Ukraine

[Agema]

It has a GDP that is less than half that of Germany's.

And yet because it has vastly lower GDP/capita, that means it has vastly lower labour costs. That means it can employ 4-5 servicemen for the same amount of money as a single German, and equip them similarly to a German soldier at about half the cost. In a similar vein, no-one would pretend that North Korea poses no significant threat to South Korea despite having a miniscule GDP in relative terms.

 

[Trunkage]

Should it be the people who refuse to consider approaching a problem with anything other than rifles?

Do... you understand what you are saying?

 

[Satinavian]

After the Cold War ended nearly all NATO members drastically reduced their military and the spending for it. Russia didn't.

But all that is hardly relevant because even if Putin felt threatened by NATO (which i don't believe at all), it would not justify the Invasion of Ukraine. Nor would it make sense in that context. If the NATO really would want to have a war against Russia, such an invasion would give them just the pretext they would need. It is the opposite : Putin only invadedd because he knew NATO not no plans or willingness whatsoever of attacking Russia.



But i don't really think Seanchaidh doesn't realize all that. He is not that stupid. He just decided to give priority to tribalism over actual facts.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And yet because it has vastly lower GDP/capita, that means it has vastly lower labour costs. That means it can employ 4-5 servicemen for the same amount of money as a single German, and equip them similarly to a German soldier at about half the cost. In a similar vein, no-one would pretend that North Korea poses no significant threat to South Korea despite having a miniscule GDP in relative terms.

OK. For a population that is substantially larger, it has a military budget that is not much larger than Germany's... was, before a few days ago. (Now Germany has announced an intention to have a military budget that is much larger than Russia's, though still not as stratospheric as that of the United States.)

Gosh, if only there were some way to ask Russia to tone down its military expenditure in return for concessions related to its security concerns. Oh well.

Do... you understand what you are saying?

Do you understand the history? Russia has been talking for the last two decades. It has used military force off and on for the last ~14 years (starting with Georgia). The use of military force has achieved for them more than talking, but also less than talking in some ways. Talking hasn't seemed to avail them anything because they haven't had anyone relevant willing to treat their concerns seriously.

 

[Generals]

Do you understand the history? Russia has been talking for the last two decades. It has used military force off and on for the last ~14 years (starting with Georgia). The use of military force has achieved for them more than talking, but also less than talking in some ways. Talking hasn't seemed to avail them anything because they haven't had anyone relevant willing to treat their concerns seriously.

Which is all irrelevant to determine who is the culprit (Russia) and the victim (Ukraine) in this situation.

You do realize that since the beginning you have shown 0 empathy and care for Ukrainian victims?
You have been doing nothing but blaming the West and demonizing Ukrainians by presenting them as Nazis. And that coming from someone who is doing the exact opposite in his Israel - Palestine topic just shows how hypocritical and inhumane you are. You don't care about anyone's suffering unless you get to exploit it to further an anti-west agenda. You are the embodiment of everything that is wrong about the media and politics.

 

[Silvanus]

After decades of NATO meeting Russia's concerns about NATO's intentions and Russia's security with intransigent silence diplomatically and demonization domestically.

(Quick reminder that in the past, when international agreements have been brokered diplomatically with Russia with two-way security assurances, Russia has repeatedly broken them. Budapest Memorandum, Minsk Accord. In fact, they certainly signed the latter in bad faith. And have since refused meetings to reestablish it.

This idea of a Russia interested in diplomatic solutions is a fiction.)

 

[bluegate]

So... Is that Twitter user suggesting that Russia should have been removed from existence after the fall of the USSR?

Are they under the impression that the USSR would have played nicely all these years had it not fallen?

The same USSR that was a participant in the Cold War? The same USSR that firmly tried to keep a hold of European lands it conquered during WW2?

 

[Trunkage]

Do you understand the history? Russia has been talking for the last two decades. It has used military force off and on for the last ~14 years (starting with Georgia). The use of military force has achieved for them more than talking, but also less than talking in some ways. Talking hasn't seemed to avail them anything because they haven't had anyone relevant willing to treat their concerns seriously.

Russia is the ONLY one mobilising forces. But don't worry... Everyone has now upped their defence budget pretty much across the world. Congrats. Now you have a hundreds guns just waiting for him to step across the line. Everyone who was willing to give Putin a pass on his crimes because they don't like the US have now decided that Russia is significantly worse.

