Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

[LordsFire]

Where do people get this stupid idea Russians are using human waves? Both sides use a steady rain of small units supported by a few vehicles.

Because there are repeated reports of Russian mobiks being forced to attack the same places, again and again, to the same catastrophic results?

 

[LordsFire]

Is Moscow forcing LGBTAGSBDG+++ stuff on Belarus? Are they opening Belarussian real estate to be bought up by foreign investors? Is Belarus being forced to accept millions of settlers from africa? I would say they are better off under Moscows thumb than the thumb of Washington.

Can you think of any other negative things that Moscow might be forcing on Belarus or Russia itself?

 

[Marduk]

Yeah, no; just because I know that endless NATO expansion had a hand in causing this conflict, doesn't mean I'm going to buy those claims. For one thing, trying to assert that it's a "Russian civil war" just exposes that he never thought of Ukraine as a sovereign nation; and as for claims of wanting to "de-Nazify" Ukraine, nobody, even the people who know that there are elements in Ukraine that hold the Nazis in high regard, buys that excuse.

Putin invaded because he wanted to take back control over the country that he once held sway over through the guy who was overthrown in a coup, and he did it when he did because he believed that America and Europe were finally too weak to stop him; not realizing that his forces were far weaker that his advisors had led him to believe.

The problem is that if you admit that Russia was being two faced about whether it recognizes the sovereignty of Ukraine, which it recognized officially and then many times implicitly, then that raises a whole storm of very important questions about what other treaties and recognition in the region and beyond Russia is being two faced about until a convenient moment arrives to start remembering about those claims too.

And if those questions are to be answered, then NATO expansion cannot be seen as anything other than a completely justified and in fact very measured reaction to Russia's suspicious maneuvers regarding its former "sphere of influence". After all, if Russia honestly had no ambitions there, then minor and medium ex-WP countries would have no interest in NATO membership or even military spending really, who's going to invade them in that case?
But if Russia is looking like it thinks that it got a bad hand of cards at the end of Soviet Union and wants to get a few extra cards here and there, by any means necessary, then it doesn't get to complain that others want to lock out that possibility before it is realized, while NATO membership is means to do it in a relatively cheap and peaceful manner when compared to alternatives (like nuclear proliferation).

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Because there are repeated reports of Russian mobiks being forced to attack the same places, again and again, to the same catastrophic results?

You mean repeated attacks by small units supported by a few vehicles?

Russian casualties are far lower than Ukrainian.

 

[King Arts]

>forcing
I see it was savagely told off.
Where are the sanctions? Polonium tea? Special military operation?

Perhaps they shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor and shit if they wanted to avoid that.

What does that have to do with anything?

Do you simp for everything America does? Even if it's not being attacked?
Here is the thing, on the whole I support forcing the Emperor to renounce his divinity because he is not a God, he is just a man(as can be seen by his nation being beaten and him not using God powers to destroy the US) but I don't pretend that we did not force them to change their culture and meddled with it.

I mean "Perhaps they shouldn't have done whatever" can be applied to anything. If we got in a war with some other nation occupied them and then imposed a communist government on them would you suck our dick about that?

 

[LordsFire]

You mean repeated attacks by small units supported by a few vehicles?

Russian casualties are far lower than Ukrainian.

Repeating the fantasies of the Russian MoD doesn't make them true.

 

[Bacle]

Yeah, no; just because I know that endless NATO expansion had a hand in causing this conflict, doesn't mean I'm going to buy those claims. For one thing, trying to assert that it's a "Russian civil war" just exposes that he never thought of Ukraine as a sovereign nation; and as for claims of wanting to "de-Nazify" Ukraine, nobody, even the people who know that there are elements in Ukraine that hold the Nazis in high regard, buys that excuse.

Putin invaded because he wanted to take back control over the country that he once held sway over through the guy who was overthrown in a coup, and he did it when he did because he believed that America and Europe were finally too weak to stop him; not realizing that his forces were far weaker that his advisors had led him to believe.

NATO expanded because those nations did not want to ever be under Moscow's thumb again, and knew that unless they had a NATO nuclear umbrella on call, Russia would try to 'reclaim' their lost vassals as soon as they could.

 

[King Arts]

NATO expanded because those nations did not want to ever be under Moscow's thumb again, and knew that unless they had a NATO nuclear umbrella on call, Russia would try to 'reclaim' their lost vassals as soon as they could.

Yes that’s true but an alliance sees two to tango. Yes Eastern Europe wants in NATO but the question you aren’t asking is does NATOs current members want more Eastern European nations to be Allie’s. Like Eastern Europe gains protection by being our ally. What do we gain by having them be Allie’s besides Russia as a rival?

 

[Zachowon]

We have video and photographic evidence of large swathes of Russians dying in advances as far back as vuhladae

 

[Marduk]

What does that have to do with anything?

Do you simp for everything America does? Even if it's not being attacked?

When i don't simp for something America does, i will tell you, though i do not guarantee i will disagree in the same direction you do.
For example the fact that Iraq is now both a single country and has a government in which Iran is allowed to have any influence is a huge mistake. As is continued existence of Iran's Islamic Revolution.

