View Poll Results: Whom do you support and to what extent?

Voters
148. You may not vote on this poll
  • I support Ukraine fully.

    103 69.59%
  • I support Russia fully.

    15 10.14%
  • I only support Russia's claim over Crimea.

    4 2.70%
  • I only support Russia's claim over Crimea and Donbass (Luhansk and Donetsk regions).

    11 7.43%
  • Not sure.

    7 4.73%
  • I don't care.

    8 5.41%

Thread: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

  1. #4441
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Looking more like the hard side of NATO US, UK and Poland and the Baltic States needs to put up or shut about now. Putin is still not pulled the trigger on the mobilization that would get him the infantry he needs which is basically the only Ace Ukraine has. But V3 of the war is finally playing to all his strengths Artillery and his air force operating under his AA defense cover. If the Political statements out of the hard pro Ukrainian side of NATO have any meaning they really need to push a lot more ammo and heavy weapons now (and probably those Polish MIGs (*)) otherwise they were never serious.

    *And honestly I betting Poland et can scrap a lot more Warsaw pact stuff quick. Send more US troops in say Poland or Romania is worried about being exposed.
    Last edited by conon394; June 12, 2022 at 01:54 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  2. #4442
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,931

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    I like how he explicitly said it's about time people learnt about history outside of 1933-1947 and that's exactly where you went.
    Western appeasement has been here during entire post-Soviet Russia from 1992 to this year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    A "nuclear shootout" would be a "world without" the "next generation of humans", period.
    That's not true.

    Capitals may be hit, but most of Western countries will have survivors, while Russia would be completely gone as it's centered on a handful of cities and scattered survivors in Siberia would die without trade.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    If someone else's independence and dignity are yours to surrender, they never had any to begin with.
    Most countries in the world are powerless themselves against brutal regimes like Kremlin and CCP. Are you saying they have no independence or dignity?

    Russia at 1991 couldn't have invaded Ukraine even if they wanted to. Neither could China at 50s attack anyone. The only reason they can threaten their neighbors today is because instead of trying to finish them off, Western countries were actively helping them.

  3. #4443
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by AqD View Post
    Most countries in the world are powerless themselves against brutal regimes like Kremlin and CCP. Are you saying they have no independence or dignity?
    I'm saying that if their independence/dignity aren't theirs to surrender or defend but yours, they don't have any yes.

  4. #4444
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,931

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Alastor View Post
    I'm saying that if their independence/dignity aren't theirs to surrender or defend but yours, they don't have any yes.
    All the more reason for completely breaking up regimes like Kremlin. We're never safe until it's wiped off this planet.

  5. #4445
    Alastor's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Not home
    Posts
    2,534

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by AqD View Post
    All the more reason for completely breaking up regimes like Kremlin. We're never safe until it's wiped off this planet.
    That's a non sequitur.

  6. #4446

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by AqD View Post
    All the more reason for completely breaking up regimes like Kremlin. We're never safe until it's wiped off this planet.
    You're reversing cause and effect. The root of the issue is what causes such regimes to appear and become popular in the first place. They are, biologically speaking, human, so it shoud send us some clue in learning, just like when we learn history, but this time learning is in the present.

    Otherwise, such type of regimes will just re-appear when someone able appears to take power vacuum, if lesson is not taken seriously.
    Last edited by fkizz; June 12, 2022 at 06:02 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  7. #4447
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Yes, it is indeed funny for Finns to re-write a policy as "not-working" when it has explicitly worked. I mean that's a bit like a college graduate telling kids that going to college was the wrong choice after earning a large income premium from their degree.
    If it's worked so so well why are the Finn's abandoning it? They don't seem to think it will protect them anymore. Doesn't take a genius to see it from the perspective of Finland.


    It's not a counter to anything, but if it makes you feel better about your perspective, by all means. Not the first time moral victories were trumpeted as tangible success.
    My perspective? Funny enough its the Finn's who decided on abandoning neutrality as they don't see it benefiting them or protecting them anymore. It's not my fault you can't see it from Finland's eyes.

    You're right, the thesis of the article doesn't make the entire article delusions, the rest of the article that just fine on its own.
    I have read the article. You are simply cherry picking at this point because you have certainly ignored the points he raised in regards to Finland and Ukraine which is why you are focused on this one part of the article.

    Appeasement doesn't work. Finland or Taiwan are poor examples of appeasement. Saddam is way better though and you casually ignored that when it was mentioned earlier. Appeasement didn't end in 1947 btw.

    Hell the Cold War is the biggest example of appeasement in action. The Soviets and Americans did nothing but appease dictators and authoritarian leaders to gain influence over each other. Pinochet could be an example of appeasement in action. Plenty of examples
    Last edited by Vanoi; June 13, 2022 at 12:27 AM.

  8. #4448

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    If it's worked so so well why are the Finn's abandoning it? They don't seem to think it will protect them anymore. Doesn't take a genius to see it from the perspective of Finland.
    "Doesn't work anymore" Finns are safer today, than they were at any point before 1991. The Soviet Union was both a much more powerful country than Russia, and a more confident one. So you're right. It doesn't take a genius to see the rather obvious moral posturing, obscuring a sound strategic policy. As far back as 2008, Finland was dependent 100% on Russia for gas. That figure is significantly lower today, to say nothing of other strategic areas of Finland's economy.

