Ukraine

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,947
806
118
If you're just going to deny the reality that Russia's primary interest is its own security from Western encroachment
The thing is that no one except for some tankies actually believes that. Including most Russians. I am sceptical about you believing it yourself. It is roughly as credible as Nazi Germany fighting back against Poland.


But sure, let's entertain this. Wouldn't that mean that Russia would be open to a peace that does make Ukraine militarily neutral like Switzerland if Russia retreat back to the internationally recognized border ? Wouldn't that also mean that one or more of the many attempts of third party hosted negotiation (China, Turkey, India) would have lead somewhere ?
 
Last edited:

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,918
9,607
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
If you're just going to deny the reality that Russia's primary interest is its own security from Western encroachment, there is little point discussing the particulars.
Russia has to be allowed to invade and conquer its neighbors to protect itself from the West!

Of course, nobody has any right to defend themselves from Russia, because Seanchaidh has dreams of a resurgent USSR inspiring workers' revolutions around the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvanus

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,297
1,743
118
Country
The Netherlands
Russia has to be allowed to invade and conquer its neighbors to protect itself from the West!

Of course, nobody has any right to defend themselves from Russia, because Seanchaidh has dreams of a resurgent USSR inspiring workers' revolutions around the world.
While at the same time cheering on the robber barons ruling Russia and kidnapping or murdering anyone of the working class who notices too loudly the robber barons are robbing them blind.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,161
6,409
118
Country
United Kingdom
If you're just going to deny the reality that Russia's primary interest is its own security from Western encroachment, there is little point discussing the particulars.
I do indeed refuse to accept the Russian government's stated primary aim, given that it is transparently at odds with its actions and is wholly predicated on an imperial assumption.

Russia has never had its own territory encroached upon by Ukraine or NATO. It has attempted to recast other sovereign countries pursuing their own voluntary associations as an encroachment on Russian territory, under the imperial premise that Russia has the right to dictate nearby countries' policies. It has then seized territory from others repeatedly. So no, the 'self defence' line is not credible-- a flimsy justification for imperial seizure and regime change, just as American national security was weaponised to invade others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hades

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,165
3,900
118
I do indeed refuse to accept the Russian government's stated primary aim, given that it is transparently at odds with its actions and is wholly predicated on an imperial assumption.

Russia has never had its own territory encroached upon by Ukraine or NATO. It has attempted to recast other sovereign countries pursuing their own voluntary associations as an encroachment on Russian territory, under the imperial premise that Russia has the right to dictate nearby countries' policies. It has then seized territory from others repeatedly. So no, the 'self defence' line is not credible-- a flimsy justification for imperial seizure and regime change, just as American national security was weaponised to invade others.
Pft, I bet if Ukraine decided to ally with Russia due to being threatened by Western Europe, Seanchaidh would be the first cheering on a NATO invading for its own security.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,823
3,553
118
Country
United States of America
But sure, let's entertain this. Wouldn't that mean that Russia would be open to a peace that does make Ukraine militarily neutral like Switzerland if Russia retreat back to the internationally recognized border ? Wouldn't that also mean that one or more of the many attempts of third party hosted negotiation (China, Turkey, India) would have lead somewhere ?
Russia was open to more or less that, complicated by their naval base in Sevastopol being surrounded by the rest of Crimea (which doesn't particularly want to be part of Ukraine anyway and has its own right to self-determination irrespective of the wishes of revanchists in Lviv). That is what they were pursuing before 2022. One of those third party hosted negotiations (the one in Turkey) did in fact lead somewhere: to an agreement that was derailed by Boris Johnson telling Kiev that they had better not. I'm not sure precisely what leverage he used to make Kiev obey, but it is not difficult to imagine that he (along with the US) had such leverage.

Pft, I bet if Ukraine decided to ally with Russia due to being threatened by Western Europe, Seanchaidh would be the first cheering on a NATO invading for its own security.
Weird thought, as I have not cheered on anyone regarding this except to the extent that I think Russia too badly losing on the battlefield is a scenario that is more likely to lead to nuclear war, so I am thankful that they do not appear to be losing. I want peace and the world not to be an irradiated wasteland as well as to shatter the illusions crafted by Western propaganda that enable it to create situations that result in things like the war in Ukraine.