Here is the thing, on the whole I support forcing the Emperor to renounce his divinity because he is not a God, he is just a man(as can be seen by his nation being beaten and him not using God powers to destroy the US) but I don't pretend that we did not force them to change their culture and meddled with it.

Real life is not fucking Star Trek, there is no inherent expectation of or moral virtue to larping a strict non-interference doctrine, in fact i think it belongs in fiction and anyone who proposes it be followed in real life is a retard, a child or an agent of a rival power.

I mean "Perhaps they shouldn't have done whatever" can be applied to anything. If we got in a war with some other nation occupied them and then imposed a communist government on them would you suck our dick about that?

"They lost the fucking war which they started btw" is an argument with a lot of mileage in it.
Not infinite, but it's a lot.
And do not use "got into a war" type language with me, we know who started that war, don't act otherwise, some politicians do better verbal tricks than you, you can't do it better than them, don't bother trying on me, it's annoying and it won't work.
If you go commie, you will always find an excuse to go to whatever war you want, and if you win, you will find an excuse to do whatever you want anyway, so it's redundant to tailor doctrines to such hypotheticals that will inherently make them obsolete.

Commies/islamists/nazis/whatevers never care what your rules are about "international interference", they have their own, and they won't change theirs for you if yours are isolationists enough. No, they will call you self-handicapping retards for being ideological isolationists and exploit it to defeat you or others easier.

Yes that’s true but an alliance sees two to tango. Yes Eastern Europe wants in NATO but the question you aren’t asking is does NATOs current members want more Eastern European nations to be Allie’s. Like Eastern Europe gains protection by being our ally. What do we gain by having them be Allie’s besides Russia as a rival?

NATO had to ask that of every single member states before the joined and get their ok, that's an actual condition, hence current drama with Sweden, Turkey and Hungary.
Russia was your rival already anyway, if you believe otherwise, you are as willfully blind as German establishment.

 

[ATP]

We do not have a gun to his head because even if we had a gun, our allies would not let us put it up to his head out of fear of escalation with Russia. PiS was never going to make a credible threat of "Special Military Operation in Belarus" to him even if one assumes we had the means.
But Russians are in a different position there. They even have their troops already placed there, which we know makes the whole operation much easier, like in Crimea.

You have a point.Pity,that Poland is not as dangerous as we are in Putin propaganda...we would take over entire Earth by now if it was true.
And now we are weak and would be weaker,making us temting target of attack.Especially that Demorats gave us to Moscov for nothing once,so what stop them from making it again?
surviving poles would still love USA...maybe we should be killed.Nation who belive in good heart of USA deserved that.

 

[LordsFire]

Yes that’s true but an alliance sees two to tango. Yes Eastern Europe wants in NATO but the question you aren’t asking is does NATOs current members want more Eastern European nations to be Allie’s. Like Eastern Europe gains protection by being our ally. What do we gain by having them be Allie’s besides Russia as a rival?

Russia is already the West's rival.

What the older members of NATO gained by having Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, etc join, is that if Russia does attack, the fighting will be in/on the border of those nations, rather than in Germany, Italy, etc.

Such an attack is also less likely, because the Russians are then fighting an even larger alliance.

How are these basic elements of politics and military strategy not obvious to you?

 

[Simonbob]

Russia is already the West's rival.

That, I disagree with. Russia's not powerful enough to be a real rival. China is, and now Russia's forced to be their minion.

Not the best way to do things.

 

[LordsFire]

That, I disagree with. Russia's not powerful enough to be a real rival.

If you could convince Russia of this, you'd be doing the rest of the world a favor.

 

[Simonbob]

If you could convince Russia of this, you'd be doing the rest of the world a favor.

I'm pretty sure Putin knows. I'm not so sure the rest of the oligarchs do, though.

Well, until this war, of course.


Now I'm thinking about it....


Not that I'm an expert, but I think the US should be making overtures to Russia, looking at finishing the war on the US's terms, and possibly looking at a certain amount of "support" for both sides, with the intent of bringing both Russia and Ukraine into the US's sphere. At the moment it looks more like the US will "own" a ruined Ukraine and China will "own" a weakened Russia.


I'm not fond of that path. But, it does seem like the best our leaders can do.

 

[King Arts]

When i don't simp for something America does, i will tell you, though i do not guarantee i will disagree in the same direction you do.
For example the fact that Iraq is now both a single country and has a government in which Iran is allowed to have any influence is a huge mistake. As is continued existence of Iran's Islamic Revolution.

Ok let’s use Iran as an example let’s say we get into a war with Iran and beat it and we decide to weaken Iran so it can never be strong again. So we go to prisons and take the communists that Irans theocracy locked up and we put them into power with a treaty that limits their military. Would you still simp for that?

Real life is not fucking Star Trek, there is no inherent expectation of or moral virtue to larping a strict non-interference doctrine, in fact i think it belongs in fiction and anyone who proposes it be followed in real life is a retard, a child or an agent of a rival power.

Are you illiterate? I never said that changing Japan’s culture was all bad. I’m not a pure isolationist making the emperor not a god was a good thing. BUT it was a change of their culture. That’s a fact you are the one who is distracting or deflecting it instead of saying yes.