    Finland has used its neutrality well, hence why they have no need to be neutral anymore. It's not a case of neutrality "not working". It's a case of neutrality working exactly as intended.

    My perspective? Funny enough its the Finn's who decided on abandoning neutrality as they don't see it benefiting them or protecting them anymore. It's not my fault you can't see it from Finland's eyes.
    No, I simply don't buy into the moral posturing. These "principles" that people keep talking about? Tossed aside when costs of maintaining them becoming significant. Foreign policy is full of hypocrites.

    I have read the article. You are simply cherry picking at this point because you have certainly ignored the points he raised in regards to Finland and Ukraine which is why you are focused on this one part of the article.
    It's not cherry-picked. It is literally the central thesis of the entire article.

    End of Paragraph 1; "If the transatlantic community accepts the Finlandization of Ukraine as an exit from the current crisis, it will be a sacrifice of Western values in order to implement a policy destined to fail, and at the cost of a successful Ukrainian democracy."

    Paragraph 2: Mearshimer is wrong because "his vision of neutralization misinterprets the historical lessons of the Finnish experience, ignoring the potential for a nonaligned Ukraine to undermine hold on power." Basically, a non-aligned Ukraine will still threaten Russia because X

    Paragraph 3: "For Russians, the territory of Kievan Rus’ represents more than a mere former outpost of empire" dot dot dot "reflecting ties that make it impossible for the Putin regime to perceive Ukraine’s internal affairs as irrelevant to governance within Russia." I.E. the connection between Ukraine and Russia makes it impossible to ignore Ukraine regardless of its political alignment, against because X.

    Paragraph 4 : "Putin’s stakes in Ukraine entail more than military security. The potential for a democratically vibrant and economically prosperous Ukraine presents the Russian people with a feasible alternative to Putin’s path and, therefore, represents an existential threat to that regime." Ukraine's success (which is just assumed, ignoring the dozen EU member countries which aren't a paradise) is going to threaten Putin's regime.

    Paragraph 5: "The transatlantic community must understand that a liberal, reformed, and vigorous government in Kiev clashes with Putin’s interests." The existence of a Democratic Ukraine threatens Putin's regime simply by existing.

    Paragraph 6: "Ukraine possesses no option to surrender its foreign policy in exchange for Russia’s non-interference in domestic affairs, and the Kremlin will seek nothing less than the collapse of democracy in Ukraine. Consequently, embracing Finlandization would only serve to abandon Western values to chase the mirage of a true settlement." Again, Ukraine threatens Russia and Russia will not stop interfering in Ukraine. This ignores Finland's entire history, despite referencing Finalndization.

    Paragraph 7: "The West may no longer discount authoritarianism as a political system consigned to European history. Now more than ever, we must confront this insidious danger more of governance than military balances." This is just hilarious, honestly.

    Anyway, the accusation that I "cherry-picked" anything from a rather short article is just dishonesty, because I find it hard to believe that somebody who even read the first and last paragraph, could come to such a conclusion.

    Appeasement doesn't work. Finland or Taiwan are poor examples of appeasement. Saddam is way better though and you casually ignored that when it was mentioned earlier. Appeasement didn't end in 1947 btw.

    Hell the Cold War is the biggest example of appeasement in action. The Soviets and Americans did nothing but appease dictators and authoritarian leaders to gain influence over each other. Pinochet could be an example of appeasement in action. Plenty of examples
    Hilarious how Pinochet is an example of appeasement in action, but Taiwan isn't.

    Just to recount the history for people who aren't familiar;

    In 1938 the Munich Agreement was drafted, giving Sudetenland, Czechoslovakian territory, to Hitler. Czechslovakia was of course, not included in the discussions. In return, Hitler promised that this would be his last territorial claim. We all know the history, and how infamous "appeasement" became.

    In 1973, Augusto Pinochet came to power through a military coup that overthrew a Democratically elected government of Allende. Pinochet would remain in power until 1990, but for 17 years he would enjoy U.S. support and would in turn support U.S. efforts in the region, such as Operation Condor. Moreover, Pinochet was a dictator who viciously suppressed opposition.

    United States officially adopted the One China policy in the first of Three Communiques in 1972, where they officially recognized the People's Republic of China as the rightful Chinese government without recognizing Taiwan. The Three Communiques would be followed by the Taiwan Relations Act, followed by the Six Assurances and the Third Communique. In short, United States attempted to court China, by refusing to officially recognize Taiwan. In the following six decades, United States would repeatedly test the waters with China about what the "acceptable" level of military aid to Taiwan is, without triggering a serious military response. To this day United States does not recognize Taiwan, in the hopes of... oh, I don't know, hoping that the aggressive power of China will be satisfied by the status quo and not invade Taiwan.

    I think I know which scenario looks more like "appeasement" to me, and which one has worked a lot better.

    Let's see, Finnish neutrality and One China Policy score some solid goals for "appeasement works", while the diplomacy with Russia over Ukraine has horribly backfired.

