Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

Arch Dornan said:

This one. It's diplomatically ingenious. An oral promise. One that can't be fulfilled when your successor takes over and with Soviet credibility low the eastern countries wanted to join NATO. I know I would join NATO if I was one of those citizens living there and damn what James A. Baker III said.

Click to expand...

Here you are implying all the KGB trained veterans of Soviet internal and external politics had no idea about the most basic pros and cons of a loose oral promise, nor the civics 101 of western countries. Or in other words, they were complete, naive idiots.
As the article explains, it was not exactly a hard, indefinite promise the pro-Russia side now paints it as.
Let's be honest, diplomacy doesn't work like that, because it can't. If the words of any high ranking government official are expected to have indefinite, binding power over the current and all future administrations, what's the fucking point of treaties.
Obviously it is in the interest of Putin government to play victim while painting its predecessors as absolute idiots, but we, not bound by the political restrictions of living in Russia and threat of gulag, have no reason to roll with this bullshit.

Marduk said:

Here you are implying all the KGB trained veterans of Soviet internal and external politics had no idea about the most basic pros and cons of a loose oral promise, nor the civics 101 of western countries. Or in other words, they were complete, naive idiots.
As the article explains, it was not exactly a hard, indefinite promise the pro-Russia side now paints it as.

Click to expand...

They were in the shitter. Their economy was shit and the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapsing as the Cold War left their side losing eastern europe while glasnost was in action and their leaders being succeeded by WW2 relics. Why wouldn't they take up offers of friendship from their rival?

Arch Dornan said:

They were in the shitter. Their economy was shit and the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapsing as the Cold War left their side losing eastern europe while glasnost was in action and their leaders being succeeded by WW2 relics. Why wouldn't they take up offers of friendship from their rival?

Click to expand...

So this is not a question, the answer is because they had no other option. Still doesn't mean they had to be complete idiots who don't know how diplomacy works.

In the bigger picture this sort of talk is creating an impression that it was a mistake to allow Soviet Union/Russia to have such a soft and generous treatment after its fall, rather than being treated clearly as the loser of the cold war, with Russia owing reparations to Soviet Union's victims if it doesn't want to make a clear cut and give up the UNSC seat and other perks of inheritance of Soviet influence.
Because without that, after years have passes, this allowed the current government to make it into a story that Soviet Union didn't lose at all, because if it was so weak that it would lose, then it definitely would have been treated as the loser, so it wasn't weak and it didn't lose, it was all just a western con to grab pieces of Soviet/Russian empire while it's confused.

Marduk said:

So this is not a question, the answer is because they had no other option. Still doesn't mean they had to be complete idiots who don't know how diplomacy works.

In the bigger picture this sort of talk is creating an impression that it was a mistake to allow Soviet Union/Russia to have such a soft and generous treatment after its fall, rather than being treated clearly as the loser of the cold war, with Russia owing reparations to Soviet Union's victims if it doesn't want to make a clear cut and give up the UNSC seat and other perks of inheritance of Soviet influence.
Because without that, after years have passes, this allowed the current government to make it into a story that Soviet Union didn't lose at all, because if it was so weak that it would lose, then it definitely would have been treated as the loser, so it wasn't weak and it didn't lose, it was all just a western con to grab pieces of Soviet/Russian empire while it's confused.

Click to expand...

That's what happens inheriting the good and bad shit of a predecessor. In the case of Putin he used it as his casus belli but naturally others disagreed and it's now decided on the battle field and in the markets and culture.

Arch Dornan said:

That's what happens inheriting the good and bad shit of a predecessor. In the case of Putin he used it as his casus belli but naturally others disagreed and it's now decided on the battle field and in the markets and culture.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing, the West has given a really good deal to Russia, with allowing it to keep most of the good shit and forget about most of the bad, in hope that Russia will understand that this is a better deal than anything they could reasonably hope to secure by own power, and so don't rock the boat at risk of the deal being readjusted to something more in line with their ability to keep if they do.
Now they forgot about all that and are rocking the boat hard.

Marduk said:

Here's the thing, the West has given a really good deal to Russia, with allowing it to keep most of the good shit and forget about most of the bad, in hope that Russia will understand that this is a better deal than anything they could reasonably hope to secure by own power, and so don't rock the boat at risk of the deal being readjusted to something more in line with their ability to keep if they do.
Now they forgot about all that and are rocking the boat hard.

Click to expand...

Happens all the time. Nations with their own interests and the ones faraway have differences.

Arch Dornan said:

Happens all the time. Nations with their own interests and the ones faraway have differences.

Click to expand...

And so there needs to be major readjustment of Russia's place in the world. No more things taken for granted or magnanimously recognized perks from ages past, just harsh business with absolutely nothing for free.

Marduk said:

And so there needs to be major readjustment of Russia's place in the world. No more things taken for granted or magnanimously recognized perks from ages past, just harsh business with absolutely nothing for free.

Click to expand...

