• 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

reckless

Member
Sep 1, 2013
2,746
0
480
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.

Who cares if Tajikistan or Belarus is not like Ukraine, if the U.S or NATO see it as aggression why shouldn't Russia have to take that into account? Because it's not a reasonable idea, just like Russia seeing NATO as aggression. Why is Russia special in having the West having to care about their dumb ideas.

China sees most of the South China sea as theirs and would say keeping the status quo is aggression, the rest of the world tells them to fuck off because a country simply seeing something as aggression when it isn't reasonable shouldn't matter to anyone else. China sees Asia as their sphere of influence and would say the U.S/Vietnam/SK/Japan/ Phillipines etc are inflaming tensions. Is China also right?
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
Who cares if Tajikistan or Belarus is not like Ukraine, if the U.S or NATO see it as aggression why shouldn't Russia have to take that into account? Because it's not a reasonable idea, just like Russia seeing NATO as aggression. Why is Russia special in having the West having to care about their dumb ideas.

China sees most of the South China sea as theirs and would say keeping the status quo is aggression, the rest of the world tells them to fuck off because a country simply seeing something as aggression when it isn't reasonable shouldn't matter to anyone else. China sees Asia as their sphere of influence and would say the U.S/Vietnam/SK/Japan/ Phillipines etc are inflaming tensions. Is China also right?

I'm not saying Russia is right. And I'm done repeating myself to you in the hope that you'll actually understand what it is I am saying.
 

Dingens

Member
Apr 7, 2015
1,353
0
0
The European strategy is to not give a shit about anything Russia does short of rolling tanks into Brussels.

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

there is a difference between being a threat and being perceived as one. The prime objective of any state first and foremost is security. Smaller ex-Sowjet states joined NATO to fulfil their "needs". But for Russia, it's the other way around. It can never not feel uneasy since there's still the arch nemesis lurking at the border. How'd you feel living door to door with someone who only moved in to intimidate you? (and yes, that's what NATO is all about, intimidation). From that angle, Russia is living in a constant state of uncertainty may turn you mental sooner or later.

Also... where does the paranoia about Russian expansion come from? Every conflict so far was rather reactionary in nature.
They had like 20 years to annex Crimea, but they didn't. They made long-term contracts with the Ukraine government to rent it for military purposes since that's the economically sound choice. They had like 3 months to act during the Maidan-Chaos. Again, they didn't, since they probably figured they can sit it out. They only acted after the coup took place and the new government directly threatened their security - aka. their only all-year ice free military harbour, as with NATO lurking in the background there was no guarantee that the new regime would honour their contracts. From an IR perspective, the annexation was an absolutely understandable reaction, but nothing suggests that this was their plan all along. Military adventures are expensive in Neoliberal world where everything is bound by interdependencies. I'm sure they noticed shortly after - together with the EU.

These conflicts are not black and white. Believing in a bad guy that does evil things just for the sake of it is just as naive as believing a weak economy would take on a military adventure because they just felt like it. Noone does anything without a very good reason on the world stage. Expending your territory by a few km² because you want a marginally bigger country at the cost of pissing of the whole world is not a good enough reason - especially not for the biggest country in the world.

Just as a disclaimer: this is not my personal opinion on the matter but rather a crude view from an IR-theory perspective.

Sadly we never got to experience the EU strategy in Ukraine because a certain Miss Nuland decided to Fuck the EU before anything could be archived.

You are literally spreading propaganda that has not much to do with the conflict. [...] And the Ukrainian military and police force is very tame. They don't use their guns on civilians like in the US.

[...] 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.

[...]

I don't know anything about Bandera, [...]

You live in Ukraine and know nothing about the nationalist/borderline fascist militia? It's hardly propaganda and is actually very important to understand the conflict. After all, they are most likely the ones who kick-started this shit show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJhJ6hks0Jg


2 years later and we still don't know if Greedo shot first since the post-coup government has been busy protecting him it seems.
(there are other sources too from german state media for example... but since it's in german, there's probably no point in posting it).


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.

Sanctions regarding the Ukraine thing and US meddling are two different things that should not be mixed up. If the US wants to punish a foreign nation for what they did to them, they should do so without punishing their closest "ally" even more in the process.


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.

because "punishment" is not a solution. It's not going to accomplish anything. It never has. Just look at history and show me a single case where "punishment" lead to the desired outcome.
The correct anwser/solution would be diplomacy and normalization. but that's impossible for at least another couple of years since it would mean many would lose face.
 

slit

Member
Jun 3, 2009
17,040
1
1,090
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.

