• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

WSJ: Pentagon Offers Plan to Arm Ukraine, Trump not yet briefed on plan

Dynasty

Member
Apr 6, 2015
2,679
6
270
England
Pretty sure deliverying more arms to Ukraine will result in fewer casualties. US doesn't care the slightest about Ukrainians; it is all about them having a foothold next to Russia.

This. Also any deal with Ukraine should involve the EU, since they will be dealing with the reprecussions of this deal when it escalates.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Get it in writing and get formal promises for something so important. Lots of things get talked about during negotiations. You have Gorbachov himself saying NATO expansion talk wasn't brought up
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

Eastern Germany is a different thing then NATO expansion in general.

That's directly referenced in the paper.

Also, you've failed to show me how it isn't aggression from a Russian perspective which it quite clearly is.
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
That's directly referenced in the paper.

Also, you've failed to show me how it isn't aggression from a Russian perspective which it quite clearly it.

It's also 40 pages long, and the main point that should be taken is no formal promises were made.

Opinions like that can be wrong, unless they plan on attacking NATO members, NATO cannot be an aggressive force against them.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
It's also 40 pages long, and the main point that should be taken is no formal promises were made.

Opinions like that can be wrong, unless they plan on attacking NATO members, NATO cannot be an aggressive force against them.

That's not the main takeaway from it whatsoever.

It's not an opinion that from the Russian perspective, NATO expanding to bordering nations is aggression. It's also not opinion that deliberately exluding Russia from the European missile shield is an aggressive move despite it being a defensive weapon.

Inching closer with a defensive military pact to a geopolitical enemy is aggression. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? Would Russia be allowed to join NATO? No.
 

Nerazar

Member
Nov 23, 2012
1,202
3
0
To Russia it is.

Amazing how you can't understand that. Goodness me.

So Russia should dictate what we should do and not do? Russia was / is also pissed about Ukraine's road to the EU and to them it's also an aggression. The very concept of the EU is hostile to him. Should we care what that government thinks? In this case, no. There is no bargaining with Putin.

You're either completely in his hand or you are his enemy. He runs Russia like a mob boss. And he runs foreign policy the same way. You are either corrupted by him or you will be crushed.

I'm all in for lethal defensive weaponry for Ukraine. If Putin is scared by 3000 something NATO soldiers rotating in Eastern Europe in mobile HQs while he has more than 30.000 soldiers on the border, "in training", also in the border of Ukraine, at all times, then we know that he's no longer a rational discussion partner. He's bluffing hard, all the time. He didn't invade Turkey over the downed jet. He won't openly invade Ukraine because of those weapons.
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
That's not the main takeaway from it whatsoever.

It's not an opinion that from the Russian perspective, NATO expanding to bordering nations is aggression. It's also not opinion that deliberately exluding Russia from the European missile shield is an aggressive move despite it being a defensive weapon.

Inching closer with a defensive military pact to a geopolitical enemy is aggression. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Russia knows the missile shield is meaningless against them when they have thousands of nuclear weapons. Cool we might stop 5 or 10 out of thousands of nukes. Even if you accept Russia's stance as legitimate we canceled part of the project in 2013 the main part they had problems with. I wonder what happened the next year that made us change our minds and do some saber rattling....

Because that is a stance that doesn't make sense. If Russia doesn't attack NATO members which would make them the aggressor, NATO means nothing. Their position on NATO not a reasonable fear or request.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Russia knows the missile shield is meaningless against them when they have thousands of nuclear weapons. Cool we might stop 5 or 10 out of thousands of nukes. Even if you accept Russia's stance as legitimate we canceled part of the project in 2013 the main part they had problems with. I wonder what happened the next year that made us change our minds and do some saber rattling....

Because that is a stance that doesn't make sense. If Russia doesn't attack NATO members which would make them the aggressor, NATO means nothing. Their position on NATO not a reasonable fear or request.

If the Warsaw Pact still existed and expanded to countries on the US border, would that be aggression? Yes or no?

I would say yes.

So Russia should dictate what we should do and not do? Russia was / is also pissed about Ukraine's road to the EU and to them it's also an aggression. The very concept of the EU is hostile to him. Should we care what that government thinks? In this case, no. There is no bargaining with Putin.

You're either completely in his hand or you are his enemy. He runs Russia like a mob boss. And he runs foreign policy the same way. You are either corrupted by him or you will be crushed.

I'm all in for lethal defensive weaponry for Ukraine. If Putin is scared by 3000 something NATO soldiers rotating in Eastern Europe in mobile HQs while he has more than 30.000 soldiers on the border, "in training", also in the border of Ukraine, at all times, then we know that he's no longer a rational discussion partner. He's bluffing hard, all the time. He didn't invade Turkey over the downed jet. He won't openly invade Ukraine because of those weapons.

So we keep fanning the flames instead of looking for alternatives. The good old US way. Nevermind the EU concerns over this idiocy, yeah?
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
If the Warsaw Pact still existed and expanded to countries on the US border, would that be aggression? Yes or no?

I would say yes.

