Russia/Ukraine discussion (split from News thread)

[gaggedLouise]

Breakout of the Russia/Ukraine/UN/NATO discussion to its own thread, perhaps? Whatever direction/s the crisis is going to take next, Russia and Ukraine will clearly be in the news for some time again.

[Icelandic]

Breakout of the Russia/Ukraine/UN/NATO discussion to its own thread, perhaps? Whatever direction/s the crisis is going to take next, Russia and Ukraine will clearly be in the news for some time again.

That would be a good idea.

[Mechelle]

I think it would be best to set a hard limit on how far east NATO can expand. I think no former Soviet states is fair for the sake of keeping the peace.

We already have Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in NATO.  While that might be a provocation to Russia, from a British perspective, Russia has generally been accepted by Western governments to have killed an innocent woman in Salisbury, and, with much less general acceptance, to have  interfered in our Brexit debate by funding prominent Brexit supporters to separate us from our allies, so I don't think Russia would restrict themselves to a sphere of influence, even if they were appeased.  I am sure you could make similar criticisms of the USA and UK, of course.

Agree that the Russia-Ukraine  situation is worth its own thread.

[Tolvo]

I already messaged Blythe about the thread split though I dunno if Blythe has read it yet or is busy or maybe logged off after I sent it.

[Icelandic]

We already have Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in NATO.  While that might be a provocation to Russia, from a British perspective, Russia has generally been accepted by Western governments to have killed an innocent woman in Salisbury, and, with much less general acceptance, to have  interfered in our Brexit debate by funding prominent Brexit supporters to separate us from our allies, so I don't think Russia would restrict themselves to a sphere of influence, even if they were appeased.  I am sure you could make similar criticisms of the USA and UK, of course.

Agree that the Russia-Ukraine  situation is worth its own thread.

Everything that you mentioned happened only after the Ukrainian coup. We can't expect that retaliation by the Russians would not follow.

[Blythe]

Will get a thread split in a bit for the Russia/Ukraine/UN/NATO discussion--sorry for the wait. Was busy with some other stuff, will get to this now.

[Blythe]

Okay, I think that's everything--y'all give me a poke if I missed any posts for this. Should now be a split thread. I will leave a redirect link in the News thread in a moment.

[gaggedLouise]

Thanks for the speedy response Blythe, could you move the posts about Elon Musk and his Mars migration back to the News thread too? :)

[Nachtmahr]

We already have Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in NATO.  While that might be a provocation to Russia, from a British perspective, Russia has generally been accepted by Western governments to have killed an innocent woman in Salisbury, and, with much less general acceptance, to have  interfered in our Brexit debate by funding prominent Brexit supporters to separate us from our allies, so I don't think Russia would restrict themselves to a sphere of influence, even if they were appeased.  I am sure you could make similar criticisms of the USA and UK, of course.

Agree that the Russia-Ukraine  situation is worth its own thread.

I think it's more than safe to say that even if we went as far as to abolish the unwieldy beast that is NATO, Putin's Russia wouldn't stop its foreign interference campaigns. They'd still be interested in an overall more pro-Russia world. If anything, it might lead to some even more bold expansionism. In its current state, I see no path toward warmer relations.

[Icelandic]

I think it's more than safe to say that even if we went as far as to abolish the unwieldy beast that is NATO, Putin's Russia wouldn't stop its foreign interference campaigns. They'd still be interested in an overall more pro-Russia world. If anything, it might lead to some even more bold expansionism. In its current state, I see no path toward warmer relations.

I can't even say that Russia is pro expansionism. Since the end of the cold war, NATO has inched closer and closer to their doorstep, and with the coup in Ukraine being the final instigation, only then has interference campaigns become an issue.

If another power was trying to do that to the US, you can bet yourself that the US would do whatever it could to keep itself from being surrounded.

The cold war is supposed to be over, and yet the west couldn't stop seeing Russia as the enemy.

[Skynet]

I can't even say that Russia is pro expansionism. Since the end of the cold war, NATO has inched closer and closer to their doorstep, and with the coup in Ukraine being the final instigation, only then has interference campaigns become an issue.

If another power was trying to do that to the US, you can bet yourself that the US would do whatever it could to keep itself from being surrounded.

The cold war is supposed to be over, and yet the west couldn't stop seeing Russia as the enemy.

Given that the Russian government attempted to invade Georgia around 2008, it's kind of hard to sell the Putin administration as not being expansionist when it's troops tried to occupy the territories of several nations within recent memory.

The bolded is a what about logical fallacy. Even if say, China tried to invade Mexico, it would still be morally wrong for the US to start carving out Mexican territory as new 51st States and so on unless the majority populace explicitly wanted to become part of the US. And even then that'd be tricky territory on account of many factors.

[Icelandic]

Given that the Russian government attempted to invade Georgia around 2008, it's kind of hard to sell the Putin administration as not being expansionist when it's troops tried to occupy the territories of several nations within recent memory.