I'm going to keep asking because you must not have an answer. Going by your own link the only thing to do is to tighten sanctions more which is going to effect their energy sector which means Russia will retaliate. You seem to think coordination is going to bring about some solution that doesn't involve Russia's energy sector. It's not, Putin's actions cannot go unanswered otherwise he will be even more bold next time.

because "punishment" is not a solution. It's not going to accomplish anything. It never has. Just look at history and show me a single case where "punishment" lead to the desired outcome.
The correct anwser/solution would be diplomacy and normalization. but that's impossible for at least another couple of years since it would mean many would lose face.

Au contraire, if there is no answer to this that will embolden Putin more. Also the sanctions against Iran worked, even if we are now messing them up again.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
I'm going to keep asking because you must not have an answer. Going by your own link the only thing to do is to tighten sanctions more which is going to effect their energy sector which means Russia will retaliate. You seem to think coordination is going to bring about some solution that doesn't involve Russia's energy sector. It's not, Putin's actions cannot go unanswered otherwise he will be even more bold next time.

I'm glad it's such a black and white solution for you. Over here in Europe where a lot of countries are dependent on Russian gas and infrastructure, it's not. The EU has an obligation to look out for its citizens, but thanks for making the situation worse without consulting your allies as to what the best way forward could be.

You seem to think coordination would only result in sanctions against Russia's energy sector, but if it's not explored with the EU then how can you make that claim?

Going by the link, it shows that the sanctions did have an impact, contrary to the absurd claim you made that they "did not acomplish much". The EU has already suffered from the inital sanctions willingly, and now by targetting energy you're going all in and directly hurting the EU without even coming to an agreement.
 

slit

Member
Jun 3, 2009
17,040
1
1,090
I'm glad it's such a black and white solution for you. Over here in Europe where a lot of countries are dependent on Russian gas and infrastructure, it's not. The EU has an obligation to look out for its citizens, but thanks for making the situation worse without consulting your allies as to what the best way forward could be.

You seem to think coordination would only result in sanctions against Russia's energy sector, but if it's not explored with the EU then how can you make that claim?

Going by the link, it shows that the sanctions did have an impact, contrary to the absurd claim you made that they "did not acomplish much". The EU has already suffered from the inital sanctions and now by targetting energy you're going all in.

It did not accomplish much in that it didn't stop Russia from continuing to cause problems for everyone. There is no other way I know of. If someone else knows a way, very well, I'm all ears. The sanctions bill is most likely going to be signed so I guess US-EU relations are going to be strained for a while. If that's the way it has to be in order to keep Putin at bay and away from Trump so be it. I don't want that, I just don't know what else can be done.
 

Dopus

Banned
Nov 6, 2013
1,801
0
0
It did not accomplish much in that it didn't stop Russia from continuing to cause problems for everyone. There is no other way I know of. If someone else knows a way, very well, I'm all ears. The sanctions bill is most likely going to be signed so I guess US-EU relations are going to be strained for a while. If that's the way it has to be in order to keep Putin at bay and away from Trump so be it. I don't want that, I just don't know what else can be done.

There isn't really anything to discuss here to be honest. We're both pretty firm in our stance so let's leave it at that.
 

Dingens

Member
Apr 7, 2015
1,353
0
0
[...]Au contraire, if there is no answer to this that will embolden Putin more. Also the sanctions against Iran worked, even if we are now messing them up again.

after what? 40 years? hardly a viable option. And even then, I haven't seen any indication that it was actually the sanctions that did the trick.... seemed more like the overall circumstances changed. But I digress. the middle east is not something I feel qualified enough to talk about.

North Korea on the other hand, which seems very comparable to the Russian situation shows the exact opposite outcome. Outside pressures, if anything, actually plays into the state ideology and strengthen its grip. Something that seems also very much to be the case with Russia.
I don't think there is going to be a solution we (as in the west) can reach without giving something in return. Bullying may work with some weak developing countries that are depended on international trade... but with Russia? I'm not so sure...
 

Widdle Puppy

Banned
Apr 17, 2017
1,327
0
0
Thought about it and I think this is actually a good idea. Hope they can get them as much funding and as fast as possible.
 

Journeywalker

Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,155
24
0
after what? 40 years? hardly a viable option. And even then, I haven't seen any indication that it was actually the sanctions that did the trick.... seemed more like the overall circumstances changed.

...

I don't think there is going to be a solution we (as in the west) can reach without giving something in return. Bullying may work with some weak developing countries that are depended on international trade... but with Russia? I'm not so sure...

Putin believes he is entitled to rule all of the countries in the former USSR. I don't think we can appease our way out of this.

In the scope of history, 40 years is nothing. If we continue sanctions (that are coordinated with the EU) with diplomacy and accelerating technologies that will help ween the EU off of Russian oil and natural gas, I think we can effectively isolate Russia within that period.