Matters how that Warsaw pack expanded, if it was like the past and Mexico/Canada were invaded and puppet governments were installed yeah. If they were scared of the U.S and joined voluntarily because the U.S had a history of invading neighboring countries and was once again a dictatorship, no. But that doesn't make sense so the whole scenario sorta falls apart.
 
Feb 7, 2017
1,504
0
0
Russia knows the missile shield is meaningless against them when they have thousands of nuclear weapons. Cool we might stop 5 or 10 out of thousands of nukes. Even if you accept Russia's stance as legitimate we canceled part of the project in 2013 the main part they had problems with. I wonder what happened the next year that made us change our minds and do some saber rattling....

Because that is a stance that doesn't make sense. If Russia doesn't attack NATO members which would make them the aggressor, NATO means nothing. Their position on NATO not a reasonable fear or request.

defense shield is, correct me if im wrong, meant to stop surgical strikes against military silos, bases, and countermeasures. i.e. russia launches nukes, we launch interceptors and nukes.

missile defense system targets incoming nukes and surgical strikes attempting to stop our nukes from launching and interceptors.
 

Widdle Puppy

Banned
Apr 17, 2017
1,327
0
0
I'm mixed on this.

Could make for some much needed buffer between the two countries.

On the other I think it's best to not get involved.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Matters how that Warsaw pack expanded, if it was like the past and Mexico/Canada were invaded and puppet governments were installed yeah. If they were scared of the U.S and joined voluntarily because the U.S had a history of invading neighboring countries and was once again a dictatorship, no. But that doesn't make sense so the whole scenario sorta falls apart.

So explain why NATO expanded almost immediatly after the USSR's dissolution.

Practically everything we've been going back and forth on has been addressed in that paper.
 

Widdle Puppy

Banned
Apr 17, 2017
1,327
0
0
So explain why NATO expanded almost immediatly after the USSR's dissolution.

Practically everything we've been going back and forth on has been addressed in that paper.
Because several of those countries were held against their will by the soviets, no?
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
So explain why NATO expanded almost immediatly after the USSR's dissolution.

Germany got reunified? NATO only started enlarging in 1999 not immediately after. Anyways considering joining NATO is voluntary, so what. Countries have the right to join alliances if they want, especially defensive only alliances.


defense shield is, correct me if im wrong, meant to stop surgical strikes against military silos, bases, and countermeasures. i.e. russia launches nukes, we launch interceptors and nukes.

missile defense system targets incoming nukes and surgical strikes attempting to stop our nukes from launching and interceptors.

I doubt it, if nukes start flying we're going full MAD not surgical strikes and they wouldn't stop second strike capabilities particularly submarines. The missile defense system is also hugely unreliable, i'm gonna guess the idea is just try and take down whatever you can. Currently it doesn't even work against ICBM's just ballistic missiles so more of an Iran deterrent then Russia.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Germany got reunified? NATO only started enlarging in 1999 not immediately after. Anyways considering joining NATO is voluntary, so what. Countries have the right to join alliances if they want, especially defensive only alliances.

Three nations joined in 1999 but were in talks for years before. The USSR fell in December of 1991. The entire purpose of NATO was to stop a potential Soviet invasion or expansion of the Warsaw pact - and after it fell, NATO's mission changed. As a result of the talks in 1990, and in the paper I linked which I highly recommend you read - Russia has an understandable distrust of the United States and views the expansion of that alliance as aggression.

That is literally all I am arguing here. Of course countries have the right to join military alliances, but when they join alliances that are US-led, it puts Russia on edge because their sphere of influence declines and the US's increases. And that is aggression to the Russian state because neighbouring countries are now part of an alliance with a geopolitical foe or at the very least are being lobbied to join.
 

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
Three nations joined in 1999 but were in talks for years before. The USSR fell in December of 1991. The entire purpose of NATO was to stop the a potential Soviet invasion or expansion of the Warsaw pact - and after it fell, NATO's mission changed. As a result of the talks in 1990, and in the paper I linked which I highly recommend you read - Russia has an understandable distrust of the United States and views the expansion of that alliance as aggression.

That is literally all I am arguing here. Of course countries have the right to join military alliances, but when they join alliances that are US-led, it puts Russia on edge because their sphere of influence declines and the US's increases. And that is aggression to the Russian state because neighbouring countries are now part of an alliance with a geopolitical foe or at the very least are being lobbied to join.

The resurgence of Russia and its aggression in Georgia and Ukraine show that its purpose wasn't over. There was cooperation between NATO and Russia from the fall of the Soviet Union till Ukraine, that's Russia's fault for it falling apart.Why would NATO disband, it helps bring peace and cooperation between a bunch of different countries, so even during the brief time between the fall of the soviet union and 2014 it still had a purpose.

Okay and they don't have some intrinsic right to that sphere of influence. I guess NATO is justified in feeling that Russia has been aggressive with the Eurasian Economic Union I mean the U.S would be fine with invading Tajikistan since Russia is expanding its influence right? Or I guess Belarus is an ally of Russia and borders NATO, that seems like provocation to me!
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
The resurgence of Russia and its aggression in Georgia and Ukraine show that its purpose wasn't over. There was cooperation between NATO and Russia from the fall of the Soviet Union till Ukraine, that's Russia's fault for it falling apart.Why would NATO disband, it helps bring peace and cooperation between a bunch of different countries, so even during the brief time between the fall of the soviet union and 2014 it still had a purpose.