You also showed that no, you do NOT understand what you just said. Putin actions have consequences too. What you have done here is told half the story. For example that you're analogy was wrong. That 'some guy' your were talking about. What actually happened was 100 riflemen cornered another guy and shoved him on the ground. Then that 'some guys' stabbed them. Because he turned up with his whole army just to take over Crimea. Unfortunately, only 16 were sent so they could only hand weapon to the crowd. They couldn't take on the more massive build up. The worlds response to Crimea was way weaker than the Russian response. Pretending Russia was less than 16 is a fall out ridiculous and would have ended with that 'some guy' being booted out of Crimea. But the crowd remembers what happened that day. Even though NATO hasnt said much and given much aid to that country, the crowd didn't need to be told anything. The crowd knows who stabbed who and who is stabbing right now.

Yep, I know, you're just going to claim that I'm not listening and whatnot. I also find it funny that you think turning up with 16 riflemen is NOT the appropriate response to someone stabbing someone. I hope if I got stabbed, that there would be more of a response

 

[Thaluikhain]

The use of military force has achieved for them more than talking, but also less than talking in some ways. Talking hasn't seemed to avail them anything because they haven't had anyone relevant willing to treat their concerns seriously.

If you can get more by war than by peace, just go for it.

 

[Agema]

But all that is hardly relevant because even if Putin felt threatened by NATO (which i don't believe at all), it would not justify the Invasion of Ukraine.

Maybe.

NATO's intervention in Kosovo was problematic in this regard. NATO's interference was arguably defensible under NATO principles of North Atlantic stability, and defended in terms of averting a humanitarian catastrophe, but was also contrary to NATO and UN principles by violating a country's sovereignty. This created the precedent for NATO to engage in aggressive actions, rather than purely defensive. And particularly sensitive to Russia, as Serbia and Russia are very close.

At the same time, Russia was brutally suppressing Chechnya, and this raised the spectre of whether NATO might decide to intervene there, too, or all sorts of other areas that Russia might want to use violence against. For instance Georgia, where Russia actively undermined Georgian control of Abkhazia even in the early 90s, and has subsequently continued to politically and militarily disrupt Georgia (e.g. South Ossetia). One might note Georgia was at one point member of Russia's NATO equivalent (CTSO) and EU equivalent (CIS): it departed both in large part because membership offered no protection from Russia's perpetual meddling and strongarming. Say what you like about NATO and the EU, they doesn't stand for their member states doing that to each other and wouldn't last long if they did.

Anyway, NATO has therefore arguably done things that pose a threat to Russia... more strictly not a threat to Russia itself, but a threat to Russian interests by potentially denying it the ability to militarily suppress countries that it wishes it still ruled.

 

[Trunkage]

So... Is that Twitter user suggesting that Russia should have been removed from existence after the fall of the USSR?

Are they under the impression that the USSR would have played nicely all these years had it not fallen?

The same USSR that was a participant in the Cold War? The same USSR that firmly tried to keep a hold of European lands it conquered during WW2?

No, I'm pretty sure they are claiming that only liberals are responsible. Which is funny, I would say Capitalist caused a lot of the issue, irrelevant if they were liberal or not. The Oligarchy did destroyed Russia. But even then, I would be point that this just excuses Putin for any choice he makes

 

[Trunkage]

If you can get more by war than by peace, just go for it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Which is all irrelevant to determine who is the culprit (Russia) and the victim (Ukraine) in this situation.

That's not even what I'm talking about. But it sort of is relevant to that question when there is a third party which has also been abusing Ukraine in this scenario. The United States has blame here. It acted in a way to pursue this outcome or one quite like it.

But no, my point is not about "the" culprit. It is about what my government could have done to avoid such an outcome and other outcomes like it. Unfortunately, my proposals seem to conflict with the interest my ruling class has in promoting hostility and siphoning off ever larger "defense" budgets, so they are "unrealistic".

E.g. we could announce a willingness to leave NATO (which would make NATO far less of a threat to anyone) or an intention to disband it under certain conditions-- such as various relevant countries limiting their military spending and committing to resolve disputes through democratic procedures where possible and diplomatic procedures where not. One might wonder why the world as a whole seems to be taking the opposite approach over time.