The bolded is a what about logical fallacy. Even if say, China tried to invade Mexico, it would still be morally wrong for the US to start carving out Mexican territory as new 51st States and so on unless the majority populace explicitly wanted to become part of the US. And even then that'd be tricky territory on account of many factors.

Georgia was set to become a NATO member shortly before that war. The war was in large part a response to the attempted encirclement.

It's not a whataboutism, as the US has not had to deal with a similar situation as Russia is dealing with now. And that's my point. It's about seeing a different perspective.

[Skynet]

I understand the perspective, I just don't agree with it. Advanced and powerful empires and pseudo-empires justify self-defense all the time when conquering territory, even if the threat is minimal or exaggerated. It's a song as old as time and is rarely if ever done with the invaded people's best interests at heart.

I do not know to what extent the majority of Georgians wanted to join NATO, but it's a bad precedent to let global superpowers go "well we should take over country X b/c we don't want them to voluntarily join a rival group." By that logic the United States should invade Iran for being aligned with anti-American groups; or by that logic North Korea should invade Cuba because a fellow "socialist" country dared to build an embassy with a Western capitalist superpower.

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

Georgia was set to become a NATO member shortly before that war. The war was in large part a response to the attempted encirclement.

It's not a whataboutism, as the US has not had to deal with a similar situation as Russia is dealing with now. And that's my point. It's about seeing a different perspective.

Abkhazia and Ossetia, parts of Georgia, they wanted being part of Russia. One reason for war, since Georgia doesn’t allow for this. Much like Luhansk, and Donetsk in Donbass, who want joining Russia from Ukraine.

[midnightblack]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46338671

So hey Ukraine and Russia may be going to full blown war and the EU and NATO may intervene.

Not wanting to sound dismissive about the matter, but I believe it's fairly reasonable to assume that actually all the four parties you mentioned have much more important issues to deal with than three boats floating in a pond in the middle of nowhere (and the EU isn't a military alliance anyway; it has no reason to get militarily involved in a conflict outside of its borders). I'd argue that the civilized world doesn't care all that much about Ukraine to begin with, as they've played a double game for the past 30 years (flirting with both East and West) that has endeared them to no one. Aside from a few crackpots, I'd also assume that no one in Russia really wants to have it physically occupied in its entirety, and would rather keep it (ideally) as a poor puppet state and buffer zone between Russia and the West. Remember that aside of the usual diplomatic talk (the civilized world claiming that such things are unacceptable and Russia complaining that they are persecuted by the rest of humanity), together with more or less symbolic sanctions, there wasn't much of a violent reaction when Russia simply barged in and annexed Crimea, or when a civilian plane was shot down above Eastern Ukraine. These matters will eventually get sorted out in court, and the present situation will likely sort itself out without further escalation.

[Tolvo]

Uh, Ukraine is a part of the civilized world, that is an incredibly dismissive statement. NATO has stated explicitly about the event, while the EU wants to try to deescalate. Russia and Ukraine are both directly involved already, with Ukraine going into a vote on Monday to determine if they will declare war or not, after they have already stated what Russia did was an act of war while Russia claims Ukraine was the aggressor. If war is declared it will be another matter entirely and other nations will likely get brought in whether they want to or not. Now the USA probably won't get directly involved, because they are so far away and our government really doesn't have much interest there. Other countries are another matter.

[midnightblack]

The sad truth is that the civilized world is wearing a bit thin these days. Ukraine remains a state gnawed at by rampant corruption, with a rather unreliable and untrustworthy reputation. This is a hole dug for roughly three decades of external politics handled in ambivalent, indecisive and at times deceitful ways. The reason why it remained a bit of a no man's land is due to the fact that it never really figured out what it wanted and then committed to it. Granted, after losing Crimea steps have been made, at least at a nominal level, to adhere to European standards and values, but I don't think anyone holds any real expectations for the near future. Just a couple of years ago they had to be smacked around a bit in order to be reminded that ethnic minorities are actually human beings that have the same rights as the native Ukrainians, but they still couldn't really be bothered about the issue. So I hope you understand where my thoughts are coming from.

In any case, all that I wanted to say was that alarmist statements like "full blown war" are most likely out of the question. Large scale armed conflicts are expensive, counterproductive and downright retarded, and fortunately for us there are still too few idiots in charge of the relevant buttons to actually lead to something like that. Yes, Russia likes to act like an annoying, snotty brat, but they are clever enough to know which lines can be pushed and which can't be crossed. My country is a part of NATO and it gets its airspace and waters harassed on an almost daily basis by the Russian military (leading even to funny incidents like the espionage vessel that sunk after colliding with a cargo ferrying ship  ), and yet you don't see glorious barrages of rockets painting the sky crimson. Nobody really cares that much about the glorified pond known as the Azov Sea, so I have full confidence that the incident will eventually be sorted at the negotiations table.

[Tolvo]

I mean, what you just said is true of the USA as well as the UK and other Western countries.