Okay and they don't have some intrinsic right to that sphere of influence. I guess NATO is justified in feeling that Russia has been aggressive with the Eurasian Economic Union I mean the U.S would be fine with invading Tajikistan since Russia is expanding its influence right? Or I guess Belarus is an ally of Russia and borders NATO, that seems like provocation to me!

You can't use creeping determinism to explain Russian aggression from 2008 onwards. The invasion of Ukraine, with the subsequent annexation of Crimea and the South Ossetia war are nothing like your theoretical NATO invasion of Tajikistan or viewing Belarus as aggression towards NATO.

On the subject of an intrinsic spehere of influence - no country has that but certainly some acts are provocative. Why you cannot see expansion of a US-led military alliance as aggresive from a Russian perspective is perplexing to say the least. I'm not hand-waving Russian aggression here, just clearly stating a fact that the Russians do not like US influencing bordering nations. Again, this can all be supported by the US lobbying counties to join, only to be vetoed out by other European nations due to the complex nature of Russia and their position in Europe. It's not a simple case of saying that a country joining NATO isn't aggression when it quite clearly is viewed as that because of the tension between Eastern Europe and Western Europe, Russia and Europe along with Russia and the United States.
 
Dec 11, 2010
34,632
2
0
You can't use creeping determinism to explain Russian aggression from 2008 onwards. The invasion of Ukraine, with the subsequent annexation of Crimea and the South Ossetia war are nothing like your theoretical NATO invasion of Tajikistan or viewing Belarus as aggression towards NATO.

On the subject of an intrinsic spehere of influence - no country has that but certainly some acts are provocative. Why you cannot see expansion of a US-led military alliance as aggresive from a Russian perspective is perplexing to say the least. I'm not hand-waving Russian aggression here, just clearly stating a fact that the Russians do not like US influencing bordering nations. Again, this can all be supported by the US lobbying counties to join, only to be vetoed out by other European nations due to the complex nature of Russia and their position in Europe. It's not a simple case of saying that a country joining NATO isn't aggression when it quite clearly is viewed as that because of the tension between Eastern Europe and Western Europe, Russia and Europe along with Russia and the United States.

You're being really vague about what aggression means, exactly. When you say Poland joining NATO in 1999 or Lithuania joining in was Aggressive From A Russian Perspective that's only true insofar as it is against Russian interests. At no point during Vladimir Putin's tenure has the prospect of a NATO invasion weighed seriously on his mind. Yeltsin's attitude towards NATO expansion was also very negative, but he considered heightening of cooperation with the United States to be a far more important objective. Putin cannot take this stance because fundamentally his foreign policy objectives are revanchist and aggressive. NATO is not "aggressive" in the sense that it is going to attack or that they even believe that it is going to - it's "aggressive" in that it limits Russia's ability to project power in neighboring countries, it limits their ability to pursue territorial objectives against their neighbors, and NATO/EU membership means exclusion from the possibility of joining his Eurasian Economic Union or the CSTO. Putin wants to Make Russia Great Again, to make it a world class power with its own alliance, economic bloc an sphere of influence. NATO and the EU are in direct competition with that objective.
 

Tovarisc

Member
Jul 1, 2014
16,139
0
0
Deterrence? These are defensive arms

These are literally force multiplayer weapons that are man portable for easy field use, these can be and are used for defense and offense.

Pentagon just has stated they want possibly supplied arms to be used only for defense and that they would cut and run (read: abandon Ukraine) if they saw them used for offense (read: retaking territory).

If these are supplied and Putin takes it wrong way leading to escalation then few Javelins won't help Ukraine.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
You're being really vague about what aggression means, exactly. When you say Poland joining NATO in 1999 or Lithuania joining in was Aggressive From A Russian Perspective that's only true insofar as it is against Russian interests. At no point during Vladimir Putin's tenure has the prospect of a NATO invasion weighed seriously on his mind. Yeltsin's attitude towards NATO expansion was also very negative, but he considered heightening of cooperation with the United States to be a far more important objective. Putin cannot take this stance because fundamentally his foreign policy objectives are revanchist and aggressive. NATO is not "aggressive" in the sense that it is going to attack or that they even believe that it is going to - it's "aggressive" in that it limits Russia's ability to project power in neighboring countries, it limits their ability to pursue territorial objectives against their neighbors, and NATO/EU membership means exclusion from the possibility of joining his Eurasian Economic Union or the CSTO. Putin wants to Make Russia Great Again, to make it a world class power with its own alliance, economic bloc an sphere of influence. NATO and the EU are in direct competition with that objective.