    Or maybe not. Depends on who you ask I suppose. If you ask me, cynically, I would describe the Ukrainian situation as the biggest foreign policy Washington has had in over two decades.

  9. #4449
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    "Doesn't work anymore" Finns are safer today, than they were at any point before 1991
    That just sounds like your opinion. Considering the Russians have threatened Finland they certainly don't see it the same way.

    The Soviet Union was both a much more powerful country than Russia, and a more confident one. So you're right. It doesn't take a genius to see the rather obvious moral posturing, obscuring a sound strategic policy. As far back as 2008, Finland was dependent 100% on Russia for gas. That figure is significantly lower today, to say nothing of other strategic areas of Finland's economy.
    Not once did you actually answer why Finland has decided to abandon it's neutrality. Don't dance around the question.

    Finland has used its neutrality well, hence why they have no need to be neutral anymore. It's not a case of neutrality "not working". It's a case of neutrality working exactly as intended.
    That makes no utter sense. Why not abandon neutrality earlier in the 2000s if it was so successful? Russia was much weaker then than now. Finland only abandoned neutrality in response to a Russian invasion. Indicating they don't think it would work anymore. That doesn't sound like success.

    No, I simply don't buy into the moral posturing. These "principles" that people keep talking about? Tossed aside when costs of maintaining them becoming significant. Foreign policy is full of hypocrites.
    I don't need the moral high ground. No country is going to take foreign influence in their government or sovereignty bring violated. That has nothing to do with moral posturing.


    It's not cherry-picked. It is literally the central thesis of the entire article.

    End of Paragraph 1; "If the transatlantic community accepts the Finlandization of Ukraine as an exit from the current crisis, it will be a sacrifice of Western values in order to implement a policy destined to fail, and at the cost of a successful Ukrainian democracy."

    Paragraph 2: Mearshimer is wrong because "his vision of neutralization misinterprets the historical lessons of the Finnish experience, ignoring the potential for a nonaligned Ukraine to undermine hold on power." Basically, a non-aligned Ukraine will still threaten Russia because X

    Paragraph 3: "For Russians, the territory of Kievan Rus’ represents more than a mere former outpost of empire" dot dot dot "reflecting ties that make it impossible for the Putin regime to perceive Ukraine’s internal affairs as irrelevant to governance within Russia." I.E. the connection between Ukraine and Russia makes it impossible to ignore Ukraine regardless of its political alignment, against because X.

    Paragraph 4 : "Putin’s stakes in Ukraine entail more than military security. The potential for a democratically vibrant and economically prosperous Ukraine presents the Russian people with a feasible alternative to Putin’s path and, therefore, represents an existential threat to that regime." Ukraine's success (which is just assumed, ignoring the dozen EU member countries which aren't a paradise) is going to threaten Putin's regime.

    Paragraph 5: "The transatlantic community must understand that a liberal, reformed, and vigorous government in Kiev clashes with Putin’s interests." The existence of a Democratic Ukraine threatens Putin's regime simply by existing.

    Paragraph 6: "Ukraine possesses no option to surrender its foreign policy in exchange for Russia’s non-interference in domestic affairs, and the Kremlin will seek nothing less than the collapse of democracy in Ukraine. Consequently, embracing Finlandization would only serve to abandon Western values to chase the mirage of a true settlement." Again, Ukraine threatens Russia and Russia will not stop interfering in Ukraine. This ignores Finland's entire history, despite referencing Finalndization.

    Paragraph 7: "The West may no longer discount authoritarianism as a political system consigned to European history. Now more than ever, we must confront this insidious danger more of governance than military balances." This is just hilarious, honestly.

    Anyway, the accusation that I "cherry-picked" anything from a rather short article is just dishonesty, because I find it hard to believe that somebody who even read the first and last paragraph, could come to such a conclusion.
    Did the author state that Russia invaded Ukraine solely out of jealousy?


    Hilarious how Pinochet is an example of appeasement in action, but Taiwan isn't.
    Funny enough I don't see in my post where I claimed wasn't an example.

    Just to recount the history for people who aren't familiar;

    In 1938 the Munich Agreement was drafted, giving Sudetenland, Czechoslovakian territory, to Hitler. Czechslovakia was of course, not included in the discussions. In return, Hitler promised that this would be his last territorial claim. We all know the history, and how infamous "appeasement" became.

    In 1973, Augusto Pinochet came to power through a military coup that overthrew a Democratically elected government of Allende. Pinochet would remain in power until 1990, but for 17 years he would enjoy U.S. support and would in turn support U.S. efforts in the region, such as Operation Condor. Moreover, Pinochet was a dictator who viciously suppressed opposition.

    United States officially adopted the One China policy in the first of Three Communiques in 1972, where they officially recognized the People's Republic of China as the rightful Chinese government without recognizing Taiwan. The Three Communiques would be followed by the Taiwan Relations Act, followed by the Six Assurances and the Third Communique. In short, United States attempted to court China, by refusing to officially recognize Taiwan. In the following six decades, United States would repeatedly test the waters with China about what the "acceptable" level of military aid to Taiwan is, without triggering a serious military response. To this day United States does not recognize Taiwan, in the hopes of... oh, I don't know, hoping that the aggressive power of China will be satisfied by the status quo and not invade Taiwan.