Also why is it out of the question to worry that a country that said they were attacked in an act of war that will be voting today on whether they will declare war might go to war? They might not, but why is it out of the question to worry based on all that we know of the events and these governments and what they said that they might go to war?

Also please don't use slurs.

[midnightblack]

*cargo ferrying sheep* in the previous message <.<

Ukraine will never declare war on Russia because in a real conflict they'd be dead in a matter of minutes. Military they just don't match in any shape or form. At the same time, Russia doesn't really have anything to gain from expanding too much westward. Crimea offers a nice strategic position at the Black Sea from where they can threaten to rain hell down over NATO countries who threaten their sovereignty (but they will never actually do anything), and now they basically claim that the Azov Sea belongs to them alone, which from a legal point is wrong but they'll have their way since Ukraine can't really defend itself and no one can be bothered to step in for them for no real reason. I think it's however quite unlikely that they will go much further than that, since (as previously stated) a poor and easily controlled puppet state buffering Russia from NATO is far more meaningful to them them than all the headaches of handling the territory and sharing such a large border with NATO. Plus the international uproar and such, it simply wouldn't be worth it.

I apologize if anything I said has offended you, but as these discussions are political and not personal (they are never about ordinary people like you and me, but rather about political decisions and the more or less apt representatives that carry them out) I feel it's alright to call things for what they are.

[Tolvo]

Just don't expect me to really find your words have much weight when you seem so dismissive of other people's views and worries while claiming to know the future, and criticize countries for their treatment of minorities when many in the West do the same things as you also use a slur for a minority group.

[midnightblack]

I genuinely have no idea how you arrived at those conclusions about my statements. Going to war isn't a "hey, let's do this" thing, at least not in the real world, and while I do find such fears rather alarmist and immature in regard to the incident discussed here, I never meant to be dismissive about them. It's just that they are rather ridiculous, if I am allowed to entertain that opinion, and I tried to offer some arguments to support that. I never claimed to know the future, I just happen to be living right next to Ukraine and the areas that have been under tension since Crimea got annexed. Over the last years I've been following to some extent the evolution of the regional affairs and the thoughts experts have about them. So I don't speak out of my bum and I tend to lean on the balanced side of views based on immediate realities. I think that full blown war can't be a serious concern right now, but you are more than free to hold a different opinion if you find my arguments lacking.

I also don't like to speak in broad terms about vaguely defined matters, so while I don't really understand what you mean by "many in the West do the same", I know exactly what happened with the issue I brought in the discussion. It was simply meant as a recent example of ill-behavior on Ukraine's part that doesn't really stand up to their ambitions for a modern civilized state, and I could supply information on the topic, if you're interested, but I think that's a different subject.

I absolutely have no clue where and how I used a slur for a minority group. Is the word "ethnic" a slur?

[Tolvo]

Saying "They will definitely go to war" I would agree is alarmist, but I'm not saying they will 100% go to war. I am saying that I think it is a possibility we should consider and that it is a worrying idea. You say you don't want to be dismissive but then find people who consider that possibility to be considering something ridiculous and immature and alarmist is dismissive itself, on top of using the phrase Civilized World, claiming Ukraine is not civilized compared to other nations specifically the EU which does quite a lot of the same things which varies by country. Personally I don't see any problems with linking stuff about the history of these conflicts around the regions since it would relate to a possible Ukraine and Russia war. I do try to be balanced and read what I can based on the realities of what we know and perceived realities while keeping a level of healthy skepticism since this is not something where we can just trust everything everyone claims happened. Especially since many of them contradict each other.

Retard is a slur and has been recognized as one for quite a while. I understand not knowing that if you don't live more to the West or in the USA or Canada. Especially if English isn't your first language. Especially since it was still used by a lot of people into the 2000's and is still used regularly casually despite being a slur, but it very much is one.

[midnightblack]

What I said was

Large scale armed conflicts are expensive, counterproductive and downright retarded

I never used the word "retard" in regard to a nation, an ethnic group or a person, but in relation to the act of human beings killing each other for reasons that more often than not are actually quite stupid and petty. I stand by that opinion, and if you or anyone else is offended by it, I really don't think I'm the one at fault.

In regard to the wider discussion, there's a very evident and (I'd say) sadly increasing civilizational gap between Western and Central/Eastern Europe (the latter geographical distinction is a bit debatable), and the countries in my area (mine included) don't seem to be undergoing any real efforts to close it. But it's a very complex topic, I'm not the one to talk about it in detail, at this hour and on this topic, and there's certainly a touch of self-deprecating irony in my views, so I'd rather leave it at that.

[Tolvo]

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/26/670746252/ukraine-considers-martial-law-after-russia-seizes-its-ships-near-crimea

So I guess maybe the USA does want to get involved? At least according to our members at the UN, but that seems pretty counter to the US position of wanting to mostly just sell weapons and especially Trump who doesn't like NATO or the UN.

[HannibalBarca]

Much like liberals joining the NRA en masse to affect their elections...why doesn't Russia just join NATO and be one big happy family?