Russia-Ukraine

[yaxomoxay]

So, unless Europe and the US are willing to start a world war with NATO vs Russia, they aren’t reliable partners? Right after you pointed out that any NATO troops in Ukraine could lead to a world war?

The idea that Ukraine cannot “trust” its allies simply because they didn’t send 100,000 or more troops into Ukraine to fight Russia? Nope.

The unreliability doesn’t start with this invasion. It started 30 years ago when we promised Ukraine defense in exchange of nukes. They complied. They listened. They paid for it. They could’ve destroyed Moscow with one button. Now they’re getting annihilated while we get their enemy out of Eurovision.

As for “willing”, yes that’s how it works in foreign relations when military forces are involved. If you’re not willing to go to war, threats won’t mean much.

 

[lizkat]

The unreliability doesn’t start with this invasion. It started 30 years ago when we promised Ukraine defense in exchange of nukes. They complied. They listened. They paid for it. They could’ve destroyed Moscow with one button. Now they’re getting annihilated while we get their enemy out of Eurovision.

As for “willing”, yes that’s how it works in foreign relations when military forces are involved. If you’re not willing to go to war, threats won’t mean much.

Going to war does not have to mean throwing missile strikes and rolling tanks. War in the nuclear era includes cyberwar. Part of Europe's earlier reluctance to go deep on sanctions this time around with Russia is likely grounded in considering impact of Russia's retaliatory cyberstrikes. It's not like the Russians are amateurs at it even if they have peers elsewhere and in the west. I'm sure this has figured into the USA's calculations of how far to go on sanctions as well. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander and the US and some of its allies are not no-talents at cyber intrusion, so Russia has to consider that as well, along with the potential impact of increased sanctions.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Going to war does not have to mean throwing missile strikes and rolling tanks. War in the nuclear era includes cyberwar.

Very true and good observation. However I am specifically referring to geographical war, boots on the ground.

Part of Europe's earlier reluctance to go deep on sanctions this time around with Russia is likely grounded in considering impact of Russia's retaliatory cyberstrikes. It's not like the Russians are amateurs at it even if they have peers elsewhere and in the west. I'm sure this has figured into the USA's calculations of how far to go on sanctions as well. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander and the US and some of its allies are not no-talents at cyber intrusion, so Russia has to consider that as well, along with the potential impact of increased sanctions.

Well, I don’t disagree with you, but if we are saying that we won’t defend an ally because we fear cyberattacks then we’re in deep shit.

 

[Arkitect]

Going to war does not have to mean throwing missile strikes and rolling tanks. War in the nuclear era includes cyberwar. Part of Europe's earlier reluctance to go deep on sanctions this time around with Russia is likely grounded in considering impact of Russia's retaliatory cyberstrikes. It's not like the Russians are amateurs at it even if they have peers elsewhere and in the west. I'm sure this has figured into the USA's calculations of how far to go on sanctions as well. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander and the US and some of its allies are not no-talents at cyber intrusion, so Russia has to consider that as well, along with the potential impact of increased sanctions.

Funny you should say that…

 

[yaxomoxay]

Funny you should say that…

View attachment 11961

View attachment 11962

Snarky me thinks: hopefully in this cyber war Facebook, Twitter and TikTok will become the so-called “collateral damage”.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The unreliability doesn’t start with this invasion. It started 30 years ago when we promised Ukraine defense in exchange of nukes. They complied. They listened. They paid for it. They could’ve destroyed Moscow with one button. Now they’re getting annihilated while we get their enemy out of Eurovision.

As for “willing”, yes that’s how it works in foreign relations when military forces are involved. If you’re not willing to go to war, threats won’t mean much.

I'm in agreement with @lizkat; "war" doesn't just mean what we would consider classic weapons.

There are other fronts (such as economic, cyber, cultural, in all its shapes - from football to ballet to Eurovision - soft power and hybrid power), in addition to the classic "high politics" of diplomacy, politics and actual combat.