Which is where I'm waiting to see if Russia will learn their place or remain standing defiant.

They made their intentions very clear.

Marduk said:

So this is not a question, the answer is because they had no other option. Still doesn't mean they had to be complete idiots who don't know how diplomacy works.

In the bigger picture this sort of talk is creating an impression that it was a mistake to allow Soviet Union/Russia to have such a soft and generous treatment after its fall, rather than being treated clearly as the loser of the cold war, with Russia owing reparations to Soviet Union's victims if it doesn't want to make a clear cut and give up the UNSC seat and other perks of inheritance of Soviet influence.
Because without that, after years have passes, this allowed the current government to make it into a story that Soviet Union didn't lose at all, because if it was so weak that it would lose, then it definitely would have been treated as the loser, so it wasn't weak and it didn't lose, it was all just a western con to grab pieces of Soviet/Russian empire while it's confused.

Click to expand...

What; like what was done to Germany after World War 1? Because that didn't work out so well. Although treating them like losers may have actually been an improvement, because at least then it would imply that the Cold War was actually over; something which the western powers never really accepted. That's why, among other things, the west kept expanding NATO; because they refused to let go of the idea that conflict with the Soviet Union Russia was inevitable, thus turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Terthna said:

What; like what was done to Germany after World War 1? Because that didn't work out so well. Although treating them like losers may have actually been an improvement, because at least then it would imply that the Cold War was actually over; something which the western powers never really accepted. That's why, among other things, the west kept expanding NATO; because they refused to let go of the idea that conflict with the Soviet Union Russia was inevitable, thus turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Click to expand...

The amount of historical revisionism this position is dependent on is almost mind-boggling.

Terthna said:

What; like what was done to Germany after World War 1? Because that didn't work out so well. Although treating them like losers may have actually been an improvement, because at least then it would imply that the Cold War was actually over;

Click to expand...

Germany after WW1 may be an example of going too far the other way. Overall the two combined seem like a good baseline for establishing a sensible average. In some ways Germany after WW2 fits that bill.

Terthna said:

something which the western powers never really accepted. That's why, among other things, the west kept expanding NATO; because they refused to let go of the idea that conflict with the Soviet Union Russia was inevitable, thus turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Click to expand...

Does the world revolve around NATO existence and membership? Why aren't countries in North Africa, Middle East and North Asia obsessed about NATO and its membership?
Jeez, don't invade countries and NATO membership is effectively irrelevant to you, is this so much to ask?

Marduk said:

In the bigger picture this sort of talk is creating an impression that it was a mistake to allow Soviet Union/Russia to have such a soft and generous treatment after its fall, rather than being treated clearly as the loser of the cold war, with Russia owing reparations to Soviet Union's victims if it doesn't want to make a clear cut and give up the UNSC seat and other perks of inheritance of Soviet influence.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the same mistake the Allies made with France in the post-WWII era, thanks to de Gaulle.

Arch Dornan said:

Big countries with power have different feelings on the matter they can give reminders at the barrel of the gun like what's going on. I just see what I read of the past I have no control over.

Click to expand...

Law is for everybody,or nobody.Kgbstan could do anything,becouse they thought themselves stronk? fine,but in that case nobody is obliged by any pact with them,becouse they would break it any moment.

Problem is - kgbstan,thanks to colonel Putin,is not longer stronk.Which mean,that they have to right to demend anythong when China,Turkey,or both start taking part of soviet territory.
That is problem with "Might is Right" -
1.You need to be strong entire time.
2.Once when somebody stronger come,you have no right to even complain.

But - if they see the light and agree to be USA deep state ally,they could take not only Ukraine,but entire Europe.There is still time for that.
Luckily,colonel Putin is still for China.

@Terthna ,germans after WW1 was treated with kid gloves - they,unless A-H still existed,and was not occupied.
Allies should let other germans states,like Bavaria,become free again without any taxes,and occupy prussia with colonial troops til they pay all cost of the war.
Then we would have no WW2.

And USA treated Moscov after soviets fall as if they still were superpower - till Putin and his KGB mafia start belive in that.And now we have results.
Poland was once superpower,too - but we do not demand Ukraine becouse of that.
Moscov is stil in denial.

For some reason people are often surprised that the Russian army has recently been shown to be both incompetent and prone to war crimes. This is strange since the Russian army always has acted like a heavily armed prison gang ever since the concept of a unified Russian state came to be.

Granted, this was true of most armies throughout history, what the Russians are doing in Ukraine is positively tame in comparison to what was standard operating procedure a couple thousand years ago. But where the west has gradually moved on from such such brutal ways of war Russia stuck in a more violent and brutal age.

This is the way the Russians are, always have been, and probably always will be. Believing that they would change just because we started trading with them is exactally the same mistake we made with China.

Marduk said:

Does the world revolve around NATO existence and membership? Why aren't countries in North Africa, Middle East and North Asia obsessed about NATO and its membership?
Jeez, don't invade countries and NATO membership is effectively irrelevant to you, is this so much to ask?

Click to expand...

Because NATO was formed (via the United State essentially bribing everyone else with the Bretton Woods system) to oppose the Soviet Union, and that's always been its primary purpose; even after the Soviet Union fell.

TyrantTriumphant said:

But where the west has gradually moved on from such brutal ways of war

Click to expand...

We really didn't; I mean, we assassinate children, and blow up weddings for Pete's sake. It's just that our media keeps sweeping the atrocities the West (and China) commits under the rug, while putting Russia's on full blast.

Terthna said:

Because NATO was formed (via the United State essentially bribing everyone else with the Bretton Woods system) to oppose the Soviet Union, and that's always been its primary purpose; even after the Soviet Union fell.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sucks for them to start trying to recover parts of Soviet Union just when everyone was confused about the future purpose of NATO and questioning whether it will last for long.

Terthna said:

We really didn't; I mean, we assassinate children, and blow up weddings for Pete's sake. It's just that our media keeps sweeping the atrocities the West (and China) commits under the rug, while putting Russia's on full blast.

Click to expand...

Lol, yet somehow the fucking TV was talking about them. Good luck with that in Russia.
When the West does it, it's an accident, to the point of inventing battle lawyers and volunteering into near total reliance on expensive precision weapons in order to try avoid them.

Husky_Khan said:

Trump was a Russian Asset Confirmed.



But now it looks like he's shunned and betrayed them. So brave!

Click to expand...

The only Russian thing that Trump cares about starts with a P, has two S's in the middle, and ends with a Y!

AnimalNoodles said:

Its always been the goal to break Russia up and turn the bits into what Ukraine is...neoliberal colonies ruled by bought and paid for oligarchs. Ukraine is really just American Manchukuo, and the GAE wants the sane for Russia.

Click to expand...

Is it really bad for the US to seek to create a larger bloc, though? I mean, if it's fair game for Russia to invade other countries in order to create its own larger bloc, then why exactly is having the West do the same thing, but through much more humane economic cooperation that has much more mutual consent in the receiving countries, be such a bad thing?

Manchukuo was not necessarily a bad deal for Japan since it aimed to give Japan an even larger bloc in Asia. If only Japan would have been more tolerant and inclusive.

ATP said:

Law is for everybody,or nobody.Kgbstan could do anything,becouse they thought themselves stronk? fine,but in that case nobody is obliged by any pact with them,becouse they would break it any moment.

Problem is - kgbstan,thanks to colonel Putin,is not longer stronk.Which mean,that they have to right to demend anythong when China,Turkey,or both start taking part of soviet territory.
That is problem with "Might is Right" -
1.You need to be strong entire time.
2.Once when somebody stronger come,you have no right to even complain.

But - if they see the light and agree to be USA deep state ally,they could take not only Ukraine,but entire Europe.There is still time for that.
Luckily,colonel Putin is still for China.

Click to expand...

It applies too for the US. The fallout of Afghanistan may have had the effect of convincing Putin to strike when US military strength is perceived to be weak.

LordsFire said:

...So now you're talking about completely different things.

Click to expand...

I am not AnimalNoodles. We are different people.

LordsFire said:

This is incoherent.

Click to expand...

How?
How is this incoherent to you?

Animalnoodles put forth that the liberal world order wishes to break up russia and turn both ukraine and the various broken pieces of russia into neoliberal colonies.

You counter argued that "it is the russian troops who are doing bad thing XYZ" (which they are). thus clearly indicating that this is contrary to the LWO who does not do those specific bad things

I pointed out that XYZ are staples of the LWO. And gave examples.
This is not "incoherent" nor is it "completely different things".

Marduk said:

How else do you get things to northwest Syria? Underground tunneling?

Click to expand...

Ah, Yes, the Novobyelorussk tunnels!

Marduk said:

MSN

Russia takes another step in its new bold plan to starve the population of own allies to own the West

Click to expand...

Honestly, why exactly should the West care all that much about Syria right now? Focus on Ukraine and leave Syria to Russia. If some Syrians don't like Assad (quite understandably), then subsidize their relocation to Turkey or Jordan or Lebanon or wherever.

Arch Dornan said:

That's what they did. Now we wait to see if they can get away with it.

This one. It's diplomatically ingenious. An oral promise. One that can't be fulfilled when your successor takes over and with Soviet credibility low the eastern countries wanted to join NATO. I know I would join NATO if I was one of those citizens living there and damn what James A. Baker III said.

In Ukraine Conflict, Putin Relies on a Promise That Ultimately Wasn’t (Published 2022)

The current confrontation turns partly on what, if any, commitments Secretary of State James A. Baker III made about NATO’s expansion in the waning days of the Cold War.

www.nytimes.com

Click to expand...

Would Russia have felt better if NATO would not have expanded but Eastern European countries would have created their own military alliance and allied it to NATO?