I'm talking about limiting Russia's influence and how that is aggression from their perspective. It stands in direct contrast to Russia's goal of increasing their influence or at the very least solidifying their frail position within Europe. I've said that here and I've said it before when discussing this very topic in a previous thread. I've not been talking about a NATO invasion of Russia because there is no indication of such a thing becoming a reality, but to claim that Russia do not see NATO's expansion historically as aggressive (limiting Russian influence) is rather dismissive, especially when considering Gorbachev attempted to make the pan-European security pact after the Cold War had ended. It most certainly is and because of that very reason there is a mistrust with the alliance historically and to this day because one of the aims is to do just that, regardless of Putin's imperialist ambitions. NATO is a threat to Russia, not because it is a defensive military alliance, but because it limits Russia's influence and control in favour of their primary geopolitical enemy. And it's precisely because of that, any lobbying for bordering nations to join or an increase in US presence inside of Europe is viewed as threat and ultimately aggression.
 
Dec 11, 2010
34,632
2
0
I'm talking about limiting Russia's influence and how that is aggression from their perspective.

Yes, and what I'm trying to say is consistently referring to this as "aggression" is strained. Anything counter to Russian interests is aggression "from their perspective", but that itself isn't an argument that it was wrong. Your initial posts in this thread are expressing frustration that people aren't complaining about US hegemony and "only" focusing on Russian Aggression, as if countries trying to join the Western European and American orbit to gain protection from Russia was an equivalent activity to Russia invading their neighbours, annexing their land and starting civil wars in them. You use the same word and make "both sides" type arguments.

You should also note that whether or not you're discussing it right here and now, "NATO the aggressor" does not only mean what you're trying to say it means here when we talk about it in the broader context of Russian propaganda and the concerns of the general population in Russia. The government of Russia does not portray itself as being concerned with NATO only because of being indirectly stifled in its international ambitions. Neither are average Russians concerned about their inability to invade Latvia. Whether or not they come out and say "we are worried about a NATO invasion", the sabre ratling, the reinvestment into the military, the flexing of international muscles very much provides us with the ability to read between the lines here.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Yes, and what I'm trying to say is consistently referring to this as "aggression" is strained. Anything counter to Russian interests is aggression "from their perspective", but that itself isn't an argument that it was wrong. Your initial posts in this thread are expressing frustration that people aren't complaining about US hegemony and "only" focusing on Russian Aggression, as if countries trying to join the Western European and American orbit to gain protection from Russia was an equivalent activity to Russia invading their neighbours, annexing their land and starting civil wars in them. You use the same word and make "both sides" type arguments.

You should also note that whether or not you're discussing it right here and now, "NATO the aggressor" does not only mean what you're trying to say it means here when we talk about it in the broader context of Russian propaganda and the concerns of the general population in Russia. The government of Russia does not portray itself as being concerned with NATO only because of being indirectly stifled in its international ambitions. Neither are average Russians concerned about their inability to invade Latvia. Whether or not they come out and say "we are worried about a NATO invasion", the sabre ratling, the reinvestment into the military, the flexing of international muscles very much provides us with the ability to read between the lines here.

I'm not making an argument that it is wrong. I'm providing context as to why Russia as a state feels that the alliance is hostile, regardless of whether they have a leader who has an imperialist agenda or not. And I'm certainly not making an equivalency between a nation seeking to join the alliance and Russia invading their neighbours. These are two very seperate issues, but you cannot downplay the significance of the relationship between NATO and the USSR and subsequently the Russian state. All I am saying, and all I have said is that it is necessary to understand why Russia do no want border nations to join NATO.
 

Boney

Banned
Jan 6, 2010
33,742
1
0
Worth noting that arming literal neo nazis ain't a good idea.

http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pr...eting-veteran-ukrainian-nazi-demagogue-andriy

In 2016, just two decades after founding a neo-fascist party that declared at its opening ceremony that it was the “last hope of the white race, of humankind as such,” Parubiy leveraged his street cred to rise to the chairman of Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada.
This June 15, two of the most influential Republicans in Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator John McCain, held court with Parubiy in Washington. The meeting was just the latest event exposing American support for Ukraine’s post-Maidan government as a cynical exercise in saber-rattling against Russia with little demonstrable concern for liberal democracy.
As a far-right leader, Andriy Parubiy played a critical role in pushing for the breakup of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early ‘90s. After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Parubiy founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine, a neo-fascist party that borrowed Nazi ideology and Third Reich imagery like the Wolfsangel, which was its official symbol. The SNPU banned non-Ukrainians and established a violently racist paramilitary group called the Patriot of Ukraine.

Scholar Anton Shekhovtsov noted in a 2011 research paper on the "creeping resurgence of the Ukrainian radical right” that, at its founding presentation ceremony in 1995, the SNPU proclaimed, “In view of the prospects of mass degradation of people and entire nations, we are the last hope of the white race, of humankind as such.” The neo-fascist party added, “We must resolutely separate ourselves from the North-Eastern neighbour” — that is to say, Russia.

es, he is a far-right nationalist politician,” stressed Rossoliński-Liebe, who is a leading expert on far-right movements in Europe. The scholar noted that he interviewed Parubiy in 2006 for his landmark book on Stepan Bandera, a Nazi-collaborating Ukrainian fascist whose historical legacy has been rewritten by the new Western-aligned government, which lionizes Bandera as a hero.

