I talked about that. It's the height of hypocrisy to argue that it's okay for Russia to invade Ukraine because when they shared a border with Germany, Germany attacked. Russia helped Germany move those borders to make a common border, just as today Putin's Russia is moving its border to ensure it shares one with NATO. Russia was an integral part of the German military alliance, sharing resources and technology, and while Germany invaded Russia, Russia had the intention of doing the same to Germany.
The world has come to peace with Germany, and works very, very well with Germany.
Russia refuses to get over the world, and so remains paranoid. How is the world supposed to treat them with such an insular, self-fulfilling attitude?
I know you would prefer it, but I am not interested in discussing persons, including myself.
Russia is acting paranoid, but it has good reasons for it. Historically, when Russia lets its guard down and allows foreign military alliances on its doorstep, seven or eight figure casualties follow. Disruption and destruction is a cost imposed by Russia on neighboring countries considering joining an anti-Russian military alliance. Something for them to think about. That they could be destabilized and dragged into a civil war by a few hundred Russian special forces. That is an effective deterrent, and Russia is not the only one using it.
This is exactly right.
I seriously doubt Putin could change the strategy even if he wanted to. It would be like a US president doing away with the Monroe Doctrine and allowing North Korea to build ICBMs in Cuba.
People really need to take a look at these videos to gain insight into what senseamp is saying. It's about the geography and history of Russia, not Putin. Russia is simply carrying on with a nearly 300 year old strategy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6rSljTwdU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL_09mazZs8
This is Pew, not Pewtin, poll that did the survey. Results are much closer to the referendum results than the 15% or some other BS number we've been hearing, or even 50%. Not going to end Ukrainian sour grapes, but Crimea is not coming back.Western Ukrainians are clearly unified in their opinions on Crimea. More than eight-in-ten (84%) say the referendum was not free and fair, and a roughly equal percentage (82%) says Kyiv should reject the results. Crimeans are also nearly unanimous, but in the opposite direction – 91% say the referendum was fair and 88% say the government in Kyiv should recognize the results.
England's capital sure is more defensible than Moscow. And the rest would be speaking German if it wasn't for Russia.Russia doesn't want to be invaded so they act like bitchy jackasses?
So fucking what?
Look at England. They were invaded by the Vikings, by the Germans, by the Romans, by the French... And yet they are not a paranoid lunatic nation today.
The reason why people hate the Soviet U.S.S.R. is because they invaded other lands, they killed a shit-ton of innocent people, enacted insane censorship laws, and generally were a massive pile of corruption. Why does the Russian people not like the rest of the world? Because their government tells them the rest of the world is not to be liked? Not exactly an equal comparison...
Yes Russia lost a lot of lives during WWII. That was 70 years ago. And it wasn't the Ukrainians who were the aggressor against Russia. England, France, Poland, Czech Republic, they all got over it, they all embrace the 21st century. And it's not like their capitals are any better defensible than Moscow is.
And it certainly is not fair if Russia is using their bordering ethnicities as human shields
So why does Russia get to still be the bitch living in a past time? An alternate reality than we live in? This is the big fucking picture. Russia doesn't want to be invaded? Well guess what, neither do Russia's neighbors want to be invaded, and they have equal rights to want to not be invaded. Russia has a massive ego problem to believe they are more important than everyone else.
Turn off the propaganda shit they broadcast over the airwaves, and things will improve for everyone.
But what is going on right now, is madness. And it is indefensible.
So here we are, two sides who are fighting against each other because one side continually refuses to get along with others. What can be done? Appeasement? That ain't the answer, that's for sure. What else? Any of you cheerleaders have any brilliant ideas? And don't any of you f'ing say the solution is "No NATO in Ukraine." Here is yet another opportunity to discuss ideas, not events or people.
England's capital sure is more defensible than Moscow. And the rest would be speaking German if it wasn't for Russia.
Germany is a very important analogy, because it's a test case for two different approaches.
The world didn't come to peace with Germany after WWI, because it set as a goal to contain and punish Germany , and Germany didn't accept that. It was only after WWII when the goal changed from containment to integration that a good working relationship between Germany and its neighbors emerged.
That was your entire takeaway?England's capital sure is more defensible than Moscow. And the rest would be speaking German if it wasn't for Russia.
So you don't actually want to hear any ideas except for yours. Well have fun then :thumbsup:
That was your entire takeaway?
You have stated "No NATO in Ukraine" umpteen times and you've never cared to explain why other than "I love Russia."
If you want to discuss ideas you have to actually be able to discuss ideas.
"No NATO in Ukraine" doesn't solve any of the underlying problems that cause the tension between the sides, it's a reward to Russia's ego that likely may not achieve anything long-term.
Either explain your "No NATO in Ukraine" idea in full, or discuss something else. But continue to discuss ideas in one sentance-long responses, that's not discussion.
First you explain why "No NATO in Ukraine" doesn't solve the underlying problems that cause the tension between the sides. Threat of NATO in Ukraine is the underlying problem causing the tension.
First you explain why "No NATO in Ukraine" doesn't solve the underlying problems that cause the tension between the sides. Threat of NATO in Ukraine is the underlying problem causing the tension.
Russia's plan is to make Ukraine untouchable for NATO.
No better way to demonstrate it than to destabilize it and put it on the brink of civil war with a handful of special forces and local sympathizers.
Russia's plan is to make Ukraine untouchable for NATO.
No better way to demonstrate it than to destabilize it and put it on the brink of civil war with a handful of special forces and local sympathizers.
I see it.And you condone such a thing?!
That would be good for Russia, I agree. Would be good for the US too. We got some corruption and oligarchs here too.You know, there's another way. It's called reform. Giving people rights. Cracking down on corruption and the oligarchs. Building a real democracy. And then Ukraine (which we all agree shares a common ethnic, cultural and historical heritage with Russia) would voluntarily fall into the Russian orbit. What a concept!
I don't think Putin wants to invade Ukraine, he'll only do it if he feels that the alternative is NATO taking over. If he wanted to invade just to grow Russian territory, the best time to do it would have been when he invaded Crimea and Ukrainian military was at its weakest and most disoriented.Of course, that wouldn't work very well for Putin's aspirations for life-long czardom. So he clamps down on freedoms and curries favors with the existing corrupt power structure, which included Yanukovych, whose misrule alienated Ukraine. And now that the half of Ukraine that doesn't drink the Russian Kool-Aid has rebelled against that nonsense, you claim that Putin has some kind of historical right and mandate to keep being a jackass?
Repeat after me: This is not about Russia. This is about Putin, Putin, and Putin.
Bullshit about Russian security are just convenient go-to excuses that people like you buy into.
That was your entire takeaway?
You have stated "No NATO in Ukraine" umpteen times and you've never cared to explain why other than "I love Russia."
If you want to discuss ideas you have to actually be able to discuss ideas.
"No NATO in Ukraine" doesn't solve any of the underlying problems that cause the tension between the sides, it's a reward to Russia's ego that likely may not achieve anything long-term.
Either explain your "No NATO in Ukraine" idea in full, or discuss something else. But continue to discuss ideas in one sentance-long responses, that's not discussion. And, you don't have to carry on a discussion with me, respond, explain yourself, carry on a discussion with anyone else in this thread about actual substance.
"No Nato in Ukraine" is kinda like no Russian missiles in Cuba.
Which is also to say that this is just the Russian version of the Monroe Doctrine, with even deeper ties to Ukraine than we have to central America.
Remember that? The Monroe doctrine, 200 years of hegemony? Or is that oh so different?
First you explain why "No NATO in Ukraine" doesn't solve the underlying problems that cause the tension between the sides. Threat of NATO in Ukraine is the underlying problem causing the tension.
"No Nato in Ukraine" is kinda like no Russian missiles in Cuba.
Which is also to say that this is just the Russian version of the Monroe Doctrine, with even deeper ties to Ukraine than we have to central America.
Remember that? The Monroe doctrine, 200 years of hegemony? Or is that oh so different?
Back to 'two wrongs make a right' yet again I see.
This is not about fear of being invaded, this is about fear of not being able to invade others.