    I think I know which scenario looks more like "appeasement" to me, and which one has worked a lot better.

    Let's see, Finnish neutrality and One China Policy score some solid goals for "appeasement works", while the diplomacy with Russia over Ukraine has horribly backfired.

    Or maybe not. Depends on who you ask I suppose. If you ask me, cynically, I would describe the Ukrainian situation as the biggest foreign policy Washington has had in over two decades.
    I like how you once again completely ignored the mention of Saddam nor addressed what I actually brought up. I think at this point you don't want to admit there are far more examples of appeasement utterly failing and backfiring than actually working.

    Taiwan is again a poor example that has led to a situation in which Taiwan has almost diplomatic relations with most countries and a hostile neighbor across the water. This is a great example of a frozen conflict. Appeasement didn't solve the actual problem of Taiwan. It's just delayed the conflict until inevitably China invaded to take it back or Taiwan declares independence and China invaded to take it back.

    That's another problem with appeasement. It's not a real solution. Often the real problems are unsolved and get kicked down to the next generation to solve.

  10. #4450
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,065

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    The US Has No Idea Where Its Ukrainian Military Aid Is Going
    -----
    -----
    Today,
    Ministry of Defence on Twitter: "(1 of 4) Over the weekend, the ...


    “Over the coming months
    , river crossing operations are likely to be amongst the most important determining factors in the course of the war”.
    "Over the coming months...". The question is, what are American interests for the long term? From an interview with Marcus Stanley, director of advocacy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He was formerly policy director at Americans for Financial Reform.
    The US Has No Endgame in Ukraine

    “There are worrying signs that the Biden administration might be unwilling to accept peace on any terms. When the administration speaks on this publicly there’s a kind of forswearing of US responsibility: “This isn’t our business, it’s all about Ukraine and Russia, and we’re not at the table.” But we are implicitly at the table for a bunch of reasons: one being that Ukraine is showing enormous courage in fighting on the front lines, but in a material sense, Ukraine is a US protectorate right now.

    They’re able to survive because of the scope of US aid right now. So that gives us a role. Even more important though is that a treaty cannot be reached with the other players without US sign off, support, and participation. And that’s true on both the Ukrainian and Russian side. It’s true on the Ukrainian side, because for difficult compromises that might need to be made, someone like Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky needs US support to make those tough decisions and needs US assurances if they want security guarantees. The United States is the player who can provide those guarantees.

    On the Russian side, they’re not going to trust any agreement from anybody, whether from Ukraine, France, or anyone else, unless they feel the US actively supports it. Russia’s been saying this for a while, but there’s an increasing admission in the United States that this is a proxy conflict between the US and Russia. So unless we’re saying to Russia we’re going to scale down or halt this proxy conflict if you agree to X, Y, and Z negotiations and hold to that agreement, Russia is not going to have the incentive to settle. The United States can offer critical things around potential easing of sanctions and around some meaningful form of Ukrainian neutrality. Ukraine’s going to be a Western-oriented country when all this is over because of what they’ve suffered from Russia.

    But what’s that Western orientation going to mean? Is there going to be meaningful military neutrality? Are there going to not be offensive weapons on Ukrainian soil? These kinds of things US assurances are necessary for. We have to ask: what are American interests for the long term? There’s a big contingent in DC going unopposed in the American domestic discourse right now that is saying American interests are in the maximal weakening of Russia, bleeding Russia out, damaging Russia as much as they can, ensuring it can’t act aggressively in the future.

    I think that’s a misrepresentation. First of all, because it misrepresents Russia’s current situation, which is that it has been weakened massively; it faces very severe limitations to its ability to act aggressively beyond borders. Russia’s ability to project conventional military power beyond its own borders has been shown to be limited. It can barely handle areas a hundred miles from their own borders in a region of Ukraine that was supposed to be culturally pro-Russia, where it has all kinds of political and tactical and strategic connections. There are people in DC that are saying that we have to fight a multiyear war to weaken Russia — otherwise it’s going to invade Germany. That’s fantasy.

    if we extend this war to bleed Russia out, we’re creating a situation where Russia will rely even more intensely on its nuclear force. We’re also creating a situation where Ukrainians can’t live peacefully or prosperously, where it’s going to be impossible to begin the economic rebuilding of Ukraine.

    From US interests and Ukrainian interests, we do not have an interest in bleeding Russia out; that’s a fallacy that relies on claims about Russia’s ability to project conventional power, and the situation calls for a US peace and negotiation strategy that is not there right now.

    I think it’s realistic to say Putin is not ready to give back Crimea, he wants a neutral Ukraine, and he probably wants some kind of territorial settlement in the far east of Ukraine; he wants Donbas to at least be on the table. When UN secretary general António Guterres went to Moscow, Putin had a very telling speech. It was pretty defensive about the extent to which he’s ready for diplomacy but kind of laid out what Russia sees as the minimum, which is that Ukrainian neutrality, Donbas, and Crimea have to be on the table.

