nukes than Russia. North Korea today is a hellhole, and countries helped by the US have a higher GDP per Capita. (Israel, Chile, and South Korea for example) So US ideology is morally right due to higher quality of life than in Russian allies like Syria, Cuba, and North Korea who are all pariahs.

 

[Agema]

Can I just say, I would never have predicted Tankies and Trumpers being on the same side.

I would.

But bear in mind that Tankies have a point of principle. Trumpers will just say and do whatever they think is good for Trump.

Like Tucker Carlson, who talks up Putin one day and the next day, post-invasion, condemns him.

 

[Silvanus]

Russia has shelled a children's cancer hospital.

 

[Trunkage]

I just realized something, if we wanted to; the west could do a no-fly zone in Western Ukraine. In the Korean War, the Soviets did the same thing in North Korea, and China invaded and helped North Korea despite the communists having a poorer nuclear arsenal than the US. In fact, China had no nukes as of 1951.

Biden could end Russian airpower, and down those Su-34, Su-35, Su-27, Su-30, and Mig-29 aircraft along with Su-24s, and Su-25s. They could even shoot down Ka-52 attack helicopters.

Would it be an escalation yes, would it be riskier than what we are doing now; yes.

My question is how come the USSR, and China gets to help North Korea, and we can't help Ukraine despite France, the UK, and the US having more nukes than Russia. North Korea today is a hellhole, and countries helped by the US have a higher GDP per Capita. (Israel, Chile, and South Korea for example) So US ideology is morally right due to higher quality of life than in Russian allies like Syria, Cuba, and North Korea who are all pariahs.

We did no fly zones in Libya. There was one on Syria too. I assume that we dont want to 'provoke' Russia. Like somehow they arent already super provoked.

Germany sent in a bunch of tank buster RPG. I think there should be more, though so I agree

I would say that I am a little worried about drone strikes. There is a massive Pandora's box that has had it's lid lifted slightly and I dont think we should open it totally. Russia might start drone striking instead

As to US ideology morally right point. You're examples are Chile and Israel? Fuck me. What a way to sink your own argument.

 

[Gergar12]

We did no fly zones in Libya. There was one on Syria too. I assume that we dont want to 'provoke' Russia. Like somehow they arent already super provoked.

Germany sent in a bunch of tank buster RPG. I think there should be more, though so I agree

I would say that I am a little worried about drone strikes. There is a massive Pandora's box that has had it's lid lifted slightly and I dont think we should open it totally. Russia might start drone striking instead

As to US ideology morally right point. You're examples are Chile and Israel? Fuck me. What a way to sink your own argument.

What I am saying is that if you help the west, or even trade with the west you get a higher quality of life, if you don't, and side with the USSR, or Russia or China today your economic growth will be slower, despite the fact that Russia had a head start on the US since Kievan Rus. What does that say about autocratic countries; they aren't good places to live, they aren't good places to be or ally with, so therefore they aren't morally good.

How come China is rich; because of the west, how come Israel is rich, and Syria is poor because one-sided with the USSR, and the other didn't. How come Venezuela which has more natural resources than Chile is poor while Chile is better off, it's because they sided with Russia, and adopted Russia's ways. What does that say about Russia?

Also, we should do a no-fly zone, and I would argue we could get away with helping Ukraine with ground troops as long as we don't
invade Russia or Belarus proper like China, and the USSR did the Korean war where there was even less hesitancy with using nukes, yet no one got nuked. Not China, not the US, and not the USSR.