McCain’s visit with Parubiy this year was not the first time he has junketed to Kiev to pay homage to the country’s far-right forces. During the Euromaidan demonstrations that rocked Ukraine in 2013 and 2014, McCain met with Oleh Tyanhbok, the leader of the Svoboda party who had been expelled from his former party for calling on his countrymen to do battle with the “Muscovite-Jewish mafia.”

Historian Anton Shekhovtsov warned in his 2011 research paper that the victory of Svoboda in 2009 regional elections “seems to attest to the gradual revival of the radical right in Ukraine.” He was correct; Svoboda went on to play a key role in Euromaidan and the 2014 coup, and today is an influential force in mainstream Ukrainian politics.

ince the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Ukraine’s democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine has lurched far to the right — and closer to the West. Extreme right-wing nationalists occupy some of the most powerful roles in the new government, which also adopted a new constitution.

These far-right figures include Vadym Troyan, a leader of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine organization, who became police chief of the province of Kiev under Prime Minister Ansenei Yatsenyuk, a billionaire oligarch. Ukraine’s interior minister, Arsen Akakov, had personally commissioned neo-Nazi militias like the Azov Battalion, where Troyan served as deputy commander and whose members decorated their helmets with Nazi SS insignia and bore swastika tattoos and flags.

Through the Interior Ministry, Akakov has overseen an online blacklist designed to intimidate journalists accused of collaborating with pro-Russian “terrorists” in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. Called Myrotvorets, or “Peacemaker,” the online blacklist targeted some 4,500 journalists, including Western reporters like Ian Bateson, whom it dubbed a traitor for receiving accreditation from Russian separatists so he could enter the Donetsk region. In April 2015, Ukrainian writer Oles Buzina and former lawmaker Oleg Kalashnikov were killed after Myrotvorets leaked their personal information.

In the pro-Western Ukraine, Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera are revered as national heroes. Bandera was the commander of the wartime militia the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B), which fought alongside Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union. Despite his OUN-B militia’s role in the massacre of Jews and ethnic Poles during the war — including one of the most brutal pogroms in history in the city of Lvov, where some 7,000 Jews were slaughtered — a major boulevard in Kiev has been named for Bandera.


Each year since the Maidan revolution, Bandera has been commemorated in Kiev with a torchlit rally. So have the Ukrainian Cossacks, the authors of countless anti-Jewish pogroms.

Neo-Nazi militias and fascist “self-defense” units are running rampant in the new Ukraine, menacing local police, smashing communist-era memorials and even overturning elections results. As journalist Lev Golinkin wrote last year in the Nation, ”It is difficult to imagine any stable administration tolerating three years of such brazen challenges to its monopoly over the use of force, yet nearly all of the far right’s actions have gone unpunished.”

The second anniversary of the Maidan uprising saw central Kiev overtaken not by the youthful technocrats and hipster reformists lionized in the Western press, but by a cast of characters that journalist Anna Nemtsova described as “uniformed militia from nationalist movements, war veterans, and some dubious characters with criminal records.” Organized under the banner of the Revolutionary Right Force, the masked men got together and burned down a building they mistook for a local branch of the Russian-owned Alfa Bank.

The U.S. has made some weak attempts to pressure Ukraine’s government to respect the rule of law in eastern Ukraine and tamp down on corruption. However, McCain's and Ryan’s “good meeting” with Parubiy revealed the extent to which Washington has cast aside any concern for democratic institutions and is willing to overlook open displays of violent Nazism in order to ratchet up the tension on Russia’s doorstep.
 

Journeywalker

Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,155
24
0
love too have another cold war

The Cold War never ended for Russia. See the thread on Russia removing US diplomats for some insights into Russian thinking. They don't respect the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, or at least are willing to undermine it via propaganda.

That said, I don't like the willingness to disregard our allies via unilateral sanctions and arming Ukraine. It reeks of the neocon machine that pushed us into war with Iraq. It falls right into Putin's plans to sew division and discord.
 

Xe4

Banned
Aug 1, 2014
9,859
1
0
But it can't expand wherever it wants to because is it a defensive alliance against Russia. That's the whole point. In Russia's eyes it's aggression and has been since the United States expanded the US-led alliance eastward in the 90's.

You can make a claim that it's defensive but that is down to perspective because it is nothing but aggression to the Russians. It makes them incredibly uneasy. Espeically after the missile shield debacle. That's why France and Germany protested so much to the US lobbying for the Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance in 2008.
I am not making a claim that it is defensive, it is defensive. And Russia is not uneasy. As others have pointed out, Russia has no illusions that there is going to be a NATO invasion any time soon. It upsets them because it prevents their sphere of influence from expanding. Because they know if those countries did not join NATO they would be able to annex them just like they are trying to do with Ukraine right now.

So you don't think it would be aggressive behavior if russia started a defensive alliance with mexico and canada to shrink american influence contrary to previous assurances made and also stationed troops there?

If Canada and Mexico are seriously afraid of the US annexing them (or in the case of countries who have joined NATO recently), if they have been annexed by the US in the recent past, they are free to make a defensive military alliance with Russia.

A better example is if countries in the middle east want to form a defensive alliance with Russia to keep the US from invading, such as Syria, they are free to do so. It'll end up fucking their country in the long run, but so would being invaded by the US.
 