Even if you completely distrust Putin, which you probably should at this point-- he did in fact lie about his intentions-- you should still be willing to address his legitimate concerns. You can ignore the fluff about delegitimizing Ukraine; you should not ignore the fact that NATO countries keep popping up near Russia and they could be given missiles. Come to agreements about the security of Europe as a whole and reductions in mutual threat. Come to agreements about the status of Ukraine; take into account not just that Ukraine wants to be a part of NATO but also why they do and, since Russia absolutely abhors them becoming a member of NATO, and honestly NATO doesn't seem too thrilled about it either, figure out a compromise where they either won't become a member of NATO or something else has changed to make it acceptable somehow. But the United States has not been willing to do that or anything like it. The United States seems to want to settle for nothing less than dominating Ukraine (and the rest of the world) by itself. The larger problem is that if you continuously shut out a country that you could be working with they will come to the understanding that they are not simply being worked without but are also actively being worked against. Is Russia wrong to think that? I don't think so. What they've chosen to do about it is not my business; I'm interested in giving them an option that is better for everyone (except war profiteers). That's what I'm after.

 

[Trunkage]

Wanna see some 'Lefty' media's take on Ukraine right now


To sum up: we can take Ukraine refugees safely into our country because they are civilised, Christian and white. They're prosperous, middle class people who are just desperate. We can't take Syrian because they aren't any of those things

Stated on CBS, Al Jeezera and MSNBC

Fuck me, I cant believe people ever actually thought these places are Progressive. This is a prime example of why you would be wrong

 

[Seanchaidh]

If you can get more by war than by peace, just go for it.

No. But don't be surprised if someone chooses war when you've closed off diplomacy and given them an impression that war may be inevitable and worse for them if it comes later.

 

[Agema]

OK. For a population that is substantially larger, it has a military budget that is not much larger than Germany's... was, before a few days ago. (Now Germany has announced an intention to have a military budget that is much larger than Russia's, though still not as stratospheric as that of the United States.)

Gosh, if only there were some way to ask Russia to tone down its military expenditure in return for concessions related to its security concerns. Oh well.

Russia has no interest in reducing military spending, because the military has been integral to Russia's power projection. European countries slashed their military budgets to the point they are borderline incapable of aggressive military action (except against very small countries). As you note yourself (re. Georgia), Russia's desire to use force to get its way is not new.

Russia is of course a continuation of the USSR, which was always very happy to use force and repression. Sure, the USSR broke up an all that, but bureaucrats continued in their jobs, and the Russian leadership are people who were educated in the systems of the USSR and worked as officials in the USSR. So all those old authoritarian and repressive inclinations from Soviet times continued, as well. Sure, Russia toyed with liberalism and democracy, but when it was inconvenient to the ruling elites they clamped down on it hard. And that's arguably a Russian tendency far older than even the USSR.

When Russian "security concerns" are its right to militarily suppress independent countries, how much respect does that deserve, precisely? A lot in your mind, I know, because the fundamental principle you seem to operating under is that anyone has a right to exercise force, repression and slaughter as long as it's against the interests of the Western elites.

 

[Terminal Blue]

That the United States, UK, Australia, etc. are being hypocritical is correct.

So what?

Again, do you expect them not to be?

It's not like the Russian government is innocent of hypocrisy. It's not like any national government is. Why do you have this expectation that certain countries (and only those countries) should be adverse to hypocrisy? That seems, ironically, hypocritical.

And yet my country has far more of a say over it than yours.

That's a hell of an assumption, why would you assume that?

My country has far closer economic ties to Russia than yours does. My current government has historically been much closer to Russia than yours, largely because Russia has considerable influence in my country's politics.

I don't think you understand the situation in Europe at all.

I criticize the structures I'm in not because of how they affect me but because of how I can potentially affect them, how I am in some small way responsible for them.

You are responsible for your support of the Russian government.

You are far, far more responsible for that than you are for any of America's actions in the world. At best, you are merely the coincidental beneficiary of those.

You are making this your business, so take responsibility.

This "Americentrism" argument seems like a favorite line of yours, but to be honest it's absolutely ludicrous from someone who seems most often to be directing bile at the State Department target du jour, if anyone.

I don't think you read my posts then, or have the slightest clue who I am.