    But now we’re saying that any discussion of these minimal Russian goals is appeasement, or surrender to Russia, or defeat for Ukraine and the United States. The goalposts have moved there. As long as that’s defined as defeat for the US and Ukraine, it becomes hard to talk about them. But I think those goals are compatible with a highly beneficial settlement for the United States and Ukraine, a settlement that sees Ukraine as Western-aligned, economically open to the West, independent, sovereign, and part of a European security order that’s way more stable than having an unsettled shooting war in Eastern Ukraine for the foreseeable future. There’s got to be people in the US discourse who are willing to define this as a win.
    ----
    Only the war in Ukraine made it possible for the French left to unite.Ipsos-Sopra Steria projects the NUPES will grab 150 to 190 seats – about three times the number of left-wing MPs (60) who currently sit in the Assemblée Nationale.

    No 'immediate exit' from NATO for Mélenchon, but a vote in Parliament

    Mélenchon conceded, however, that his “point of view is not shared today,” and the current context in Europe must be respected. Proposing an immediate exit from NATO would “prevent the union from taking place”.
    Socialist Party representative Corinne Narassiguin, who was also in the room, nodded in approval of Mélenchon’s statement.
    The left-wing bloc’s programme announced that, should it be elected, parliament will be asked to vote on membership or exit of NATO.
    Last edited by Ludicus; June 13, 2022 at 07:07 AM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  11. #4451

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi
    That's another problem with appeasement. It's not a real solution. Often the real problems are unsolved and get kicked down to the next generation to solve.
    In any attempt to shift blame to Kiev for the continuation of the war, it’s often necessary to deny the agency of the Ukrainian people and whitewash the war as the result of Kiev’s cold calculus, sacrificing its people for the quest to join NATO/EU. The issue is framed this way in order to make the Kremlin’s position more palatable to western audiences and complements the idea that Moscow has been disrespected and ignored into taking extreme action. That’s where the appeasement argument comes in, because at that point the narrative boils down to putting the onus on Ukraine to surrender, even prior to the invasion, to appease Putin.

    I don’t think Zelensky’s refusal to cede territory is pure hubris. The vast majority of Ukrainians endorse that view and it’s hardening as time goes on. At a point where the Russians have leveled your hometown, raped and murdered people en masse, and shipped the survivors off to filtration camps, the hatred and desire for revenge are likely only redoubled by threats of further devastation. So even if Zelensky wanted to back down, his own political and personal future is riding on resisting to bitter end alongside his people, even more so than it might have been a couple months ago. And if NATO is worth a it will continue to get the Ukrainians whatever they need to do that.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; June 13, 2022 at 12:24 PM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  12. #4452
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,931

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    You're reversing cause and effect. The root of the issue is what causes such regimes to appear and become popular in the first place. They are, biologically speaking, human, so it shoud send us some clue in learning, just like when we learn history, but this time learning is in the present.
    It's not our responsibility to take care of failed states and deal with their emotional or mental issues, especially when they're much bigger and powerful than us.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Otherwise, such type of regimes will just re-appear when someone able appears to take power vacuum, if lesson is not taken seriously.
    The lesson learnt IMO is that we should not have attempted to integrate hostile countries.

    Instead of bridges we could build walls - western technologies and economical power can already guarantee our safety and provide military edges over those countries, which, without any western support, were already decades behind last century and could not possibly challenge us or keep themselves fed.

  13. #4453

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    That just sounds like your opinion. Considering the Russians have threatened Finland they certainly don't see it the same way.
    Political punditry is often opinion. Except my opinion is observation, rather than an attempt to crowbar a narrative. To address the weird importance you place on Finnish opinion about the history of their foreign policy, Ukrainians also had a lot of thoughts about how Russia wouldn't invade. Surely, Ukrainians would know best about what is going on inside, or about to happen to their country.

    Spoiler: They didn't, and Ukrainians continue to be one of the least reliable sources about the war and the state of Ukraine in general.

    Not once did you actually answer why Finland has decided to abandon it's neutrality. Don't dance around the question.
    Why would I answer a non-sequitur? It's up to you to present an argument for why it doesn't work, because I already explained why it does work. Similarly, I also explained why the article you are so fond of (yet cannot bother to read in its entirety) is quite poor in its analysis.

    Do some work for once Vanoi, I substantiated my claims. If you have a problem with them, feel free to write a counter-argument.

    That makes no utter sense. Why not abandon neutrality earlier in the 2000s if it was so successful? Russia was much weaker then than now. Finland only abandoned neutrality in response to a Russian invasion. Indicating they don't think it would work anymore. That doesn't sound like success.
    When did I say Finland didn't abandon neutrality in the 2000s? Finland has steadily abandoned neutrality and embraced Western institutions the moment the Soviet Union collapsed. Your assumption is flat out wrong.