TheRedSnifit

Member
Nov 21, 2012
10,793
11
700
35
Well, does the EU or any country in the EU have any solutions, or any ideas in general, to help the Crimea issue at all?

The European strategy is to not give a shit about anything Russia does short of rolling tanks into Brussels.

But it can't expand wherever it wants to because is it a defensive alliance against Russia. That's the whole point. In Russia's eyes it's aggression and has been since the United States expanded the US-led alliance eastward in the 90's.

You can make a claim that it's defensive but that is down to perspective because it is nothing but aggression to the Russians. It makes them incredibly uneasy. Espeically after the missile shield debacle. That's why France and Germany protested so much to the US lobbying for the Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance in 2008.

Nobody who isn't completely brainwashed by Russian propaganda seriously believes that NATO is a threat to anything but Russian expansion.
 

bonesmccoy

Banned
Mar 1, 2009
14,115
0
0
As others have pointed out, Russia has no illusions that there is going to be a NATO invasion any time soon.

Kosovo. It's very easy to for us to forget - because we were able to achieve the desired outcome with minimal loss - how that looked to Moscow.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
I am not making a claim that it is defensive, it is defensive. And Russia is not uneasy. As others have pointed out, Russia has no illusions that there is going to be a NATO invasion any time soon. It upsets them because it prevents their sphere of influence from expanding. Because they know if those countries did not join NATO they would be able to annex them just like they are trying to do with Ukraine right now.

A couple of things. It is a defensive alliance but as I have explained numerous times in this thread, expanding to bordering nations or lobbying them to join most certainly makes them uneasy. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest this without even considering Russia's direct position or Putin's push to expand the military after Yeltsin. It causes regional tension, which is why some NATO members aren't keen on expanding the alliance to include Ukraine and Georgia or other nations.

It actually doesn't matter if Russia believe NATO is a credible threat to their existence (they don't) because whether it is or isn't, it's most certainly a credible threat to their influence and control of their neighbours. No country wants to relinquish control or influence in favour of geopolitical foes and with a state like Russia, that is undoubtedly true given what we know about Putin's supposed ambitions and Putin's direct action in Crimea, his distate for the alliance along with the European Union.

Nobody who isn't completely brainwashed by Russian propaganda seriously believes that NATO is a threat to anything but Russian expansion.

Not true. Losing their influence is also a primary reason why Russia view NATO as a threat. Both historically and today.
 

MilkBeard

Member
Jun 20, 2013
9,219
2
0

You are literally spreading propaganda that has not much to do with the conflict. If you look into the history of Ukraine, you will see that it has never been, historically, an aggressive country. The goal is merely to protect its own borders in this situation, like it has always been in the past. Ukraine has always been invaded and shat on. And the Ukrainian military and police force is very tame. They don't use their guns on civilians like in the US.

You know, we have white supremacists in our U.S. police force. Do we really need to bring up this kind of nonsense? I have been living in Ukraine for some time, and while I don't know much about these people listed in the article, their supposed "neonazi influence" is not nearly as big as the propaganda wants everyone to believe.

That's not to say that the US supporting Ukraine is inherently good or bad. But Ukraine is not some extremist country; the government is corrupt and terrible with money, yes, but what government isn't to some degree?

EDIT: Let's just take a look at this little line here, to give us a general idea of how this author is trying to paint everything in a negative light:

Each year since the Maidan revolution, Bandera has been commemorated in Kiev with a torchlit rally. So have the Ukrainian Cossacks, the authors of countless anti-Jewish pogroms.

I don't know anything about Bandera, and it's not a main celebration that happens in Ukraine, as far as I know. But the real issue is the inclusion of "Cossacks" into this line. The author was just trying to add something to paint a negative spin. The Cossacks were a huge part of Ukrainian history, and it consisted of many different groups. Of course some of them did bad things, but that doesn't mean all of them were bad. Ukrainians are very proud of their Cossack heritage, as it is a part of their history and identity. It's foolish to think they wouldn't celebrate it.

In the pro-Western Ukraine, Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera are revered as national heroes. Bandera was the commander of the wartime militia the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B), which fought alongside Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union. Despite his OUN-B militia's role in the massacre of Jews and ethnic Poles during the war — including one of the most brutal pogroms in history in the city of Lvov, where some 7,000 Jews were slaughtered — a major boulevard in Kiev has been named for Bandera.

In my research I have found that, while Bandera became an extremist, and yes, he did some terrible things, it was in reaction to Russian rule and control over Ukraine, as well as other oppressive forces. To understand this, you really need to know Ukrainian history. During this time (around the 1920s) Ukraine was under the oppression of the USSR. Around the time of Bandera was the great famine, which was basically manufactured by the USSR government. They came to Ukrainians' homes and took all of their crops and food, and many people died in the streets. And anyone who protested was thrown in jail and many died. While I don't condone the extremist reactions, it is, at the same time, understandable that people would become affected in a negative way, mentally and emotionally. This person was an extremist, but was seen as a Ukrainian that felt strongly for his country. It is true that he should not be celebrated in the way that people have, but in a new time when there is an oppressive force (Russia) acting upon Ukraine, in a long history of Ukrainian oppression, people tend to grasp for extreme things as a means to protect themselves.

