Putin in Russia (II): Spicy Island Liberation Front

[Jaybar]

A whole lot of "in the past..." assertions being thrown around but it's 2022 and Ukraine is a sovereign nation not a buffer country. In case we forgot.

[Jaybar]

I don't think anyone in here is pikachu-faced that Russia made a military move on a neighboring country. We are saying it's bad and they (Russians) should feel bad. I'm almost convinced you have a minimum word count you need to survive which is why this conversation is just running laps around itself.

[Uzor]

I believe you missed the point of what I am saying. I'll skip the selective morals part.
The balance of power and clear red lines for powers has existed forever. Buffer states, which Ukraine was on top of being a crucial economic partner they were starting to get shut out of. As a European, you should understand that part of the reason a state like Belgium exists is as a buffer. In this case we have the west (EU, NATO, US) trouncing around in Russia's direct backyard after ignoring their protests that it violates their core strategic interests and national security of Russia.
The closest parallel I can make off the bat to this is the Cuban missile crisis. Especially cheeky since both nations in each example have a naval base in said area of conflict of which there is no way they would just give up. A foot was put down, and Putin most likely did not want to have to do this because there is a big difference between invading Georgia to stop western expansion and Ukraine.

Frankly when your military has been a slush fund for corrupt oligarchs in your internal balance of power act. Then you really only want to pick on a neighbor when you have to and feel you can't lose. Looking weak in the event of failure is a threat, especially in Russia, and a savvy politician who got to their position through all the sharp knives and shit, knows this.

And that's where we disagree. Modern-day Russia brings nothing in terms of geopolitical security or safety when it comes to Europe.

There's a difference between Russia's interests and Europe's interests, and you seem to conflate the two. Russia protecting Russian interests are to be expected, but Russia's interests are not Europe's interests, hence why your point of "power of balance" and "The western audience has their morals and sympathy selectively in a twist over realpolitik punching them in the face." is bullshit.

Like Jaybar said, no one is surprised Russia invaded Ukraine. That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. What we disagree with is that you're defending Russia and making excuses for them, essentially sayign that they're within their rights to invade Ukraine, and that Russia can do whatever Russia wants as long as it aligns with their own politics and morals and the rest of the world better deal because "reason."

[Spicyryan]

A whole lot of "in the past..." assertions being thrown around but it's 2022 and Ukraine is a sovereign nation not a buffer country. In case we forgot.

As much as I would like this to be true. It simply has not been true since the brief period around 1917 until absorption into the USSR soon after. History, especially in European relations is very important, and that is why that pesky past keeps getting discussed.

As an aside, if it's any consolation. The Ukrainians did a lot better following WW1 than a still stateless group like the Kurds. They still ended up much the same as countries of the era, a poorly partitioned one. Which is also a part of why this is happening today.

I don't think anyone in here is pikachu-faced that Russia made a military move on a neighboring country. We are saying it's bad and they (Russians) should feel bad.

You say this, but everyone in the thread so far has reactively discounted or cast aside any reasoning behind why this happened. It feels like only Putin is at blame.

[Uzor]

You say this, but everyone in the thread so far has reactively discounted or cast aside any reasoning behind why this happened. It feels like only Putin is at blame.

It's not that people don't understand WHY it happend. It's that the reason doesn't justify it. People know why WW2 happened, but that doesn't justify the war itself, or the genocide.

People would react the same way if China invaded Taiwan, if Malaysia invaded Singapore, or if Sweden invaded Norway. Or, to take one of your examples, people know why Iraq happened. But many nations (including Sweden) opposed the invasion reasoning that it was a breach of international law.

Not approving of something doesn't mean not understanding it. You can understand the reasoning of something and still not approve of it.

[Spicyryan]

It's not that people don't understand WHY it happend. It's that the reason doesn't justify it. People know why WW2 happened, but that doesn't justify the war itself, or the genocide.

People would react the same way if China invaded Taiwan, if Malaysia invaded Singapore, or if Sweden invaded Norway. Or, to take one of your examples, people know why Iraq happened. But many nations (including Sweden) opposed the invasion reasoning that it was a breach of international law.

Not approving of something doesn't mean not understanding it. You can understand the reasoning of something and still not approve of it.

