About war in Ukraine

[player1772]

This is going to be a brief reply. (Well not really, as it turned out - but I still could have made it a lot longer!) I feel I have to respond on some points - but please don't take the fact I haven't quoted a particular part of your post as implying any agreement or acceptance of it. I just don't have time to respond to everything.

If Mexico had established a military alliance with Russia, meaning that Russian bases could be placed along the US-Mexican border, you can bet your bottom the USA would intervene militarily. That is assuming all other options to deter Mexico from doing this were unsuccessful. Do you really believe that the USA would not do this? Did you forget that the USA has something called the Monroe Doctrine? And no, I do not do drugs. I don't understand why that even needed to be brought up in this conversation. Please be respectful.

Firstly, I apologise if I came across as disrespectful. Perhaps you are not aware of the idiom - my fault if so - but where I come from (the UK, and I assumed it was common in other English-speaking countries too) "I'll have some of what you're smoking" is just slang for "this is crazy talk". Yes it does obviously referenced unspecified drugs, but I absolutely did not mean to literally imply you were taking drugs and I am happy to clarify this since apparently it wasn't as obvious as I thought it was.

Anyway, to the substance: firstly, the "Monroe doctrine", according to Wikipedia, was in effect in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and was explicitly aimed at opposing European colonialism (which of course was exclusively practiced by Western European nations, at least at that time). I see in this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Do ... approaches that there are varying attitudes as to whether it is still valid in the 21st century, with some recent presidents and other US politicians (mostly if not exclusively Republican ones, it seems - ironic that they are phrasing it as wanting "a completely democratic hemisphere" when they are the ones trying to dismantle democracy in their own country in recent years, but I digress) - but others explicitly saying its era has ended. And I note that despite the posturings of various Republicans, the US has not to date, even under Republican administrations, intervened militarily in, say, Venezuela.

So I'm not sure what would happen in practice in the imaginary scenario where Mexico has a military alliance with Russia. If it led to actual Russian military equipment - missiles for example - inside Mexico, that may well lead to crisis territory and perhaps even some sort of military action to try to remove then, if diplomacy failed. I grant you that. But please note that "military intervention" takes many different forms. Again I ask - do you really think that the US, under *any* such scenario, would have simply invaded Mexico and aimed to incorporate it, or large regions of it in any case, into the US? (In fact the sham "annexations" of various regions of Ukraine is the clearest indication of all - although there are many - that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is pure imperialism, and nothing whatsoever to do with NATO.) Again, please note the very obvious differences here: one being that the US would very definitely exhaust all diplomatic options before resorting to military force, whereas Putin didn't even attempt to engage diplomatically in early 2022 when the West were making considerable efforts to avert the threatened invasion. And another that the US would only (at most) aim to remove the Russian military installations, which is very different from a naked land grab.

Again, you are very wrong regarding your statement about Ukraine and NATO. As stated by Wikipedia - "At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the MAP as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference."

Again, I must apologise for not being clear enough what I meant. Yes, NATO had in principal accepted that Ukraine was free to choose to become a member and start moving towards membership. As your Wikipedia quote notes, that had first been established back in 2008 - 14 years before the invasion. What I meant to say was not that Ukraine would not ever have joined NATO, just that it was not immediately on the cards. Again, absolutely nothing had changed in the last few years with regard to Ukraine's prospects of joining NATO to make Russia decide to take action in 2022.

I am not sure why you keep attempting to justify a naked land grab by making it seem as if Putin has a valid point. Thankfully this forum is insignificant but such views, when amplified in other channels, go a long way towards muddying the waters and undermining the Western response. Which is exactly why Putin employs an army of trolls to spread such views throughout the West - I'm not accusing you of being such a troll (I genuinely believe you have thought about this independently and for some reason come to the wrong conclusions), but the effect is nevertheless similar.

Let me start off by saying that I fully support Ukraine in their war against Russia. I believe that Ukraine is the victim of a terrible situation that is continually being made worse. Russia is intentionally destroying civilian infrastructure and murdering Ukrainian citizens.