I also don't think you realise that you are demonstrating my point for me. If you automatically believe that any country the state department doesn't like must be a peaceful victim of imperialism who must be defended and never criticized in any way, what you're actually admitting is that your entire worldview is centred on the US. The actual, real world outside of the US seems basically irrelevant to you, all that matters is the perception from the US.

Let me tell you why I don't like this. It's one thing to recognize that the US exerts a global hegemony, or that the US government likes to imagine itself as the global metropole. It is another thing to accept that this self-perception is true, that the USA is the centre of the political world, that the US government is the only agentive force on the planet, that all other nations exist only as side characters in relation to the USA, the global protagonist.

That isn't the anti-Imperialist position you think it is, it doesn't counter the idea that Imperialism works or is a desirable and natural arrangement of geopolitics, it just seems like you're mad that the existing global hegemon isn't benevolent enough. Do you think that's going to change anything? Do you think anyone cares about how mean the USA is to people you agree don't actually matter?

The reality is, imperialism isn't bad because the USA is a bad country who is doing it wrong (unlike Russia whose imperialism is justified and benevolent as a form of self-defence against the bad imperialism) it's bad because the mechanisms of imperialism are fundamentally abusive regardless of doing them, but, perhaps even more importantly, it's bad because it represents a worldview that is simply incorrect and has never worked. The people outside the metropole are just as real, just as agentive and just as capable of action as the people within it.

You literally described them as lacking large degrees of diplomatic freedom because they lack military force.

No, I very specifically didn't.

I pointed out that these governments have their own interests, as all governments do, and that the interests of those governments align with the USA. That doesn't mean they are being forced to do anything, kind of the opposite in fact.

France, the UK, Japan, Germany all have significantly higher GDP than Russia. Even Australia has similar GDP to Russia. The relative lack of military readiness in these countries is a choice, and one that will probably change dramatically within the next decade or two thanks to what is happening now. Ironically, the US has been pushing for European countries to increase their military readiness and contribute more to their own defence for a long time, and Russia has likely created a situation in which that will happen. We are probably going to witness an era of significantly greater militarization in Europe, likely at the expense of non-military government expenditure.

But hey, at least we'll get the FREEDOM to make our own foreign policy decisions. Service guarantees citizenship!

Yeah, you just buy what the millionaires speaking on behalf of billionaires say. Very compelling!

Unlike you, who buys what different millionaires are speaking on behalf of the same billionaires. So alternative and rebellious!

And offered debt relief from the IMF who wanted to enact harsh austerity measures like those against Greece. Are you trying to be misleading?

For someone who claims to be uniquely and especially above all the propaganda, you say a lot of things which are outright wrong.

Firstly, Russia is a member of the IMF.

Secondly, in 2014 Ukraine was seeking a loan from the IMF. The austerity conditions you are describing were a condition of that loan. The Ukrainian government had sold billions of dollars worth of bonds to the Russian government in 2013, that was the debt being relieved.

In 2015, most foreign governments agreed to write off Ukraine's debts, citing the financial impact of the transitional period. The exception was Russia. Ukraine defaulted on its debts to Russia. Russia actually took this case to court in the UK, and it is still ongoing.

It's bad, why would you think otherwise?

How dare you! Don't you see that Russia is entitled to defend itself against the US empire and that exploiting foreign debt to maintain influence over other countries is anti-Imperialist praxis! Do you even believe in protecting countries against imperialist domination by the USA?

It's just like my favourite movie, Star Wars!

 

[tstorm823]

Just a reminder to those caught in this debate, @Seanchaidh does not actually care about Russian security and is not applying consistent principles, but rather shamelessly rationalizing anything that challenges western hegemony. This was established quite explicitly however many days ago with the "there's no progress if we aren't taking down the biggest power" comment. You will not get anywhere debating the merits of the Russian position, it's totally irrelevant to Seanchaidh.

 

[Seanchaidh]

So... Is that Twitter user suggesting that Russia should have been removed from existence after the fall of the USSR?

Of course not.

Are they under the impression that the USSR would have played nicely all these years had it not fallen?

The same USSR that was a participant in the Cold War? The same USSR that firmly tried to keep a hold of European lands it conquered during WW2?

The point is rather that western liberals had a very large hand in shaping the institutions of post-Soviet Russia and causing it to happen, so it's rich to hear them complaining about it.