Oh boy, don't bring Taiwan into this or the entire thread could explode worse than Chernobyl, lol.

Still, you aren't looking at it from the equivalent angle. If China, were to go further than increasing their economic relationship with Mexico, and decided to add them to a military alliance and put troops within their sovereign territory. The US would invade Mexico (assuming it didn't just coup the shit out of them first) in a heartbeat.
Neither is right in this case, but the point would be that China would have provoked that conflict just like here the west provoked Russia by trying not only to put a hostile military alliance on its most crucial border state, but to economically attack Russia as well which is a big deal. It really doesn't matter who is right at that point.
Nobody is right here despite people taking sides, but it needs to be understood instead of someone like Forte stroking off to the idea of "yeah, oh bby, overthrown Putin. It's all his fault."
I don't believe, based on the posts from others, that the causes of the war were even understood, as you contend. Only that it happened and Russia is at fault to the vast majority of the western audience and their media.

[Jaybar]

"Why are you making me hit you?"

[Uzor]

Oh boy, don't bring Taiwan into this or the entire thread could explode worse than Chernobyl, lol.

Still, you aren't looking at it from the equivalent angle. If China, were to go further than increasing their economic relationship with Mexico, and decided to add them to a military alliance and put troops within their sovereign territory. The US would invade Mexico (assuming it didn't just coup the shit out of them first) in a heartbeat.
Neither is right in this case, but the point would be that China would have provoked that conflict just like here the west provoked Russia by trying not only to put a hostile military alliance on its most crucial border state, but to economically attack Russia as well which is a big deal. It really doesn't matter who is right at that point.
Nobody is right here despite people taking sides, but it needs to be understood instead of someone like Forte stroking off to the idea of "yeah, oh bby, overthrown Putin. It's all his fault."
I don't believe, based on the posts from others, that the causes of the war were even understood, as you contend. Only that it happened and Russia is at fault to the vast majority of the western audience and their media.

You keep talking about having to see the whole picture, but based on that post I don't think you're seeing the whole picture, such as the reason for the "economical attacks" and the history of NATO. Sweden's been an enemy of Russia since way before NATO, it has nothing to do with the U.S. Sweden has been at war with Russia at least 11 times, Russia-Europe tensions are not something new that started with NATO.

Believe it or not, the U.S is not the center of the world, not everything is about you.

[Demosthenes]

If the US had been belligerent to nations around its borders, then went to war with Mexico over expanding Russian influence we would know the reason, but it wouldn't be justifiable or understandable. Not when they are shelling the shit out of civilians.

[Spicyryan]

Lol, I like how you just wrote off the essential importance, economic and otherwise, of Ukraine as "yeah, but tensions aren't new, and they, like, attack others economically too." I'll just ignore saying more to that.

Believe it or not, the U.S is not the center of the world, not everything is about you.

Hey, tell that to Gred.

However, no, the world does in fact revolve around the US. I don't like that, as I have expressed many times, but that is in fact the world order. We have a rising multipolarity with Russia and China. Ukraine is going to be an essential piece of an Eurasian strategy going forward.

[Uzor]

What I meant about the world not revolving around the U.S is that the tensions between Europe and Russia does not stem from USA and NATO.

Not all the world’s conflicts boil down to what the U.S has done or is doing. Many (like the middle east) do, but not Russia. Russia (and you) like blaming it on the U.S but the issue is much deeper than that. Russia’s just using it as a convenient reason.

[Spicyryan]

What I meant sbiut the world not revolving around the U.S is that the tensions between Europe and Russia does not stem from USA and NATO.

Not all the world’s conflicts boil down to what the U.S has done or is doing. Many (like the middle east) do, but not Russia. Russia (and you) like blaming it on the U.S but the issue is much deeper than that. Russia’s just using it as a convenient reason.

That may be true in some cases, but this is certainly not one of them. I'm not sure how you can be so blind to how the landscape and tensions in Europe being attached to the US and NATO as well directly involved in the current conflict, but that is what it is, blindness. It's not some convenient excuse.
We aren't dealing with Catherine the Great or Nicholas I here where it's solely some European affair.

Here, this time I will just link Chomsky this time, to which some may balk at, but a far more right inclined Mearsheimer apparently wasn't good enough. Read through this real quick as yet another author to add far greater context to the argument I support. We are up to three, each with different views, but overall all saying the same thing. Let's hope we can start agreeing on basic things at some point.