    I don't need the moral high ground. No country is going to take foreign influence in their government or sovereignty bring violated. That has nothing to do with moral posturing.
    What an absurd statement that ignores the basics of liberal IR theory. All EU members have de-facto given up sovereignty and are subject to foreign influence. It'll be interesting to see the mental gymnastics on this debate. It's also just a simple fact that all sovereign states regularly surrender sovereignty and subject themselves to foreign influence, de jure and de facto, in exchange for various economic and military benefits.

    Did the author state that Russia invaded Ukraine solely out of jealousy?
    The article was written before 2022. This question is made in bad faith.

    Funny enough I don't see in my post where I claimed wasn't an example.
    That's alright, you didn't see or read the main thesis of an article you're defending either. Easy remedy Vanoi, re-read your posts and focus on the subject.

    I like how you once again completely ignored the mention of Saddam nor addressed what I actually brought up. I think at this point you don't want to admit there are far more examples of appeasement utterly failing and backfiring than actually working.
    I would address it if you actually bothered explaining how Saddam is an example. I'm not going to do the work for you.

    Taiwan is again a poor example that has led to a situation in which Taiwan has almost diplomatic relations with most countries and a hostile neighbor across the water. This is a great example of a frozen conflict. Appeasement didn't solve the actual problem of Taiwan. It's just delayed the conflict until inevitably China invaded to take it back or Taiwan declares independence and China invaded to take it back.
    Taiwan is a great example of both. Appeasement did solve the primary problem of Taiwan. Peace. Concessions by the United States in the 70s and 80s have allowed Taiwan to economically stabilize and become a highly prosperous society. The "actual problem" you are referencing is not an actual problem, because majority of the world is concerned with the de facto state of hostilities and political relations between ROC and PRC. Even United States is not heavily invested in the de jure issue of Taiwan's political status. So no, the "actual problem" has been solved, Taiwan has peace. Though not for long, as unipolarity continues to erode and non-aligned parties steadily abandon neutrality out of fear.

    Of course, you can always come back with "what about what Taiwan thinks", but I think I've made my point clear on this matter. Sovereign countries can do whatever they want and I'm perfectly fine with it, so long as it is the legitimate government and has a broad public mandate. I.E. Finland abandoning neutrality, and Ukraine choosing to continue its struggle.

    However, the opinion on the basis that they are opining their own political preferences, of these individual states, is completely irrelevant to me, when assessing their foreign policy. To put it more simply, I'm perfectly fine with smokers choosing to smoke, but if they want to tell me it's actually healthy, sorry, their position is wrong regardless of how many other smokers agree with them.

    That's another problem with appeasement. It's not a real solution. Often the real problems are unsolved and get kicked down to the next generation to solve.
    That's not the problem. The problem is that political positions can kill the party in power, and appeasement can be politically advantageous (especially when its called "appeasement), or politically disadvantageous. Taiwan has benefitted from generations of peacetime, which would have otherwise been lost if it were subject to a great struggle between two great powers. The same case could've been applied to Ukraine, of course the national humiliation, inevitable accusations of Western hypocrisy and backstabbing would've cost politicians jobs, and in case of my country, an excellent opportunity for a geopolitical victory, but it would've spared Kiev, it would've spared Kharkiv, and it would've spared thousands of lives and billions in economic output.

    But again, if Ukrainians are okay with voting to keep spilling their own blood? Who am I to tell them otherwise? Keep fighting, but it is completely disingenuous to assume that this was the best possible outcome, that any appeasement would've produced a worse outcome, and people shouldn't argue that. It only serves to discredit Ukrainian courage. As if they decided to fight and rejected neutrality because it was the only option they really had, as opposed to a choice, that they made. To fight and risk death on their feet, rather than live on their knees.

  14. #4454

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by AqD View Post
    It's not our responsibility to take care of failed states and deal with their emotional or mental issues, especially when they're much bigger and powerful than us.
    I never said that. What I said was, there is a lesson to be learned into how/why such regimes become popular, if lesson is not learned, you will have responsability pushed into you forever to take care of them. History shows such patterns to be common. An exception to a superpower that bothered to learn this lesson was the Roman one, and counting East Rome lasted almost 2000+ years.

    Quote Originally Posted by AqD View Post
    The lesson learnt IMO is that we should not have attempted to integrate hostile countries.

    Instead of bridges we could build walls - western technologies and economical power can already guarantee our safety and provide military edges over those countries, which, without any western support, were already decades behind last century and could not possibly challenge us or keep themselves fed.
    That's too similiar to what Stasi would do. You're just looking at a failed situation ignoring the others. Look at the amount of ex-USSR land that became part of NATO. From East Germany to the Balkans, and now there's Finland, Sweden, Georgia and Ukraine wanting to get in.

    Of course there wasn't a 100% sucess rate in this process, but sucesses were had. The absence of some of them isn't a strategic index that something went wrong.
    If you move resources to get everything, you'll get nothing, as Sun Tzu and Frederick II said.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  15. #4455
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,931

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    .
    But again, if Ukrainians are okay with voting to keep spilling their own blood? Who am I to tell them otherwise? Keep fighting, but it is completely disingenuous to assume that this was the best possible outcome, that any appeasement would've produced a worse outcome, and people shouldn't argue that.
    The outcome is forced by the west not getting directly involved.