That being said, I don't mean to give an excuse, but it is important to understand the context to these things. Most Ukrainians just want to live their lives in peace and not have someone come and try to take their food or their land.
 

slit

Member
Jun 3, 2009
17,040
1
1,090
A couple of things. It is a defensive alliance but as I have explained numerous times in this thread, expanding to bordering nations or lobbying them to join most certainly makes them uneasy. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest this without even considering Russia's direct position or Putin's push to expand the military after Yeltsin. It causes regional tension, which is why some NATO members aren't keen on expanding the alliance to include Ukraine and Georgia or other nations.

It actually doesn't matter if Russia believe NATO is a credible threat to their existence (they don't) because whether it is or isn't, it's most certainly a credible threat to their influence and control of their neighbours. No country wants to relinquish control or influence in favour of geopolitical foes and with a state like Russia, that is undoubtedly true given what we know about Putin's supposed ambitions and Putin's direct action in Crimea, his distate for the alliance along with the European Union.

Not true. Losing their influence is also a primary reason why Russia view NATO as a threat. Both historically and today.

Yeah, you are doing a bit of history rewriting there. Those countries wanted to join NATO badly because of their treatment by the Russians under Soviet rule. If Russia was so concerned about their sphere of influence maybe they should not have acted like the hostile big, bad angry bear to all their neighbors during and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia brought the problems with their neighbors on themselves.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Yeah, you are doing a bit of history rewriting there. Those countries wanted to join NATO badly because of their treatment by the Russians under Soviet rule. If Russia was so concerned about their sphere of influence maybe they should not have acted like the hostile big, bad angry bear to all their neighbors during and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia brought the problems with their neighbors on themselves.

In fact, you're actually not understanding what I'm saying. Countries join or want to the alliance of their own volition. I'm not disputing the fact that these nations want to join. But they also understand the impact it can have on the alliance and relations with Russia.

Consider Ukraine and Georgia which I have mentioned multiple times here already. Bush lobbied other NATO members to let them join the alliance in 2008, only to have France and Germany (and a few other nations) protest at the idea because it would cause tensions to rise between these nations and Russia along with the alliance's relationship with Russia. It is vital to understand the Russian position to see why some acts may seem provocative to them. Stating that NATO is a defensive alliance that won't invade Russia isn't adequate because we know that limiting influence is a provocative act, just as lobbying border nations to join the alliance is also a provocative act. Why is it provocative? Because they want to maintain their influence and make the state into a global player. We also know the historical context of all of this which should not be taken for granted. It causes tension to rise and anyone who says that NATO expanding doesn't make Russia feel uneasy doesn't actually know what they're talking about.
 

slit

Member
Jun 3, 2009
17,040
1
1,090
In fact, you're actually not understanding what I'm saying. Countries join or want to the alliance of their own volition. I'm not disputing the fact that these nations want to join. But they also understand the impact it can have on the alliance and relations with Russia.

Consider Ukraine and Georgia which I have mentioned multiple times here already. Bush lobbied other NATO members to let them join the alliance in 2008, only to have France and Germany (and a few other nations) protest at the idea because it would cause tensions to rise between these nations and Russia along with the alliance's relationship with Russia.

So then what is your point? Russia feels threatened by the loss of their influence? Yeah, I'm not sure anyone disputes that but it's something they brought on themselves. Maybe they should look at THEIR OWN actions if they are so concerned.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
So then what is your point? Russia feels threatened by the loss of their influence? Yeah, I'm not sure anyone disputes that but it's something they brought on themselves. Maybe they should look at THEIR OWN actions if they are so concerned.

Maybe read the thread.
 

slit

Member
Jun 3, 2009
17,040
1
1,090
Maybe read the thread.

Maybe answer the question but you can't because you're caught up in what everyone around Russia is doing instead of what THEY do themselves. Yes, Russia feels bad about their loss of power and they don't want NATO expanding you're not breaking any news there.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Maybe answer the question but you can't because you're caught up in what everyone around Russia is doing instead of what THEY do themselves. Yes, Russia feels bad about their loss of power and they don't want NATO expanding you're not breaking any news there.

No, I'm concerned with the way the situation is being approached and concerned about giving weapons to Ukraine. I'm also concerned about the new round of sanctions and the impact it will have on the EU. I've already answered the question and if you take a moment to read the thread you'd see a natural progression in the conversation along with my stance. What Russia has done isn't acceptable by any means, but fanning the flames on an already tense situation is nothing but foolish. You say it's not breaking news but perhaps go back to where the conversation started with the idea that NATO cannot be 'aggressive' because it is a defensive military alliance.
 

slit

Member
Jun 3, 2009
17,040
1
1,090
No, I'm concerned with the way the situation is being approached and concerned about giving weapons to Ukraine. I'm also concerned about the new round of sanctions and the impact it will have on the EU. I've already answered the question and if you take a moment to read the thread you'd see a natural progression in the conversation along with my stance. What Russia has done isn't acceptable by any means, but fanning the flames on an already tense situation is nothing but foolish. You say it's not breaking news but perhaps go back to where the conversation started with the idea that NATO cannot be 'aggressive' because it is a defensive military alliance.