Where we differ on is the root cause of the war. Can we at least agree that it is important to understand how wars are started in the first place? Based on reading your posts, it seems that you have a very simple and clear cut view on who the "bad guys" and "good guys" are in this war. I think we can agree that the Russians are certainly in the wrong here. However, can you honestly say that NATO had no hand in this either? If not for NATO aggression, we wouldn't even be in this mess in the first place. NATO had no respect for Russia's demands to stay away from their borders, and Russia responded militarily when all other attempts to negotiate failed. Russian leaders view the eastward expansion of NATO as an existential threat to their own country. What happens when world superpowers feel their existence is threatened? Very bad things happen. And much worse things can happen if nuclear weapons are involved.

It doesn't matter when the Monroe Doctrine was created. It is still very much in effect today. The United States will not tolerate any foreign interference anywhere in the western hemisphere. There is nothing you can say that can refute this. It is just a fact. Your comments about Republicans are irrelevant and do nothing to support your argument.

Regarding your statements about a possible Mexico/Russia alliance, yes I do believe the USA would go to war with Mexico if all other attempts at diplomacy failed. It's important to remember that all dominant world powers engage in security competitions with one other. The USA would never allow an enemy alliance on its border, for the same reason that Russia would never tolerate Ukraine joining NATO.

Yes, Putin annexed several Ukrainian territories into Russia. But he obviously does not have the military capability to invade and occupy all of Ukraine, nor has he shown any intention to do so. So how can you say that Putin has imperialistic ambitions? Do you really believe that Putin would do all of this, knowing that sanctions would inevitably be placed against his country and thousands of Russian lives would be lost, just to incorporate a few Ukrainian regions into Russia? How can you believe this? This is obviously an act of desperation, since Putin had no other cards to play here. And yes, Putin did make multiple attempts to avoid war. I read the news and watch various news channels regularly, and can remember before the war that Biden and Putin held multiple meetings together before the invasion happened. So no, you are wrong again regarding your statement about Putin not making any attempts to avoid war. If you don't believe me you can always look this up online. It's all there.

I strongly encourage you to look up John Mearsheimer, Noam Chomsky and Henry Kissinger on the internet. Search for videos where they give their perspective on the Ukraine war. You will likely find their lectures to be interesting and educational. DO NOT rely on major news networks to get your information. It is okay to use them as a supplement, but NEVER solely rely on them. It is important to understand that major news networks like CNN, Fox News, RT, etc are only interested in providing you with information they want you to know. Listening to actual academics will provide you with information that you need to know. This is a huge difference.

[Dr Wilson]

NATO had no respect for Russia's demands to stay away from their borders, and Russia responded militarily when all other attempts to negotiate failed. Russian leaders view the eastward expansion of NATO as an existential threat to their own country.

I am certainly not entering this 2p-discussion, but the above statement irks me a lot. The baltic states or Poland are not in the NATO for pure fun, but because they have bad historical experiences as a russian neighbour. So lets talk about THEIR existential threat. ---- That in the aera of submarine based nuklear weapons, a NATO-member Latvia, Poland or - to name a very unlikely idea: Ukraine - is a threat to Russias existence, is a made up argument without any basis in sane reasoning. Unless you want to imply, that Russias safety demands consist in a cordon of servant races around their borders withthout a will of their own.

[player1772]

NATO had no respect for Russia's demands to stay away from their borders, and Russia responded militarily when all other attempts to negotiate failed. Russian leaders view the eastward expansion of NATO as an existential threat to their own country.

I am certainly not entering this 2p-discussion, but the above statement irks me a lot. The baltic states or Poland are not in the NATO for pure fun, but because they have bad historical experiences as a russian neighbour. So lets talk about THEIR existential threat. ---- That in the area of submarine based nuklear weapons, a NATO-member Latvia, Poland or - to name a very unlikely idea: Ukraine - is a threat to Russias existence, is a made up argument without any basis in sane reasoning. Unless you want to imply, that Russias safety demands consist in a cordon of servant races around their borders withthout a will of their own.

This question does get brought up a lot. The area surrounding the Ukrainian/Russian border is a much different piece of real estate than the other areas you mentioned in your post. In particular, this area is more of a threat to the Russians because of its proximity to Moscow. Ukraine joining the NATO alliance would allow for NATO troops and bases to be positioned very close to Russia's capital city. One may argue that NATO would never attack Russia, but there are instances you can look up where NATO was in fact the aggressor in several different conflicts. Not only that, this would give NATO a great deal of leverage over Russia in a geopolitical sense.

[Skiipy]

Maybe Ukraine shouldn't have trusted America/ Russia in giving up her Nukes?
There's a reason they are at War. We will suffer this same experience soon enough.

[robinzig]

NATO had no respect for Russia's demands to stay away from their borders, and Russia responded militarily when all other attempts to negotiate failed. Russian leaders view the eastward expansion of NATO as an existential threat to their own country.

I am certainly not entering this 2p-discussion, but the above statement irks me a lot. The baltic states or Poland are not in the NATO for pure fun, but because they have bad historical experiences as a russian neighbour. So lets talk about THEIR existential threat. ---- That in the aera of submarine based nuklear weapons, a NATO-member Latvia, Poland or - to name a very unlikely idea: Ukraine - is a threat to Russias existence, is a made up argument without any basis in sane reasoning. Unless you want to imply, that Russias safety demands consist in a cordon of servant races around their borders withthout a will of their own.

I don't have time to continue posting long messages here, but this says a large part of what I would have said in a much better way.

And as for the response below (immediately above this post) - look at a map. The Latvian and Estonian borders are pretty much the same distance from Moscow as the Ukrainian one is. Those countries are already NATO members - and while I know the Russians were unhappy when they joined, there was certainly no threat or talk of an invasion. And, more importantly to those of us who like to counter Putin's fantasies, no "existential" thread to Russia has arisen from these 2 countries' NATO membership in the many years since.

My final point is your laughable suggestion that Putin's action was a rational "last resort" after negotiations failed. It was the West who was desparately trying to negotiate to try to stave off the invasion after seeing the number of Russian troops amassed near Ukraine's borders. In fact many Western analysts thought the massive troop build-up was simply a negotiating tactic to exact concessions from Ukraine and/or the West - and would probably have been successful if that was the intention. Putin wasn't interested in that kind of success though - even though by all accounts one of the things offered was a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO. No, Putin showed he wasn't interested in that at all - he wanted to replace Zelensky by force with a Russia-friendly leader, who would maintain his dreamed-of Russian "sphere of influence". And when it became clear that wouldn't work, he decided to just grab as much land as he could and unilaterally declare it to be part of Russia. These are not the tactics of one who is open to realistic negotiations.

[Skiipy]

These are not the tactics of one who is open to realistic negotiations.

Nope. This is the real thing. Prepare to assimilate!

[player1772]

NATO had no respect for Russia's demands to stay away from their borders, and Russia responded militarily when all other attempts to negotiate failed. Russian leaders view the eastward expansion of NATO as an existential threat to their own country.

I am certainly not entering this 2p-discussion, but the above statement irks me a lot. The baltic states or Poland are not in the NATO for pure fun, but because they have bad historical experiences as a russian neighbour. So lets talk about THEIR existential threat. ---- That in the aera of submarine based nuklear weapons, a NATO-member Latvia, Poland or - to name a very unlikely idea: Ukraine - is a threat to Russias existence, is a made up argument without any basis in sane reasoning. Unless you want to imply, that Russias safety demands consist in a cordon of servant races around their borders withthout a will of their own.

I don't have time to continue posting long messages here, but this says a large part of what I would have said in a much better way.

And as for the response below (immediately above this post) - look at a map. The Latvian and Estonian borders are pretty much the same distance from Moscow as the Ukrainian one is. Those countries are already NATO members - and while I know the Russians were unhappy when they joined, there was certainly no threat or talk of an invasion. And, more importantly to those of us who like to counter Putin's fantasies, no "existential" thread to Russia has arisen from these 2 countries' NATO membership in the many years since.

My final point is your laughable suggestion that Putin's action was a rational "last resort" after negotiations failed. It was the West who was desparately trying to negotiate to try to stave off the invasion after seeing the number of Russian troops amassed near Ukraine's borders. In fact many Western analysts thought the massive troop build-up was simply a negotiating tactic to exact concessions from Ukraine and/or the West - and would probably have been successful if that was the intention. Putin wasn't interested in that kind of success though - even though by all accounts one of the things offered was a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO. No, Putin showed he wasn't interested in that at all - he wanted to replace Zelensky by force with a Russia-friendly leader, who would maintain his dreamed-of Russian "sphere of influence". And when it became clear that wouldn't work, he decided to just grab as much land as he could and unilaterally declare it to be part of Russia. These are not the tactics of one who is open to realistic negotiations.

Man....you are 0 for 3 now! You are wrong once again. The Ukrainian/Russian border is much closer to Moscow than the other regions mentioned. Please, PLEASE do some research dude.

If you are able to use a computer and look up videos/news articles, you will see that Biden and Putin had numerous private meetings leading up to the invasion. Nobody of course knows what they talked about, but it was probably regarding the situation in Ukraine. So to say that Putin did not attempt to reach a resolution in order to avoid war is not true. I am not trying to justify Russia's actions against Ukraine. I am trying to be objective by pointing out facts.

Former German Chancellor Merkel even said herself that incorporating Ukraine into the NATO alliance would essentially be a declaration of war against Russia. The Germans eventually changed their stance after the Americans convinced them otherwise. Again, this information has been made public and can be searched for on the internet.

[robinzig]

Man. I already wasn't minded to continue but being accused of not doing research when I've done plenty and you are twisting facts to fit Putin's worldview is not encouraging me to do more. Enjoy spreading pro-Russian propaganda on your own.

[Skiipy]

not doing research when I've done plenty

worldview = Ukraine is a Buffer region. Putin's "worldview" vs "Worldview"??? History has only one view...continually rearing up its ugly head.

It’s really important to understand we’re not seeing reality; we’re seeing a story that’s being created for us...The End!

[player1772]

Man. I already wasn't minded to continue but being accused of not doing research when I've done plenty and you are twisting facts to fit Putin's worldview is not encouraging me to do more. Enjoy spreading pro-Russian propaganda on your own.

Please take a second to actually read what I wrote. Calling somebody who fully supports Ukraine and condemns Russia's actions a "pro-Russian propagandist" really doesn't make any sense. But neither does anything else put out by you.

I am hoping that others who have been reading these posts now know more about the conflict. It's important to discuss these topics online because people need to have another outlet for receiving information. Relying on local news channels is a bad idea because it will only flood you with propaganda.

The war is not likely to end soon as long as NATO continues to add fuel to the fire. I understand that NATO is fighting for a noble cause, but Russia is not like any country NATO has ever fought before. We are now essentially engaged in a Great Power War. Both sides have nuclear weapons, and both sides show no signs of backing down. And the United Kingdom has just announced they will be sending jets to Ukraine! This is madness! Do people really believe a good outcome can come from all this? Most of us, including myself, want to see that all land lost to Ukraine is restored and peace is returned to the area. I would also go so far to say that Ukraine should hold tribunals to bring to justice all of the Russian war criminals. These are things that should happen. But realistically, they will never happen. Not as long as Russia holds thousands of nukes and Putin is still in power. If we continue to fight this senseless war, everybody will get turned to radioactive dust. That is the reality of the situation. In the old days, countries could send troops and tanks and bomb the crap out of each other without destroying the world. Those days are now over. We now possess weapons that can literally destroy the planet. People sadly do not understand this.