Also, the dissolution of the USSR was a tragedy.

The reality is, imperialism isn't bad because the USA is a bad country who is doing it wrong (unlike Russia whose imperialism is justified and benevolent as a form of self-defence against the bad imperialism) it's bad because the mechanisms of imperialism are fundamentally abusive regardless of doing them, but, perhaps even more importantly, it's bad because it represents a worldview that is simply incorrect and has never worked. The people outside the metropole are just as real, just as agentive and just as capable of action as the people within it.

Global capitalism and imperialism impose pressures not just on firms but on countries and blocs of countries. You don't make the world less imperialist by clearing out the second or third or fourth place empire whose remnants will simply be absorbed. You do it by weakening the most powerful imperial formation, thereby relieving competitive pressure on everyone else. Continue this until it is possible for a cooperation between non-exploitative economies to contend with the remaining empires.

I pointed out that these governments have their own interests, as all governments do, and that the interests of those governments align with the USA. That doesn't mean they are being forced to do anything, kind of the opposite in fact.

You pointed out that their interests "align" because of their lack of military spending.

France, the UK, Japan, Germany all have significantly higher GDP than Russia. Even Australia has similar GDP to Russia. The relative lack of military readiness in these countries is a choice, and one that will probably change dramatically within the next decade or two thanks to what is happening now. Ironically, the US has been pushing for European countries to increase their military readiness and contribute more to their own defence for a long time, and Russia has likely created a situation in which that will happen. We are probably going to witness an era of significantly greater militarization in Europe, likely at the expense of non-military government expenditure.

So, all to the benefit of war profiteers. Sounds like the ruling class of the United States now has the promised return on its investment in the Euromaidan coup.

That's a hell of an assumption, why would you assume that?

Well, for one thing it wasn't two David Cameron flunkies who were caught on tape picking who would be the government of Ukraine after the Euromaidan coup. It was Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt. It's not the UK that has nearly 2000 nuclear missiles ready to shoot at any given moment. It's not the UK that is capable of taking steps that could assure Russia of its security.

It's not an assumption, it's a simple geopolitical fact. Yeah, even if some of your football clubs are owned by Russians. Are you confused because the BBC talks about Boris Johnson more often than Joe Biden?

Is it bad when Russia does it, or does it become praxis?

The former. Why would you think otherwise? The fact remains, Yanukovych preferred Russia's terms to those of the IMF. That's not saying much, but it is saying something.

When Russian "security concerns" are its right to militarily suppress independent countries, how much respect does that deserve, precisely? A lot in your mind, I know, because the fundamental principle you seem to operating under is that anyone has a right to exercise force, repression and slaughter as long as it's against the interests of the Western elites.

Its security concerns are about feeling safe from attack in both the short and long term. Interpreting them in an uncharitable way would not be helpful even if it were accurate.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Wanna see some 'Lefty' media's take on Ukraine right now


To sum up: we can take Ukraine refugees safely into our country because they are civilised, Christian and white. They're prosperous, middle class people who are just desperate. We can't take Syrian because they aren't any of those things

Stated on CBS, Al Jeezera and MSNBC

Fuck me, I cant believe people ever actually thought these places are Progressive. This is a prime example of why you would be wrong

I'm shocked that you're shocked.

This reminds me of when Manhattan Karens got so triggered that non rich (and non white) students might be bussed into their school.

Student diversity push upsets some parents at UWS school

The proposal would require middle schools to reserve a quarter of its seats for students scoring below grade level on some exams.

www.ny1.com

I think what the report is saying is Bullshit. But what I think he's saying is also true to life.

Yeah, a lot of people in America WILL be more willing to accept Ukrainians than other populations. A lot of Americas will look at how an Ukrainian look and will think "civilized" compared to a African Refugee, a Middle Eastern Refugee, or a South or Central American Refugee. They won't admit it to themselves. They'll paint the situation as dire. But it's no more dire than escaping Drug Cartels.

A better equipped armed force is just a better equipped armed force at the end of the day. The results are still the same, they can take your life and property.

He damn sure could have done a better job foisting his biases off to the American People who share his views. He didn't. And that's what truly is going to come down on his head. You and I are outraged because its inhuman. A vast majority of Americans are going to appear to be outraged because they don't want to be caught out with their own biases.