Okay, fine I don't necessarily agree with arming Ukraine but what should be done to punish Russia for their meddling against U.S. elections? Should it just be dropped because the EU has energy interests in Russia? You keep going over why Russia would feel threatened and offended but not offering what should be done about Russia at least from what I read.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Okay, fine I don't necessarily agree with arming Ukraine but what should be done to punish Russia for their meddling against U.S. elections? Should it just be dropped because the EU has energy interests in Russia? You keep going over why Russia would feel threatened and offended but not offering what should be done about Russia at least from what I read.

My stance towards Russia is that if you want to sanction them further, the EU needs to be involved in coordinated discussions given that we are dependant on Russian energy. I'm not against sanctioning the state, but the EU does have a responsibility to their citizens.

Allowing European companies to be punished because they're working on Russian pipelines isn't going to work out well, especially given the infrastructure issues in Eastern Europe. Hence why the EU is up in arms. It seems completely dishonest in the approach because the EU will in all likelihood need to rely on US gas, increasing their market share. The sanctions declare support for "the export of United States energy resources in order to create American jobs.”

As far as arming Ukraine, Putin doesn't have many plays left. He's not in any real position to stop natural gas flowing into Europe because the economy is in tatters. So by antagonizing Russia further could very well make the situation far worse.
 

slit

Member
Jun 3, 2009
17,040
1
1,090
My stance towards Russia is that if you want to sanction them further, the EU needs to be involved in coordinated discussions given that we are dependant on Russian energy. I'm not against sanctioning the state, but the EU does have a responsibility to their citizens.

Allowing European companies to be punished because they're working on Russian pipelines isn't going to work out well, especially given the infrastructure issues in Eastern Europe. Hence why the EU is up in arms. It seems completely dishonest in the approach because the EU will in all likelihood need to rely on US gas, increasing their market share. The sanctions declare support for "the export of United States energy resources in order to create American jobs."

As far as arming Ukraine, Putin doesn't have many plays left. He's not in any real position to stop natural gas flowing into Europe because the economy is in tatters. So by antagonizing Russia further could very well make the situation far worse.

Then you are essentially saying no punishment because Putin will try to retaliate against the EU no matter what sanctions the EU does agree to. How do you sanction Russia and make it your point without including the energy sector anyway? That is Russia's bread and butter.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Then you are essentially saying no punishment because Putin will try to retaliate against the EU no matter what sanctions the EU does agree to. How do you sanction Russia and make it your point without including the energy sector anyway? That is Russia's bread and butter.

The first round was coordinated with the EU. This current set wasn't and sidelines the EU's concerns. It is simply irresponsible. I think you're also missing the bigger picture here with my second paragraph as to why the EU is raising the alarm and ignoring the bit about allowing American jobs to prosper as the sanctions would mean the EU has to rely on US companies.

It's going to be far more expensive and punishing to EU energy companies, especially those that have a stake in Nord Stream 2 or those that work on Russian infustructure. And then there are the citizens who will have to deal with price hikes and even potential cut-offs. It's all interconnected and by further applying pressure in this industry you run a greater risk when coupled with news that the Pentagon is thinking about arming Ukraine.

It is understandable that the United States wishes to tighten the grip on Russia - but find a way that works with your allies instead of against them.
 

slit

Member
Jun 3, 2009
17,040
1
1,090
The first round was coordinated with the EU. This current set wasn't and sidelines the EU's concerns. It is simply irresponsible. I think you're also missing the bigger picture here with my second paragraph as to why the EU is raising the alarm and ignoring the bit about allowing American jobs to prosper as the sanctions would mean the EU has to rely on US companies.

It's going to be far more expensive and punishing to EU energy companies, especially those that have a stake in Nord Stream 2 or those that work on Russian infustructure. And then there are the citizens who will have to deal with price hikes and even potential cut-offs. It's all interconnected and by further applying pressure in this industry you run a greater risk when coupled with news that the Pentagon is thinking about arming Ukraine.

It is understandable that the United States wishes to tighten the grip on Russia - but find a way that works with your allies instead of against them.

Again, that's not an answer. How do you punish Russia without going after their energy sector? We went with the EU last go round and it did not accomplish much. It's either sanctions or war and I think we can agree war is not an option. I'm fine with another option, I just don't see one. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I would like to know what it is.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Again, that's not an answer. How do you punish Russia without going after their energy sector? We went with the EU last go round and it did not accomplish much. It's either sanctions or war and I think we can agree war is not an option. I'm fine with another option, I just don't see one. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I would like to know what it is.

So what, you completley disregard the EU this time because Russia needs to be punished to the detriment of the EU?

The 2014 sanctions have impacted the Russian economy along with the oil price crashing. It's really not in a good state at all so how you can say it "did not acomplish much" is beyond reason. Yes, it's showing signs of improvement but taking actions without consulting partners with what looks to have the added bonus of increasing US market share is unethical.

Stop asking me to provide an alternative to these new sanctions. My argument is that it needs to be coordinated with the European Union because by not doing so you risk damaging ties with the EU along with putting it in an even more precarious position. It is rash and most certainly reckless.