Russia has never had its own territory encroached upon by Ukraine or NATO. It has attempted to recast other sovereign countries pursuing their own voluntary associations as an encroachment on Russian territory, under the imperial premise that Russia has the right to dictate nearby countries' policies. It has then seized territory from others repeatedly. So no, the 'self defence' line is not credible-- a flimsy justification for imperial seizure and regime change, just as American national security was weaponised to invade others.
Do you think the US response to the stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba was a weaponisation of American national security? Or indeed that the Soviet response to the deployment of missiles in Italy and Turkey was a weaponisation of Soviet security concerns? How many times during the cold war did an American proxy shoot missiles into the Soviet Union? How many times during the cold war did a Soviet proxy shoot missiles into the United States or United Kingdom or France? NATO is being reckless in the extreme.

When you believe all media commentators, academics, nonprofits etc are automatically shills for the government of the country they live in, then I can see how you'd come to this conclusion.
I think an academic who generally supports US national interest like Mearsheimer, or someone who worked at a high level in US government like Jeffrey Sachs or George Kennan or Chas Freeman are more likely to have a point when they criticize a US action, especially one related to their field of expertise, than the legion of 'experts' who will advocate the current policy. I think that then ambassador and later CIA director William Burns offering cautions about the policy of adding Ukraine to NATO in a diplomatic cable is indeed more credible than the triumphalist smarm of those who advocate the current policy even if they may be outnumbered on MSNBC or CNN or the BBC.

In truth, quite a lot of these people do benefit from parroting the Russian line. Certainly you've noticed that a high proportion of the commentators you cite-- most of them Westerners-- are nonetheless bankrolled by Russian state companies.
I have noticed that this is a calumny often employed against opponents of US policy regardless of accuracy or as if the ones parroting the US line are not "bankrolled" in the same way or more gratuitously by pro-US think tanks, CIA cutout foundations, and so forth.

Here is an example from another theater that you should be able to understand. This guy is a lot more credible than any IDF spokesperson or Zionist politician or israeli news anchor who says that the IDF is not committing war crimes, even if he is outnumbered:


It helps that he's absolutely correct, of course. But in any case it is remarkable that he is saying what he is saying because it is a repudiation of the actions of an organization that he once led. It does indeed carry more weight than if he himself said the opposite. And it is more credible than other statements he has made about other topics or that he made prior e.g. regime-supporting statements made while he was defense minister. And I think you should agree with that analysis whether or not he subsequently appears on RT or Al-Jazeera to say it again.

There is a professional risk that people like Sachs and Mearsheimer and Katchanovski and so on have taken by speaking out and it's silly to think that possibly being paid for their time to appear on RT America occasionally is the reason they hold their views, especially when they could be paid far more to appear on other channels to say the opposite (or by a well-funded pro-US think tank or business 'consultancy').
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,947
806
118
Russia was open to more or less that, complicated by their naval base in Sevastopol being surrounded by the rest of Crimea (which doesn't particularly want to be part of Ukraine anyway and has its own right to self-determination irrespective of the wishes of revanchists in Lviv). That is what they were pursuing before 2022. One of those third party hosted negotiations (the one in Turkey) did in fact lead somewhere: to an agreement that was derailed by Boris Johnson telling Kiev that they had better not. I'm not sure precisely what leverage he used to make Kiev obey, but it is not difficult to imagine that he (along with the US) had such leverage.
Not true. While before Russia surely did want Ukraine to distance itself from the West, Russia never offered to back to international recognized borders after 2014. They were never willing to give up the Donbass, much less the Crimea.

As for the Turkey deal : There was no agreement close to being signed. Nothing was agreed on, the discussion of territorial issues hadn't even started in earned. There was a honest negotiation but it hadn't led very far. You are also vastly overestimating Johnson if you believe he could have forced Ukraine to bow out. You don't know the leverage because he frankly doesn't have much. UKs soft power was at a all time low after bumbling Brexit. The only think Johnson could do and did was promise the Ukraine weapons. But if a deal had been on the table that Ukraine could accept, it would have just done so.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,161
6,409
118
Country
United Kingdom
Do you think the US response to the stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba was a weaponisation of American national security? Or indeed that the Soviet response to the deployment of missiles in Italy and Turkey was a weaponisation of Soviet security concerns? How many times during the cold war did an American proxy shoot missiles into the Soviet Union? How many times during the cold war did a Soviet proxy shoot missiles into the United States or United Kingdom or France? NATO is being reckless in the extreme.
No, those things were not mere weaponisation, though they were deeply misguided and escalatory. And yet-- the only foreign military bases in Ukraine were Russian. NATO nuclear weapons were not in Ukraine.