"They lost the fucking war which they started btw" is an argument with a lot of mileage in it.
Not infinite, but it's a lot.
And do not use "got into a war" type language with me, we know who started that war, don't act otherwise, some politicians do better verbal tricks than you, you can't do it better than them, don't bother trying on me, it's annoying and it won't work.

I mean while the Japs did fire the first shot it’s not like America wasn’t provoking them with a trade embargo. Pretty much any nation would have attacked if it was embargoed like that. Of course then you can argue that Japan deserved the embargo because of their evil actions in China. But still better to be intellectual and informed then just spout buzzwords and “they attack us!”

If you go commie, you will always find an excuse to go to whatever war you want, and if you win, you will find an excuse to do whatever you want anyway, so it's redundant to tailor doctrines to such hypotheticals that will inherently make them obsolete.

Commies/islamists/nazis/whatevers never care what your rules are about "international interference", they have their own, and they won't change theirs for you if yours are isolationists enough. No, they will call you self-handicapping retards for being ideological isolationists and exploit it to defeat you or others easier.

What is the relevance here? I’m not wilfully isolationist if there is an actual threat.

NATO had to ask that of every single member states before the joined and get their ok, that's an actual condition, hence current drama with Sweden, Turkey and Hungary.
Russia was your rival already anyway, if you believe otherwise, you are as willfully blind as German establishment.

Yet you do realize that those nations are having their arms twisted to accept the newcomers in. It’s not “Oh yeah decide if you are cool with these guys joining the club no pressure whichever way you vote is ok.”

We really didn't change thjer culture.
We just took away all the power of the military and the Emperor due to how tje war started.

and the whole reason they ended up like this is purely thier fault for sinking our ships

But you did change the culture from the emperor to the aristocracy to giving women the vote.

And again they attacked because of embargo’s because FDR wanted to get into the world war.

Russia is already the West's rival.

What the older members of NATO gained by having Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, etc join, is that if Russia does attack, the fighting will be in/on the border of those nations, rather than in Germany, Italy, etc.

Such an attack is also less likely, because the Russians are then fighting an even larger alliance.

How are these basic elements of politics and military strategy not obvious to you?

You are the one who does not seem to understand military strategy. If there is a war between NATO and Russia conventional forces won’t matter for long so where those troops clash isn’t important. Because if two nuclear powers clash then nukes will fly, unless one backs down. If France has nukes and Russia invaded it the. France will nuke Moscow. If France has nukes and Russia invades Germany but there is no NATO then why would France want to nuke Moscow when Paris will be nuked. A Frenchman should care about Paris more than Berlin.

Being a nuclear power guarantees your sovereignty, no nation will be able to invade and occupy you. So why risk your own destruction for others it sucks for them sure but nuclear borders are inviolate.

 

[Simonbob]

Being a nuclear power guarantees your sovereignty, no nation will be able to invade and occupy you. So why risk your own destruction for others it sucks for them sure but nuclear borders are inviolate.

Not that simple, but it'd be a general rule (with a few exceptions). It's by no means absolute.

 

[Bacle]

I'm pretty sure Putin knows. I'm not so sure the rest of the oligarchs do, though.

Well, until this war, of course.


Now I'm thinking about it....


Not that I'm an expert, but I think the US should be making overtures to Russia, looking at finishing the war on the US's terms, and possibly looking at a certain amount of "support" for both sides, with the intent of bringing both Russia and Ukraine into the US's sphere. At the moment it looks more like the US will "own" a ruined Ukraine and China will "own" a weakened Russia.


I'm not fond of that path. But, it does seem like the best our leaders can do.

No, Putin sees himself as the person rebuilding the Russian Empire, directly in conflict with the West, and is personally angry that he is not allowed to the fancy and nice western gathering for national leadership and such he used to enjoy.

Russia and Putin's ilk are already planning for a generational conflict against the West.

You live in such a detached reality, when the evidence is only mounting, and you want to ignore the activities of Russia that run directly counter to your preferred narrative (you ignored the evidence of Russia helping Hamas and Iran's other proxies against Israel).

You don't want to treat Russia as a threat, because it would mean admitting you are very, very wrong about this.

 

[IndyFront]

You don't want to treat Russia as a threat, because it would mean admitting you are very, very wrong about this.

Russia in league with a vast UN coalition would be a conventional threat, but Russia alone and by itself is about as threatening to NATO as Nigeria would be if they were to switch places.

 

[Simonbob]

You live in such a detached reality, when the evidence is only mounting, and you want to ignore the activities of Russia that run directly counter to your preferred narrative (you ignored the evidence of Russia helping Hamas and Iran's other proxies against Israel).

That's all true.

I see Russia, under Putin, isn't on the US's side. So, they do things that they see as advantages their side, even if the US doesn't like it. Not good guys at all. (Not that I'm fond of a lot of US "elite")

I just think if you're going to get involved, you have to do it smart. And, what's being done now?


Either it's basicaly money laundering, or it's just insanely stupidly done.




Basicaly? Russia bad, yes. Fixing that? The way the US is going, I think you're just making it worse.