[Forte]

This conversation continues to be insufferable.

[Spicyryan]

This conversation continues to be insufferable.

Just like you.

[Uzor]

That may be true in some cases, but this is certainly not one of them. I'm not sure how you can be so blind to how the landscape and tensions in Europe being attached to the US and NATO as well directly involved in the current conflict, but that is what it is, blindness. It's not some convenient excuse.
We aren't dealing with Catherine the Great or Nicholas I here where it's solely some European affair.

Here, this time I will just link Chomsky this time, to which some may balk at, but a far more right inclined Mearsheimer apparently wasn't good enough. Read through this real quick as yet another author to add far greater context to the argument I support. We are up to three, each with different views, but overall all saying the same thing. Let's hope we can start agreeing on basic things at some point.

Let me ask you this: Do you truly believe that if NATO removed their troops, Russia would have said "Thank you, I'm happy now. I'll leave Ukraine as it is"?

[kuronosan]

[Spicyryan]

Let me ask you this: Do you truly believe that if NATO removed their troops, Russia would have said "Thank you, I'm happy now. I'll leave Ukraine as it is"?

That's literally the red line that was given. A neutral state that was demilitarized and not experiencing US backed unrest, receiving US weaponry, US involvement in government affairs, and receiving US training for their forces. Of which also has an issue with the far-right. All that on top of potential economic monopolization, and potential military alliance with US troops on the border. All this in a country they already had a crucial military base and port with in Sebastopol. Absolutely fucking insane.
Does that make the war any less an illegal act of aggression, no, but it's absolutely a clear cause and effect. When they say that they want to demilitarize Ukraine they aren't lying.

Look, to me, Putin is a bit like the Russian Tony Soprano. Except, you know he is head of a "family" of declining kleptocrats. When he plainly says something is "egh, not gonna work for me, yah know?" Or "Stay tha fuk away from my daughteh, yah hear?" Then he means it.
Now the "It be a shame if anything happened to yah, and you had an untimely and unfortunate accident" part is simply "Da, we must, egh, how you say deNazify duh Ukrainia."

A demand of the status quo of a neutral (or at least semi-neutral) buffer state be maintained. Instead the west said "Here, join a military alliance hostile to your neighbor, make economic deals with us and not them, and let us set you up with IMF loans and weaponry. When you guys all start dying, we've got your back, thanks for your service."
If Russia thought invading was the best course of action it would have done it around 2014. Instead it took the strategically vital peninsula it already was inside of and which wanted to join Russia. Then it supported separatists in the east. They didn't want to fuck their own house up by invading as they have now, but wreck the one next door so it doesn't get bought out under them.

[Forte]

Ah yes, because one country believes that a different country shouldn't be allowed to do what it wants means it is justified to invade said country because "it was a red line for them". The question then becomes, what if "invading Ukraine" is a red line for, you know, Ukraine...

[kuronosan]

Hey it's okay, part of Mexico wants to join the US so it's okay for us to annex Mexico because strategery.

[Mrbeansman]

Oh boy, don't bring Taiwan into this or the entire thread could explode worse than Chernobyl, lol.

Still, you aren't looking at it from the equivalent angle. If China, were to go further than increasing their economic relationship with Mexico, and decided to add them to a military alliance and put troops within their sovereign territory. The US would invade Mexico (assuming it didn't just coup the shit out of them first) in a heartbeat.
Neither is right in this case, but the point would be that China would have provoked that conflict just like here the west provoked Russia by trying not only to put a hostile military alliance on its most crucial border state, but to economically attack Russia as well which is a big deal. It really doesn't matter who is right at that point.
Nobody is right here despite people taking sides, but it needs to be understood instead of someone like Forte stroking off to the idea of "yeah, oh bby, overthrown Putin. It's all his fault."
I don't believe, based on the posts from others, that the causes of the war were even understood, as you contend. Only that it happened and Russia is at fault to the vast majority of the western audience and their media.

This is a common viewpoint expressed by Tucker Carlson btw and it's bullshit through and through. In no world is it rational or justified to attack your neighbors becasue you don't like who their hanging out with.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk