Ukraine Crisis

[ingemann]

If anyone want to know what soft power means, this is a very good example. Soft power is when you can make demand of a country, and the country's own citizens demostrate in favour of the foreign power making the demands.

[ingemann]

According to that Wikipedia page, the position of Belarus is pretty incoherent, so maybe the similar true with regards to Cuba :

"Position of  Belarus is vague: it includes "Ukraine should remain an integral, indivisible, non-aligned state" and "As for Crimea, I do not like it when the integrity and independence of a country are broken", on the one hand, and "Today Crimea is part of the Russian Federation. No matter whether you recognize it or not, the fact remains." and "Whether Crimea will be recognized as a region of the Russian Federation de-jure does not really matter", on the other hand.[9]"

Translation: So, Crimea is part of Ukraine... except that it's not.

No the translation are this: "We are a small neighbour to Russia, so we don't like that Russia invades its smaller neighbours, but neither do we wish to make our big neighbour angry at us"

[ingemann]

Anyways, the problem is not China, it is US, EU and NATO.

Looks like Ukraine has been sold wholesale. MM Chamberlain and Daladier are toasting from wherever they are: they are surely happy to know that 75 years later their successors have judged them right.

I'm so incredible tired of this comparison, yes Chamberlain and Daladier sold Czechoslovakia out, after which they returned home and mobilised, because they was able to see that they could not take out Germany at that point.

As for the whole Ukraine crisis, if you think we don't do enough, you should volunteer to their armed forces.

[ingemann]

Anyways, the problem is not China, it is US, EU and NATO.

Looks like Ukraine has been sold wholesale. MM Chamberlain and Daladier are toasting from wherever they are: they are surely happy to know that 75 years later their successors have judged them right.

I'm so incredible tired of this comparison, yes Chamberlain and Daladier sold Czechoslovakia out, after which they returned home and mobilised, because they was able to see that they could not take out Germany at that point.

As for the whole Ukraine crisis, if you think we don't do enough, you should volunteer to their armed forces.

Unlike you, I live in Mexico. I am safe. It is you who will be fighting and/or being killed when the war starts. I would think, you would want to prevent that. Or else, move here:)

This is NOT about Ukraine - like it was not about Czecoslovakia back then. It is anout peace in Europe.

... and people starting wars, because they see Hitler in every corner, don't help keeping the peace.

Putin is not Hitler, Ukraine are not Czechoslovakia and 2014 are not 1938.

[ingemann]

Russia is a great power with enough nuclear weapons to leave USA as smoldering glass covered wasteland. Yes it would be nice if we could treat it as a defeated enemy or some Middle Eastern or third world sh**thole. We can't and we should accept that and look into how we need to deal with Russia (like remobilise).

[ingemann]

Russia is a great power with enough nuclear weapons to leave USA as smoldering glass covered wasteland. Yes it would be nice if we could treat it as a defeated enemy or some Middle Eastern or third world sh**thole. We can't and we should accept that and look into how we need to deal with Russia (like remobilise).

I never said we should initiate a shooting war with Russia. Containment followed by RollBack should be the policy. But my main point was hat we should treat this as the threat it actually is.

The Soviet Union had a powerful nuclear arsenal too, but that didn't stop us from doing what it took to win.

'

USA and the rest of NATO did nothing to win, we just contained USSR until it collapsed under it own wrong economical policies, public opposition and demographic change. That's the logical policy to follow with Russia, to contain it and we have succesful done so, even if wasn't completely aware of it, with the expansion of NATO and EU to the east. Now Russia have lost one of its most important client states and instead they have gotten Crimea and a pathetic puppet in eastern Ukraine.

[ingemann]

Russia is a great power with enough nuclear weapons to leave USA as smoldering glass covered wasteland. Yes it would be nice if we could treat it as a defeated enemy or some Middle Eastern or third world sh**thole. We can't and we should accept that and look into how we need to deal with Russia (like remobilise).

I never said we should initiate a shooting war with Russia. Containment followed by RollBack should be the policy. But my main point was hat we should treat this as the threat it actually is.

The Soviet Union had a powerful nuclear arsenal too, but that didn't stop us from doing what it took to win.

'

USA and the rest of NATO did nothing to win, we just contained USSR until it collapsed under it own wrong economical policies, public opposition and demographic change. That's the logical policy to follow with Russia, to contain it and we have succesful done so, even if wasn't completely aware of it, with the expansion of NATO and EU to the east. Now Russia have lost one of its most important client states and instead they have gotten Crimea and a pathetic puppet in eastern Ukraine.

Well, containment should be firmer. The last time I checked Russian trains still could get to Kaliningrad.

Yes they can, just as West German trains could get to Berlin under the Cold War and the Baltic and Black Sea wasn't closed from our side. Closing down the land connection between Kaliningrad and core Russia would serve no purpose, it would not make Russia weaker, it would not make them back down,it would just cost them marginal to set up a ferry between it and Petrograd. The only thing it would do would be to give a excuse to Putin and Russia apoligists around the world. So we're very sorry we don't do counterproductive dickwaving.

[ingemann]

ingemann has made some legitimate points IMO.

Russia is on the defensive... or at least that's how Putin tends to see it. Since February 2014, Ukraine has a pro-Western government and it may never have a pro-Russian government again in the future. Invading Crimea and Donbass was a mere attempt at cutting the losses. From a Russian point of view, it's damage control.

Exactly if took a realpolitik perspective, USA and EU have gotten 80% of Ukraine with almost no cost. While Russia are destroying their economy and their careful net of alliance to keep the last 20% in their orbit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think ag have some interesting points, but they're less interesting than him, he more or less show us how the Russian think just the opposite way, if they don't stop us at Donbass, next we will push into Russia, until we take Moscow.
Russia have also shown the cost of thinking that way:
If Putin had just ignored the revolution in Ukraine, a few year down the road a new pro-Russian government would have arisen as the anti-Russian alliance collapsed. But now he has removed millions of pro-Russian voters from the Ukrainian electorate. Now Russia damage control have lost 80% of Ukraine permanent.

[ingemann]

Putin has been on the offensive since the Second Chechen War (1999-2002). If the West was really as anti-Russian as the paranoid Putin fanatics claim, the human rights abuses committed there would have been a much bigger problem for Putin. The next stage was Georgia (2008), a small state outside of Europe with existing de facto independent puppet states within it. Ukraine (2014-15) is the latest stage, a large state within Europe, with no previous conflict before this. It is a pattern of steady escalation in his 15 year career, with marked acceleration recently. But I don't think the pattern has ever changed.

Yes that's sounds impressive, if you completely ignore the history behind the two earlier war. Let's remember that Chechnya beside being a earlier version of IS was negotiate for independence from Russia and was close to get it, before the geniuses decided to invade Dagestan and of course at the same there was a terror campaign in Russia which the Chechen was blamed for (it's believed it wasn't a false flag operation, but honestly we don't know for sure).

As for South Ossetian it was a Russian puppet set up under Jeltsin, whose autonomy Georgia decided to end. Which was a major reason we decided to ignore that war.

The Russian conflicts while not acceptable have been purely reactive to outside pressure, not expansionistic.

[ingemann]

Putin has been on the offensive since the Second Chechen War (1999-2002). If the West was really as anti-Russian as the paranoid Putin fanatics claim, the human rights abuses committed there would have been a much bigger problem for Putin. The next stage was Georgia (2008), a small state outside of Europe with existing de facto independent puppet states within it. Ukraine (2014-15) is the latest stage, a large state within Europe, with no previous conflict before this. It is a pattern of steady escalation in his 15 year career, with marked acceleration recently. But I don't think the pattern has ever changed.

Yes that's sounds impressive, if you completely ignore the history behind the two earlier war. Let's remember that Chechnya beside being a earlier version of IS was negotiate for independence from Russia and was close to get it, before the geniuses decided to invade Dagestan and of course at the same there was a terror campaign in Russia which the Chechen was blamed for (it's believed it wasn't a false flag operation, but honestly we don't know for sure).

As for South Ossetian it was a Russian puppet set up under Jeltsin, whose autonomy Georgia decided to end. Which was a major reason we decided to ignore that war.

The Russian conflicts while not acceptable have been purely reactive to outside pressure, not expansionistic.

Chechen independence movement was hardly IS. It started as a rebel movement of an ethnic minority seeking political independence...precisely what Putin claims the Ukrainian rebels currently are.

I would have been a lot more impressed with these claims, if we had seen how their state work between the 1st and 2nd war. Me I have a hard time having sympathy for people practicing and a state legalising slavery and bride stealing, and of course the fact that while the terror attacks can be claimed to have been false flag, their invasions of the neighbouring republics was something which we have clear historical evidence for. For some reason I fail to see how it was attempt

So you may celebrate the brave Chechen Muhadjins fight against the Russians, I on the other hand prefer a world without slavers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said reactive not defensive wars.

Plus this is why I hate you people sometimes, you move the argument so far out that you think other people defend something because they ask you to deal with reality.

Man1: "Saddam is a cannibal"
Man2: "No he's not"
Man1: "So you defend Saddam"

[ingemann]

That's fair enough, I'll admit that all of these wars have had some reactive element to them from Russia's part. You were not defending the wars, you just pointed out that they didn't come out of nowhere. You're right in that.

The Chechen nationalists were undoubtedly horrible, but they were not IS. The government & most people who supported it were secular, but the government was too weak to control the Islamists. It was the latter that attacked Dagestan. The Chechen "government" offered Russia to crack down on the Islamists, but it was refused and a full scale invasion launched instead. In any case, I never said I supported the "brave Chechen Muhadjins". It is well known that both sides committed the worst atrocities in that war.

Putin's real problem is that he's too old. He still sees things from the Cold War KGB mentality which he never left behind. Otherwise, why would he even care that Ukraine is pro-Western? In his mind, pro-Western = anti-Russian (to be fair many others have this mentality too, but Putin only reinforces it).

I agree you're right, Putin should have retired last election. It would have been better for Russia and it would have a whole lot better for his legacy.

Through I do get why he care that Ukraine is pro-western. Putin goal have been to semi-recreate USSR/the Russian Empire as the Eurasian Union, and without Ukraine that doesn't make a lot of sense.
 

[ingemann]

That's fair enough, I'll admit that all of these wars have had some reactive element to them from Russia's part. You were not defending the wars, you just pointed out that they didn't come out of nowhere. You're right in that.

The Chechen nationalists were undoubtedly horrible, but they were not IS. The government & most people who supported it were secular, but the government was too weak to control the Islamists. It was the latter that attacked Dagestan. The Chechen "government" offered Russia to crack down on the Islamists, but it was refused and a full scale invasion launched instead. In any case, I never said I supported the "brave Chechen Muhadjins". It is well known that both sides committed the worst atrocities in that war.

Putin's real problem is that he's too old. He still sees things from the Cold War KGB mentality which he never left behind. Otherwise, why would he even care that Ukraine is pro-Western? In his mind, pro-Western = anti-Russian (to be fair many others have this mentality too, but Putin only reinforces it).

I agree you're right, Putin should have retired last election. It would have been better for Russia and it would have a whole lot better for his legacy.

Russia has not had a proper presidential election since 2000. Are you suggesting he should not have run the first time?

I suggested that he should have let his crony (Dmitry Medvedev) stay president in 2012 and he should have retired to a mansion on the Black Sea coast, more or less like Yeltsin did.