    NATO could have destroyed all Russian forces in Ukraine easily without risk of escalation, unless Russuains prefer to commit suicide than losing Ukraine, in which case the end result would be the same to them when they're finally defeated by Ukrainians.

    Nobody is suggesting Ukrainians to die defending. We'll keep sending everything they need until they win. Do you seriously believe Russia could defeat a large country with willing soldiers backed by NATO's military industry? Or you're just speaking for Kremlin, who would love nothing more than peace by a small victory now to avoid humiliation?

  16. #4456
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,931

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    That's too similiar to what Stasi would do. You're just looking at a failed situation ignoring the others. Look at the amount of ex-USSR land that became part of NATO. From East Germany to the Balkans, and now there's Finland, Sweden, Georgia and Ukraine wanting to get in.
    You're treating the world like struggle of two alliances, when it's in fact a brutal empire colonized and enslaved large number of countries, who then escaped and seek to protect their independence.

    Russia should own nothing because none of their former slaves want to go back. Such an empire should never have been allowed to exist on this planet and it's the west's fault not to destroy it when they could.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Of course there wasn't a 100% sucess rate in this process, but sucesses were had. The absence of some of them isn't a strategic index that something went wrong.
    If you move resources to get everything, you'll get nothing, as Sun Tzu and Frederick II said.
    They had no technological advantages back then like we do now.

    The west developed Internet, all the computers, machinery, modern medicines, agricultural innovations and it attracts most of the talented brains. We could for example deny them Internet and any access to modern hardware and knowledge. With an oppressive and corrupt society, as all our enemies are, how long do you think they can keep it up before descending into civil war and then dark ages? We could even keep buying energy and materials from them - since they have nothing else of value to trade

  17. #4457

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by AqD View Post
    You're treating the world like struggle of two alliances, when it's in fact a brutal empire colonized and enslaved large number of countries, who then escaped and seek to protect their independence.

    Russia should own nothing because none of their former slaves want to go back. Such an empire should never have been allowed to exist on this planet and it's the west's fault not to destroy it when they could.
    One thing was the First and Second Punic War, but the Third Punic War had terrible consequences back at home for the Senate and Rome, giving birth to at least two famous civil wars and very high unrest levels. Not to mention it openly broke Rome's values.

    You speak like a Senator would speak of Carthage after the Second Punic War. There's a lesson from history to learn here.


    Quote Originally Posted by AqD View Post
    They had no technological advantages back then like we do now.

    The west developed Internet, all the computers, machinery, modern medicines, agricultural innovations and it attracts most of the talented brains. We could for example deny them Internet and any access to modern hardware and knowledge. With an oppressive and corrupt society, as all our enemies are, how long do you think they can keep it up before descending into civil war and then dark ages? We could even keep buying energy and materials from them - since they have nothing else of value to trade
    Many of them don't want to be in their situation and don't support their regime, they simply get "jailed" or "disapeared" if they voice their dissent, and this is assuming they broke their brainwash. There's no pragmatism in eliminating such people. You can't just hope in eliminating such people and having some divine intervention to tell apart the potential pro westerner from the brainwashed.

    One thing is their politicians and "laws". A country isn't just his rulers, soft power and territory. It's made up of people.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  18. #4458
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,065

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    The Pope is a wise man. Will Biden remove the Pope's picture from his desk this time? Pope Francis: Ukraine war cannot be reduced to 'good guys and bad guys ...

    “There are no metaphysical good guys and bad guys here, in an abstract way,” Francis said during a May conversation with Jesuit media outlets published by the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

    “Something global is emerging, with elements that are very intertwined with each other,” he added.
    While condemning “the ferocity, the cruelty of Russian troops,” Francis said, “we must not forget the real problems if we want them to be solved,” and he singled out the armaments industry as one of several factors incentivizing war.

    He also quoted the opinion of a head of state he met several months before the start of the war who expressed his concern “about how NATO was moving.”
    “I asked him why and he replied, ‘They are barking at Russia’s doorstep. And they don’t understand that the Russians are imperial and they don’t allow any foreign power to come near them’,” Francis said. The pontiff added the unnamed head of state said the way NATO was acting “the situation could lead to war.”

    The pontiff warned against danger of focusing only on “the brutality and ferocity with which this war is being waged by troops, generally mercenaries, used by the Russians, who prefer to send Chechens, Syrians, and mercenaries” and that “it is something monstrous.”

    But, he added, it is important to also see the “drama unfolding behind this war, which perhaps in some way was provoked or not prevented. And I register an interest in testing and selling weapons. It is very sad, but basically this is what is at stake.”

    Francis also denied accusations that he was supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin:
    “No, I am not. It is simplistic and wrong to say such a thing. But I am simply against reducing complexity to the distinction between good and evil, without thinking about the roots and interests, which are very complex,” he asserted. “While we see the ferocity, cruelty of the Russian troops, we cannot forget the problems so we try to resolve them.”
    “A few years ago it occurred to me to say that we were living a piecemeal Third World War,” he continued. “Now, for me, the Third World War has been declared. And this is an aspect that should make us reflect. What is happening to humanity that has had three world wars in a century?”