So, a true analogy would be, Cuba forming a defensive treaty with the USSR without any nuclear weapons being there, and the US invading it in retaliation. More Bay of Pigs than Missile Crisis, with you taking the position that the US is justified in invading to protect its security from Cuba's right to align itself freely as a sovereign state.

I think an academic who generally supports US national interest like Mearsheimer, or someone who worked at a high level in US government like Jeffrey Sachs or George Kennan or Chas Freeman are more likely to have a point when they criticize a US action, especially one related to their field of expertise, than the legion of 'experts' who will advocate the current policy. I think that then ambassador and later CIA director William Burns offering cautions about the policy of adding Ukraine to NATO in a diplomatic cable is indeed more credible than the triumphalist smarm of those who advocate the current policy even if they may be outnumbered on MSNBC or CNN or the BBC.
I, on the other hand, don't attribute credibility on the basis of agreement.

I have noticed that this is a calumny often employed against opponents of US policy regardless of accuracy or as if the ones parroting the US line are not "bankrolled" in the same way or more gratuitously by pro-US think tanks, CIA cutout foundations, and so forth.
Oh, some of them are indeed bankrolled by those thinktanks and security fronts, no doubt-- and their credibility suffers drastically as a result. Yet you extrapolate that tanked credibility to anyone saying things you don't much like, regardless of whether they actually have these dubious finances or not. Meanwhile, if someone says something you do like, their own murky background and financial backing is happily overlooked.

You're judging this solely on who you agree with; there's zero consistent standard.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,297
1,743
118
Country
The Netherlands
Seems Russia escalating things in Ukraine came at the cost of withdrawing troops from Syria they really couldn't afford to withdraw. Assad's currently getting a bloody nose from Islamist rebels, and there are reports of infighting occurring in Damascus.

So for it dreams of empire Russia was willing to risk Islamist getting a new base. How very responsible of them.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,918
9,607
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Seems Russia escalating things in Ukraine came at the cost of withdrawing troops from Syria they really couldn't afford to withdraw. Assad's currently getting a bloody nose from Islamist rebels, and there are reports of infighting occurring in Damascus.

So for it dreams of empire Russia was willing to risk Islamist getting a new base. How very responsible of them.
It's all the West's fault for not letting Russia conquer Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluegate

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,297
1,743
118
Country
The Netherlands
Ew someone so self righteously ''anti neocon'' that he's basically a Russian shill in sheeps clothing. Did he ever blame Russia for igniting a path to nuclear war? Where was this guy when the Kremlin went around butchering citizens of NATO countries? He even went with the whole ''lol nato expansion'' grift despite knowing fully well Putin started this war over a trade deal, not an invitation to NATO.

I'd have more respect for them if they admitted that they hated the US so much that they are willing to send thousands of people to their oppression and death just to annoy the US a bit. Just say that. Don't try to cloak it under pretense of just wishing for de escalation, or supposed concern over the lives of people they'd love to see shoved into the gulag. That all these pretensions often directly mimic Kremlin talking points kinda gives away the grift.

I'm rapidly losing my patience with these lunatics. Either they're so idiotic they accidentally cheer on the far right oligarchs in Russia, or they knowingly promote the Russian oligarchy because they share their vallues, and any pretense of leftists ideals are just pure lies. They have zero good faith to speak of, and at least in the realm of geopolitics absolutely zero morals. Nor do they have any strategic perspective to speak of because legalizing and legitimizing Russian expansion can only lead to more war rather than less, which many probably realize and celebrate because at least half of them are Russian shills in sheep clothing who care nothing for casualties.

They're not good people with unfortunate takes. They're just scum.
 
Last edited: