Russia(gate/bot) At what rate is NATO planning to invite in Ukraine? If NATO doesn't know, why is negotiating away a neutrality agreement a non-starter?

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Reaction score
17,431
Location
Federal Way
Don't get your panties tied up over someone using brevity to relay a point.

I'm Filipino-American... and identify as American and am loyal to America and love and am far more loyal to America then the Philippines. It doesn't mean that I don't feel affinity for the Philippines and metaphorically would tell China or foreign funded Muslim or Marxist extremists to BTFO of a country I have strong affinity for. I might even refer to them using collective or group pronouns that apparently trigger you.

Like seriously, it's comments like yours that prevent people from having adult conversations. Taking a pretty blah sentiment and dragging it to some retarded extreme.
Sometimes I think it's impossible to have any adult conversation involving Russia; the Cold War mentality is just too ingrained in the western psyche. Russia is not China; and unlike the people Zachowon mentioned, you're not in a position to drag America into a conflict we should not be having.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer
Founder
Sotnik
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Reaction score
22,942
Location
The Drakwald
Sometimes I think it's impossible to have any adult conversation involving Russia; the Cold War mentality is just too ingrained in the western psyche. Russia is not China; and unlike the people Zachowon mentioned, you're not in a position to drag America into a conflict we should not be having.
Random US Army people aren't anymore capable of dragging America into a conflict with Russia then Jewish-Americans can drag us into a War with Iran or Pakistani-Americans with India or Vietnamese-Americans with China. I'm saying your "counter-argument" about "divided loyalties" of Americans of a certain ethnic background would be offensive if it wasn't so stupid. Might as well argue not having Christians in the Armed Services, after all their loyalty might be to God as opposed to the Constitution of the United States and we can't have dual loyalties in the Armed Forces.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Reaction score
17,431
Location
Federal Way
Random US Army people aren't anymore capable of dragging America into a conflict with Russia then Jewish-Americans can drag us into a War with Iran or Pakistani-Americans with India or Vietnamese-Americans with China. I'm saying your "counter-argument" about "divided loyalties" of Americans of a certain ethnic background would be offensive if it wasn't so stupid. Might as well argue not having Christians in the Armed Services, after all their loyalty might be to God as opposed to the Constitution of the United States.
Oh, so now we're resorting to implications of racism then? Real adult conversation we're having here. I think we're done.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,467
Sometimes I think it's impossible to have any adult conversation involving Russia; the Cold War mentality is just too ingrained in the western psyche. Russia is not China; and unlike the people Zachowon mentioned, you're not in a position to drag America into a conflict we should not be having.
And what would even be an adult conversation?
Russia is Russia, and its naive to think that outside of being commies, the natural state of Russia is to be some kind of poorer Switzerland, or some other kind of ideal country of the western many isolationists or pacifists.
Reminder that before Soviet Union, Russia was officially called Rossiyskaya Imperiya, or for those struggling with translation, Russian Empire.
Lets just say it wasn't the nicest, most peaceful, sovereignty respecting neighbor in the world.
To say it lightly.
Absolutely nothing Russia does since the fall of Soviet Union indicates that they aspire to become that either.
They are currently ruled by a fragile alliance of oligarchs and ex-KGB spooks, to give you an idea of what people are in charge, and how their worldview was shaped.
Russia has its own plans, and i think the best way to find out what those are like is to observe what Russian leaders are saying and doing, rather than project more or less fringe western political ideals onto them.
I think it's not defending VZ that the troops are being put their for.

VZ offers a good launch pad if Russia wants to make a play for the Canal, or just hold it at risk in the event things further deteriorate diplomatically.
Anything they can do successfully, a single submarine can do better.
Except theatrics.
 
Last edited:

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Reaction score
17,431
Location
Federal Way
And what would even be an adult conversation?
One that doesn't involve outright mockery and scorn, or attacks on one's moral character, any time someone voices an option you don't like. One that relies less on personal biases to base one's arguments on, and more on objective facts. One that acknowledges that people on both sides are still people in the end, and can be wrong without necessarily also having to be evil.

I never said Russia is justified in everything they do, or that they don't have their own goals that run counter to America's and Europe's; I just believe that, on the singular topic of Ukraine, they're the ones in the right.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,467
One that doesn't involve outright mockery and scorn, or attacks on one's moral character, any time someone voices an option you don't like. One that relies less on personal biases to base one's arguments on, and more on objective facts. One that acknowledges that people on both sides are still people in the end, and can be wrong without necessarily also having to be evil.
Excuse me for not assuming the highest moral standards on the part of former KGB officers...
So i hear you like facts:
That's a pretty good image of what the region saw regarding in Russia over last 3 decades, and that's just focused on energy related shenanigans.
I never said Russia is justified in everything they do, or that they don't have their own goals that run counter to America's and Europe's; I just believe that, on the singular topic of Ukraine, they're the ones in the right.
What are they in the right about? That Ukraine shouldn't be a sovereign country, whether Ukrainians like it or not, but they can pretend as long as they choose to do what Russia wants?
As far as Russian foreign policy goes, isolating the case of Ukraine from their whole policy regarding the former communist block is ridiculously pointless.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Reaction score
17,431
Location
Federal Way
Excuse me for not assuming the highest moral standards on the part of former KGB officers...
So i hear you like facts:
That's a pretty good image of what the region saw regarding in Russia over last 3 decades, and that's just focused on energy related shenanigans.

What are they in the right about? That Ukraine shouldn't be a sovereign country, whether Ukrainians like it or not, but they can pretend as long as they choose to do what Russia wants?
As far as Russian foreign policy goes, isolating the case of Ukraine from their whole policy regarding the former communist block is ridiculously pointless.
It is a fact that the United States and Europe backed the violent overthrowing of the legitimate government of Ukraine, in order to replace it with one more willing to back their international interests, as opposed to Russia's. It is also a fact that Crimea and eastern Ukraine supported said legitimate government, and were understandably upset when it was overthrown and replaced by a new one that was hostile to them. Finally, it is a fact that both Crimea and eastern Ukraine were not invaded by Russia; the former voted to rejoin, while the latter asked for their help in trying to resist an illegitimate government.

If none of those facts convince you that Russia has been in the right regarding Ukraine, then I honestly have no idea what, if anything, would.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
16,785
It is a fact that the United States and Europe backed the violent overthrowing of the legitimate government of Ukraine, in order to replace it with one more willing to back their international interests, as opposed to Russia's. It is also a fact that Crimea and eastern Ukraine supported said legitimate government, and were understandably upset when it was overthrown and replaced by a new one that was hostile to them. Finally, it is a fact that both Crimea and eastern Ukraine were not invaded by Russia; the former voted to rejoin, while the latter asked for their help in trying to resist an illegitimate government.

If none of those facts convince you that Russia has been in the right regarding Ukraine, then I honestly have no idea what, if anything, would.
That's a lot of assertions without any sourcing.

Also, I'm skeptical that any government in Ukraine that is pro-Russian was fully, if at all, 'legitimate.' It's certainly possible, but it's also something that should be looked very carefully into.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer
Founder
Sotnik
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Reaction score
22,942
Location
The Drakwald
As for the the rest of your points - same old stuff, unsupported by facts. As I said before, I'm Russian/Ukrainian. I have relatives in Ukraine and know of the stuff that goes on there. I've stated my attitude and I won't go away
You disagree with me after I posted an opinion? Well I will state it again and I'm not going away!

Five posts in and already a persecution complex. So brave. So powerful. 🤡
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,467
It is a fact that the United States and Europe backed the violent overthrowing of the legitimate government of Ukraine, in order to replace it with one more willing to back their international interests, as opposed to Russia's.
Considering how elections work in that part of the world, to describe them as legitimate is quite ambitious. See: Belarus.
And then there was this:
Regardless, in normal sovereign countries, it is the local's business which leaders they accept, which they kick out, how they kick them out, and which option is legal.
If Russia wants to be the ultimate arbiter of legality of Ukrainian elections, that is an infringement of Ukraine's sovereignty.
Quite a funny stance from Russia, which regularly rebukes foreign questioning of the legitimacy of its own elections.
It is also a fact that Crimea and eastern Ukraine supported said legitimate government, and were understandably upset when it was overthrown and replaced by a new one that was hostile to them. Finally, it is a fact that both Crimea and eastern Ukraine were not invaded by Russia; the former voted to rejoin, while the latter asked for their help in trying to resist an illegitimate government.
Correction, Russia didn't need to invade the former, because due to previous agreements, Russian troops were already there, and indeed they organized the vote, again, of questionable validity.
Welp, classic case of "why hosting major foreign forces is a questionable idea for sovereignty of a nation",
As for the latter, the official Russian line is that Russian forces aren't there and never went there.

If none of those facts convince you that Russia has been in the right regarding Ukraine, then I honestly have no idea what, if anything, would.
You're missing the point. In theory, none of this should be Russia's business at all, because Ukraine is, or at least should be, a sovereign country, and be treated as such.
 
Last edited:

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
17,150
If they think Ukraine is still their country, they should not be allowed to serve in the US Army. We cannot afford to have divided loyalties in our armed forces.
So we can't have people who wanna bs US citizens join the military because they may love thier home land and not want it to be a puppet state of a country that thinks they deserve to be under them and are fighting back against separatists already?
Huh wierd....
So the Honduras guy i know thay was in thier army and joined ours because he wants a better life shouldnt be allowed? What about the German who wants to fight for a country she can actually be porud of?

i have french ancestry and love france and dont wanna see them die, but you dont see
Don't get your panties tied up over someone using brevity to relay a point.

I'm Filipino-American... and identify as American and am loyal to America and love and am far more loyal to America then the Philippines. It doesn't mean that I don't feel affinity for the Philippines and metaphorically would tell China or foreign funded Muslim or Marxist extremists to BTFO of a country I have strong affinity for. I might even refer to them using collective or group pronouns that apparently trigger you.

Like seriously, it's comments like yours that prevent people from having adult conversations. Taking a pretty blah sentiment and dragging it to some retarded extreme.
But ya see Husky.
It doesn't work that way because they should only care about the country they live in NOW
 

Rusty Shackleford

"Open Your Eyes Man!"
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Reaction score
4,204
For those people who fear Putin/think that Russia is all geared up to unprovokedly invade other countries/start WW3.
For the record I and a lot of people here agree Putin isn't trying to start a world war any more than most any other world leader, it takes two to tango after all. That being said, he protects what he sees as Russia's sphere of influence and if the U.S. gives him an inch to expand that and take what he views as rightfully views as Russia's he undoubtedly will for Russia's sake.

Not that I am saying you need to be pro U.S. or other garbage like people on other forums would insist, given you are a Russian national and have a right and understandable reason to want to see Putin get Russia on his feet, but I am also aware that as a U.S. citizen my country has a vested interest in keeping the other great powers weak, even as we move to an increasingly multipolar world, so we will have to agree to disagree on somethings.

Honesty, I don't care what Putin does in the CSTO countries, but I also don't want Ukraine to not be bothered any more than it has been by Russia or them to try and join the EU as they are best served as a buffer state between Russia and NATO.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Reaction score
593
For the record I and a lot of people here agree Putin isn't trying to start a world war any more than most any other world leader, it takes two to tango after all. That being said, he protects what he sees as Russia's sphere of influence and if the U.S. gives him an inch to expand that and take what he views as rightfully views as Russia's he undoubtedly will for Russia's sake.

Not that I am saying you need to be pro U.S. or other garbage like people on other forums would insist, given you are a Russian national and have a right and understandable reason to want to see Putin get Russia on his feet, but I am also aware that as a U.S. citizen my country has a vested interest in keeping the other great powers weak, even as we move to an increasingly multipolar world, so we will have to agree to disagree on somethings.

Honesty, I don't care what Putin does in the CSTO countries, but I also don't want Ukraine to not be bothered any more than it has been by Russia or them to try and join the EU as they are best served as a buffer state between Russia and NATO.
Ukraine can still serve as a buffer state between Russia and NATO even if they will be a part of the EU. Finland and Sweden already serve similar purposes, for instance.

Even if Ukraine won't get NATO membership, it should at least be entitled to a roadmap to eventual EU membership, IMHO.
 

Rusty Shackleford

"Open Your Eyes Man!"
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Reaction score
4,204
Ukraine can still serve as a buffer state between Russia and NATO even if they will be a part of the EU. Finland and Sweden already serve similar purposes, for instance.

Even if Ukraine won't get NATO membership, it should at least be entitled to a roadmap to eventual EU membership, IMHO.
That would be interesting if it weren't for the fact that Ukraine's sole reason for moving to the EU is to get away from Russia's influence and Sweden and Finland joined in the 1990's when Russia was more or less distracted by internal problems.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Reaction score
593
That would be interesting if it weren't for the fact that Ukraine's sole reason for moving to the EU is to get away from Russia's influence and Sweden and Finland joined in the 1990's when Russia was more or less distracted by internal problems.
Ukraine's main reason in seeking to join the EU is probably for the money. Money speaks very loudly. If the EU was much poorer, then it would also be much less attractive to Ukraine.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,467
Honesty, I don't care what Putin does in the CSTO countries, but I also don't want Ukraine to not be bothered any more than it has been by Russia or them to try and join the EU as they are best served as a buffer state between Russia and NATO.
Ukraine's main reason in seeking to join the EU is probably for the money. Money speaks very loudly. If the EU was much poorer, then it would also be much less attractive to Ukraine.
The problem here is that Ukraine sees no money in being a buffer state, while considering what started the Maidan protests, Russia has an idea on what constitutes a buffer state which in no way resembles a neutral state - its more along the lines of "we de facto control it through at least some branches of government, but we choose to not make that fact official".
For one if Russia's buffer states are going to act like Belarus, that's even worse than having a direct border with Russia (and a handful of countries have borders with both), because apparently such countries can act as proxies and do things so dodgy that Russia itself wouldn't like to have it on its own reputation.
Secondly, for over a decade Ukraine was a quiet and obedient Russian "buffer state", and all it got from its tolerance of a pro-Russian ruling class was being, in economic and living standard terms, frozen in time, at a rather poor level at that, while other poor post-communist countries, like Romania, or even pro-Russian Belarus, multiplied their GDP per capita.
Russia didn't mind that its satraps are incompetent, as long as they were loyal incompetents.
So then Ukrainians got the idea that they don't have much to lose from trusting the west instead, even if they install their own satraps, there's a chance those will be more competent, not to mention the west has more money to throw around, and all the other post-communist countries that sided with the west ended up much richer than Ukraine.
Without that opening, the pro-western color revolutions probably wouldn't be as successful as they were.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Reaction score
593
The problem here is that Ukraine sees no money in being a buffer state, while considering what started the Maidan protests, Russia has an idea on what constitutes a buffer state which in no way resembles a neutral state - its more along the lines of "we de facto control it through at least some branches of government, but we choose to not make that fact official".
For one if Russia's buffer states are going to act like Belarus, that's even worse than having a direct border with Russia (and a handful of countries have borders with both), because apparently such countries can act as proxies and do things so dodgy that Russia itself wouldn't like to have it on its own reputation.
Secondly, for over a decade Ukraine was a quiet and obedient Russian "buffer state", and all it got from its tolerance of a pro-Russian ruling class was being, in economic and living standard terms, frozen in time, at a rather poor level at that, while other poor post-communist countries, like Romania, or even pro-Russian Belarus, multiplied their GDP per capita.
Russia didn't mind that its satraps are incompetent, as long as they were loyal incompetents.
So then Ukrainians got the idea that they don't have much to lose from trusting the west instead, even if they install their own satraps, there's a chance those will be more competent, not to mention the west has more money to throw around, and all the other post-communist countries that sided with the west ended up much richer than Ukraine.
Without that opening, the pro-western color revolutions probably wouldn't be as successful as they were.
Finland and Sweden are buffer states and yet are very rich. And Austria was a buffer state during the Cold War and was likewise very rich even back then. As for Belarus, Lukashenko was able to avoid the emergence of an oligarch class in Belarus like what occurred in Russia and Ukraine in the 1990s. Belarusians are also less tolerant of corruption in general:




Belarus has Balkan levels of corruption, but not ex-USSR levels of corruption. There is a difference here, however marginal it might be in practice.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,467
Finland and Sweden are buffer states and yet are very rich. And Austria was a buffer state during the Cold War and was likewise very rich even back then.
Then we are talking of a more strict definition of "buffer state" than it was in the bloody 60's.
All 3 countries you mentioned are in the EU, all 3 joining EFTA amid Cold War.
Note that the pro-western Ukrainians taking part in color revolutions weren't rushing to join NATO, the whole quarrel was about association treaty with the EU.
The serious NATO talk got initiated by the events of civil war and Crimea takeover.
Funny enough, they have also sparked that kind of talk in Sweden and Finland.
 
Last edited:

WolfBear

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Reaction score
593
Then we are talking of a more strict definition of "buffer state" than it was in the bloody 60's.
All 3 countries you mentioned are in the EU, all 3 joining EFTA mid Cold War.
Note that the pro-western Ukrainians weren't rushing to join NATO, the whole quarrel was about association treaty with the EU.
Being in the EU is not incompatible with being a buffer state. Well, not so long as you're not in NATO, at least.

And Yeah, Russia didn't want Ukraine to sign the Association Agreement with the EU because it made Eurasian Union membership impossible for Ukraine. And interestingly enough, the EU presented itself rather poorly in not even offering Ukraine any roadmap to EU membership, even if actual membership would be 30+ years away at that point in time (2013-2014). I don't see why exactly Poles and Romanians are more deserving of EU membership than Ukrainians are, to be honest.

The NATO talk got initiated by the events of civil war and Crimea takeover.
Yes, I know.
 
Top Bottom