    Francis also said that although many are focused on Ukraine because it is “closer,” there are other countries, “far away, I think of some parts of Africa, northern Nigeria, northern Congo – where the war is still going on and nobody cares. Think of Rwanda 25 years ago. Think about Myanmar and the Rohingya. The world is at war.”
    He also said the Russians “miscalculated” on how long they thought the war would go – three days, according to Putin – because they hadn’t planned on the “brave” Ukrainian people, “a people who are struggling to survive and who have a history of struggle.”

    “This is what moves us: To see such heroism,” Francis said. “I would really like to emphasize this point, the heroism of the Ukrainian people. What is before our eyes is a situation of world war, global interests, arms sales and geopolitical appropriation, which is martyring a heroic people.”
    The Argentine pontiff also stressed the danger of the Ukraine war losing the public’s interest over time.
    “What will happen when the enthusiasm to help wanes? Because things are cooling down, who is going to take care of these women? We have to look beyond the concrete action of the moment, and see how we are going to support them so that they do not fall into trafficking, so that they are not exploited, because the vultures are already circling,” he said.
    Edit I -The Guardian is a great newspaper that I have enjoyed for a long time. But in this case, the headline is misleading,
    Russia-Ukraine war: pope condemns 'ferocity and cruelty' of Russia’s troops.

    --
    Edit II,
    Europe's largest economies are interested in peace and negotiations (namely Germany, France, Italy). The United States and the United Kingdom are interested in continuing the war indefinitely, whatever it costs in human lives. Zelensky, led by the ultranationalist right, rejects everything that is not the final victory.
    The British defense minister visited Kiev four days ago, encouraging Zelesnky to continue the war.Wallace said Zelensky was "doing amazing, amazing." (it is “easy” to take this position, it is not the American and British soldiers who die, and their economies will suffer much less than the European economies).
    Amazing” is the number of daily casualties of the Ukrainian forces, killed and wounded. russia has 10 times stronger firepower than Ukraine – Zaluzhnyi
    In a conversation with his American counterpart, General Mark Milley, Zaluzhny said that Russian troops use artillery “on a massive scale” and that their firepower is 10 times stronger than Ukrainian one.
    Meanwhile the Donbas is practically in Russian hands already.
    Last edited by Ludicus; June 14, 2022 at 02:40 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  19. #4459
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Still not understanding how Russians slaughtering Ukrainians is the fault of the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    ...
    Meanwhile the Donbas is practically in Russian hands already.
    This does sound awfully like the "if rape is inevitable" furphy.

    Russia GTFO of Ukraine, then talks start. If Ukraine wants to fight, it makes sense to help them, and not enable another round of Russian land grabs. That serves international law, and also the "kick bastards" doctrine.

    Wise heads are saying Ukraine is in losing position but that was the position in February too, when we were being advised "its over, let Putin do whatever he wants to Zelenskyy and his children and the entire country". A few months has made a difference in the brigand's foul behaviour. Apologists are now muttering about upsetting the balance of power, well Putin did that too.

    Are there going to be an consequences for the aggressors under this appeasement, or does Russia continue to slice up neighbours ad infinitum? Or is it just until Putin dies, because for sure the next guy will be more reasonable...unless we defeat Putin, then for sure he'll be worse...?

    So much of the commentary is incoherent.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  20. #4460
    AqD's Avatar 。◕‿◕。
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    🏡🐰🐿️🐴🌳
    Posts
    10,931

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Edit II,
    Europe's largest economies are interested in peace and negotiations (namely Germany, France, Italy). The United States and the United Kingdom are interested in continuing the war indefinitely, whatever it costs in human lives. Zelensky, led by the ultranationalist right, rejects everything that is not the final victory.
    You're saying defending one's home from hostile force is ultranationalist and supporting them is "continuing the war indefinitely".

    Here is what Kremlin will do if we negotiate:

    1. retreat and come back to Ukraine in 2023
    2. negotiate peace for territory gain and go home
    3. come back to Ukraine in 2024
    4. negotiate peace for territory gain and go home
    5. come back to Ukraine in 2025
    6. ...

    All that means is that European countries need to get the industry pumping and send a lot more weapons. 10 times more than Russia's. And pressuring Russia in all other fronts such as Georgia and Syria.

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    One thing was the First and Second Punic War, but the Third Punic War had terrible consequences back at home for the Senate and Rome, giving birth to at least two famous civil wars and very high unrest levels. Not to mention it openly broke Rome's values.

    You speak like a Senator would speak of Carthage after the Second Punic War. There's a lesson from history to learn here.
    I learned the lesson from the brutal conquest by the barbarian Qin state - if you don't kill your enemy when it's weakest, one day it'd become stronger than you and you'd be done.

    EDIT: breaking values is better than one's own destruction

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Many of them don't want to be in their situation and don't support their regime, they simply get "jailed" or "disapeared" if they voice their dissent, and this is assuming they broke their brainwash. There's no pragmatism in eliminating such people.
    If they truly want changes, they'd start a revolution. Violence is the only thing that works when the government does not listen.
    Last edited by AqD; June 14, 2022 at 03:14 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •