Jump to content

Russia Invades Ukraine


Gibson87

Recommended Posts

The West should have conceded to Putin's demand that NATO declares it will never allow Ukraine entry.

1) It was clear Putin would 100% invade if NATO didn't do this.

2) Ukraine was likely never going to get to join NATO unless they broke their own rules. Their rules do not allow nations with territory under dispute into NATO. Ukraine also doesn't meet its standards for democracy, wealth, or military capabilities.

NATO was better off giving in to this demand and at least lowering the chance of a full scale bloody invasion. Why not just tell Putin "yeah sure, Ukraine will never enter NATO" when the consequences of not doing so were well known? The West is grasping onto a world order and set of rules that don't exist anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jakey Styley said:

The West should have conceded to Putin's demand that NATO declares it will never allow Ukraine entry.

1) It was clear Putin would 100% invade if NATO didn't do this.

2) Ukraine was likely never going to get to join NATO unless they broke their own rules. Their rules do not allow nations with territory under dispute into NATO. Ukraine also doesn't meet its standards for democracy, wealth, or military capabilities.

NATO was better off giving in to this demand and at least lowering the chance of a full scale bloody invasion. Why not just tell Putin "yeah sure, Ukraine will never enter NATO" when the consequences of not doing so were well known? The West is grasping onto a world order and set of rules that don't exist anymore. 

unfortunately you are wrong. NATO membership aspiration is/was rather an excuse for invasion. 

formally conceding to Putler's demands wouldn't really change anything, it would just show him that he can do whatever he pleases. 

just like Hitler happily observed in 1938.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zombux said:

unfortunately you are wrong. NATO membership aspiration is/was rather an excuse for invasion. 

formally conceding to Putler's demands wouldn't really change anything, it would just show him that he can do whatever he pleases. 

just like Hitler happily observed in 1938.

I think it is probably the case that Russia invades Ukraine even with the NATO concession.

But it was CERTAINLY the case that they invaded without it. Why not go for it? What interest was served by holding out announcing this when everyone knows Ukraine will never join NATO anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

 

When are you enlisting?

I expect all the big men who are heroicly advocating full scale war behind their keyboards aren't going to dare to just let others fight for them.

 

Who’s advocating all out war?  There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

Edited by Ace Nova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

The West should have conceded to Putin's demand that NATO declares it will never allow Ukraine entry.

1) It was clear Putin would 100% invade if NATO didn't do this.

2) Ukraine was likely never going to get to join NATO unless they broke their own rules. Their rules do not allow nations with territory under dispute into NATO. Ukraine also doesn't meet its standards for democracy, wealth, or military capabilities.

NATO was better off giving in to this demand and at least lowering the chance of a full scale bloody invasion. Why not just tell Putin "yeah sure, Ukraine will never enter NATO" when the consequences of not doing so were well known? The West is grasping onto a world order and set of rules that don't exist anymore. 

You don't think Ukraine should decide for themselves?

They already fled from Russia once. With NATO membership they wanted to secure themselves from Russia because, you know, history lessons... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, -Jaro- said:

You don't think Ukraine should decide for themselves?

They already fled from Russia once. With NATO membership they wanted to secure themselves from Russia because, you know, history lessons... 

It's not up to Ukraine. They would like to join, but they don't meet NATO's qualifications.

Also, public desire for NATO membership in Ukraine is a recent phenomenon. In 2012, only 28% of Ukrainians supported NATO Membership. Since then, public support has risen (now a majority)

Edited by Jakey Styley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

Ithey don't meet NATO's qualifications.

that is correct. because Russians already invaded their territory in 2014.

(and Moldova in early 1990's, and Georgia in 2008 and before that in early 1990's - but it's a bit more complicated there, because it wasn't meant to protect Sudetendeutsch...eeeehhh... I mean ethnic Russians, but a 3rd nation who wanted to split off Georgia)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

It's not up to Ukraine. They would like to join, but they don't meet NATO's qualifications.

Also, public desire for NATO membership in Ukraine is a recent phenomenon. In 2012, only 28% of Ukrainians supported NATO Membership. Since then, public support has risen (now a majority)

Yep,because - again, history and Russian actions... 

Saw a video few minutes ago, there are lot of dead. No way todays bodycount is 50-60 as reported. And "funfact" - Russians bombed town closer to me than to Russian border today....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, zombux said:

the answer for your question is simple: see why NATO has been created in the first place. yes, it was because its members feared invasion by Russia. and that is the very same reason why other countries want to become part of it. and what's happening in the last days only confirms it. noone civilized wants to be a slave of primitive but aggressive raider from the steppes and Ukrainians, Georgians as well as Baltic countries know that very well, they all have been invaded by Russia numerous times in the past and they know very well how it feels like.

It's far more complicated than that. There are many nuances and different sides to it, hence many different ways to look at it.

First of all, although there is a kind of "geopolitical continuum," imperial Russia, USSR/Cold War era and post-Cold War Russia should not be seen as the same thing, let alone be described as a "primitive but aggressive raider from the steppes") - and even Yeltsin's and Putin's post C.W. Russia are not the same thing (Yeltsin wasn't less of an autocrat than Putin, but he was convenient for the U.S's interests).

NATO and then the Warsaw Pact were founded during the Cold War era as, supposedly, defense alliances against potential invasion from the opposite block. Then, even though the Warsaw Pact dissolved, NATO has continued being active despite its original purposes of creation not existing anymore.

Ukraine and all these countries - now independent - were first part of an empire and then, for decades, of a confederation. As a result, there are minorities and parts of their population that feel Russian or don't want to break ties with Russia, and then there is the economic dependency, so it's a very complicated situation. So what would have been the best for all the people in all these countries (with the exception of the Baltic ones, which, historically, have their particularities)? Probably to remain part of a post-Soviet confederation or, since this didn't happen for various reasons (not unrelated to the U.S. interests), to remain neutral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

imperial Russia, USSR/Cold War era and post-Cold War Russia should not be seen as the same thing, let alone be described as a "primitive but aggressive raider from the steppes") - and even Yeltsin's and Putin's post C.W. Russia are not the same thing (Yeltsin wasn't less of an autocrat than Putin, but he was convenient for the U.S's interests).

that's a very good point. 

the problem is, they consider themselves a direct continuation of USSR as well as the imperial Russia whenever it benefits them.

victory over Hitler? we did it all ourselves.

massacre at Katyn and gulags? no it wasn't us at all.

I also agree that my view of "primitive but aggressive raider from the steppes" deserves a small correction. they also employ legions of very clever and smart hackers who constantly attack west's IT infrastructure. no need to discuss this more, I'm dealing with it daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, -Jaro- said:

Yep,because - again, history and Russian actions... 

Saw a video few minutes ago, there are lot of dead. No way todays bodycount is 50-60 as reported. And "funfact" - Russians bombed town closer to me than to Russian border today....

I'm in Vienna currently and I had that same realization. They're literally bombing cities that are 500-600km away from where I'm sitting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nicklord said:

I'm in Vienna currently and I had that same realization. They're literally bombing cities that are 500-600km away from where I'm sitting

they are using MLRS to shell residential areas with dense civilian population. fuckers. no difference compared to nazi bombing of cities in WW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zombux said:

edit: speaking about "fascist groups". don't get me started on that. our country was invaded and occupied by Russia in 1968, saying that fascists were taking it here over. russian scum considers everything "fascists", while in reality the closest thing to fascist regime is the russian one.

this pic is from Russia and this is normal over there. so don't get me started. Ukraine just got invaded "because fascism", in exactly the same way as our country was. this saying is an insult to me and every country Russia invaded under this flat out lie.

 274335448_10220563361775659_976869487526

Yes, there are far right and fascist groups in Russia, too - and in the US, also. Greece also saw the terrifying rise of a neo-Nazi party in the recent years - thankfully, their leaders are in prison now.

Although that wasn't true for Czechoslovakia in 1968, in the case of Ukraine, the fact that Russia used the fascist groups as an excuse for annexing Crimea doesn't mean that those groups didn't exist and didn't have a prominent role in Euromaidan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Yes, there are far right and fascist groups in Russia, too - and in the US, also. Greece also saw the terrifying rise of a neo-Nazi party in the recent years - thankfully, their leaders are in prison now.

Although that wasn't true for Czechoslovakia in 1968, in the case of Ukraine, the fact that Russia used the fascist groups as an excuse for annexing Crimea doesn't mean that those groups didn't exist and didn't have a prominent role in Euromaidan.

What does it have to do with anything though? Does it justify Putin's propaganda He is spreading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian forces conquered the Chernobyl area… That‘s quite scary. Putin is a fucking lunatic and everybody who defends him and his actions is one as well… he made up a lot of fake excuses like the denazification bullshit (Ukraines president Selenskyj is actually jewish and Putin was the one to support far-right-wing parties in central and western Europe) or his „fear“ of Ukraine joining the NATO (NATO is a defensive alliance, so as long  as you don’t attack them, you won’t have a problem with them)

So please stop trying to justify Putins actions because there is no way to justify them 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

What does it have to do with anything though? Does it justify Putin's propaganda He is spreading?

No, it doesn't. But it has to do with the comparisons with WWII, Hitler, etc. that people often tend to make but are historically off, (in my opinion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

No, it doesn't. But it has to do with the comparisons with WWII, Hitler, etc. that people often tend to make but are historically off, (in my opinion).

they very well are. "protection of ethnic Germans who are being oppressed elsewhere", "Czechoslovakia is the obstacle of peace", "Poland attacked radio at Gleiwitz", "preventive war against neighbours", etc.

of course these are not exactly the same, this is different time and different place, but the parallels are more than striking. I find it very sad that some people fail to realize that.

maybe it's because their country has never been invaded by Russia. historical experience teaches one something.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden just spoke about the invasion and how we all see Putin for what he really is? Has there ever been a doubt what kind of man Putin is.?

China has stated they are behind Russia and justify their invasion because they felt threatened by Ukraine because they got weapons from the US and their allies. Whatever>

Let's see how long it takes before China makes a move on Taiwan.

And honestly, I believe Putin knew what sanctions the US would put on them, so the only ones suffereing by this is the Russian people and the Ukraine people. Putin will be okay, I'm sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, zombux said:

they very well are. "protection of ethnic Germans who are being oppressed elsewhere", "Czechoslovakia is the obstacle of peace", "Poland attacked radio at Gleiwitz", "preventive war against neighbours", etc.

of course these are not exactly the same, this is different time and different place, but the parallels are more than striking. I find it very sad that some people fail to realize that.

maybe it's because their country has never been invaded by Russia. historical experience teaches one something.

These excuses have been used in most cases of a country invading another (like in the case of Turkey invading Cyprus and still occupying part of it almost 50 years later, to use an example close to me). Do all these cases compare to WWII? No. This is just superficial similarity. Nazism was a very specific thing that involved an expansionist dogma and, most importantly, racism and antisemitism.

I know that people's point of view is naturally affected by their respective historical background and their country's history (as in the simplified version of history that is dominant in the public sphere and taught in school, which is revised, and where there is an enemy that is "bad" by nature and countries are seen as a-historical beings). But there are different historical phases and the Soviet invasion in Czechoslovakia (and the one in Hungary previously, as well as the US invasions in Vietnam, Cuba, etc., and the US-instigated coups in Latin America) was part of that and not because "Russia" is inherently bad.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noone with common sense claims tha Russia is bad. Its leadership with Putin on top is showing this kinfmd of behaveour for a long time. Invasion of Georgia (not U.S. state) just in moment when it was near entering NATO,  killings of opposition leaders accross the Russia and Europe and invasion of Ukraine in 2014 passed unpunished. So he is stepping forward with bigger steps every time.

And what Western world dont understand - economic sanctions won't affect Putin but the same people that protest against war in this moment in Putins hometown (and are taken to prison by police). Dictators don"t care for its people. He cannot be overthrown in elections. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, -Jaro- said:

And what Western world dont understand - economic sanctions won't affect Putin but the same people that protest against war in this moment in Putins hometown (and are taken to prison by police). Dictators don"t care for its people. He cannot be overthrown in elections. 

I agree, but what are they supposed to do? Imo the only thing they can do at the moment is isolate Russia economically and financially until life in Russia is so miserable, that the people in the country (including Putins henchmen, whose assets will be frozen) will start a revolution

But I agree that Putin doesn’t give a shit about sanctions, he’s almost 70 years old and just wants to get a place in the history books 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Sure, each country should ideally have the right to join whatever international organization or alliance they want. But, in an ideal world, an organization like NATO wouldn't need to exist in the first place.

Right.  I'm not sure the logic here.  That because of Russia's past transgressions the need for NATO was made clear.  But because NATO exists, it now makes a little more sense for Russia to do what it has done?  

4 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Sure, no country should be allowed to invade another sovereign nation. But this sentence becomes instantly ironic just looking at the recent history of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc. (not to mention Israel) where countries were attacked and invaded with whatever "lawful" excuses.

Past transgressions doesn't justify current and future ones.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...