Yes, the "soft power" options (one of the EU's strengths, when it eventually gets around to getting its act together) can take time (and are a lot less dramatic) to have an impact, to have an effect, but are no less effective for that.

And Russia will have a job holding Ukraine, and will have a job finding quislings (who are not from the east) to serve in a puppet administration.

The two leading candidates in 2019's presidential elections, the victor, Mr Zelensky, and his predecessor as president, Mr Poroshenko, are united in rejecting this attack; in other words, Ukraine's political elite is not divided and cannot, therefore, be usefully ransacked in the hope of finding people who wish to audition for the role of Russian puppets.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Snarky me thinks: hopefully in this cyber war Facebook, Twitter and TikTok will become the so-called “collateral damage”.

Agreed.

Yes, thus far they have had things very easy; let's see how they deal with a real challenge, one that they cannot weasel out of.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I'm in agreement with @lizkat; "war" doesn't just mean what we would consider classic weapons.

There are other fronts (such as economic, cyber, cultural, in all its shapes - from football to ballet to Eurovision - soft power and hybrid power), in addition to the classic "high politics" of diplomacy, politics and actual combat.

Yes, the "soft power" options (one of the EU's strengths, when it eventually gets around to getting its act together) can take time (and are a lot less dramatic) to have an impact, to have an effect, but are no less effective for that.

And Russia will have a job holding Ukraine, and will have a job finding quislings (who are not from the east) to serve in a puppet administration.

The two leading candidates in 2019's presidential elections, the victor, Mr Zelensky, and his predecessor as president, Mr Poroshenko, are united in rejecting this attack; in other words, Ukraine's political elite is not divided and cannot, therefore, be usefully ransacked in the hope of finding people who wish to audition for the role of Russian puppets.

I don’t disagree with you or Lizkat.

However you would admit that it’s a different side of the die that has been cast, and it’s a long term plan that might or might not work even in the long run.

Military action (as in the classical way of defining war) deals with the immediate on the ground and it deals with sovereignty.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

And true to form, Trump continued his praise of Putin saying at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser that he was "pretty smart" in "taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions." Also, that this wouldn't have happened if the 2020 election wasn't rigged, etc. etc.

It's ironic to hear Republicans attacking Biden for being weak vs. Russia when for four years they were silent as Trump never said one word of criticism of Putin and clearly admired him.

 

[leman]

Indeed. I hoped my former friend would at least be somewhat neutral, but as it turned out she fully fell for Putin‘s propaganda; she does not see the contradictions in her line of thought. So sad

You should show her this: retired citizens of eastern Ukraine are preparing molotovs to meet the “anti-terrorist liberators”

 

[User.45]

So, unless Europe and the US are willing to start a world war with NATO vs Russia, they aren’t reliable partners? Right after you pointed out that any NATO troops in Ukraine could lead to a world war?

The idea that Ukraine cannot “trust” its allies simply because they didn’t send 100,000 or more troops into Ukraine to fight Russia? Nope.

They aren't trust-worthy partners because they did not live up to the promise of keeping the economic response proportionate to the attack. This happened to multiple nations that had anti-Soviet uprisings quelled without a much hoped western intervention. They got memorials in the USA, sympathy, statues and accepted as refugees. But no local help. So yeah, this stuff is all to familiar for these nations. Life went on for Westerners without self-reflection. So yeah, this seems no different, though not all is lost.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I don’t disagree with you or Lizkat.

However you would admit that it’s a different side of the die that has been cast, and it’s a long term plan that might or might not work even in the long run.

Military action (as in the classical way of defining war) deals with the immediate on the ground and it deals with sovereignty.

Fair enough, and I take your point.

Certainly, I will freely admit that while I increasingly came to think that Mr Putin would wish to include Kyiv in his version of what passes for Ukraine, I never thought that his aim, ambition, and deluded take on Russian history, would persuade him that an attack on the entire country was somehow justified.

@Huntn: You have been raising the subject of (appplications) for NATO membership throughout the thread.

At this stage, I would strongly support (and expedite) any applications for NATO membership that might come from the two Nordic sovereign, democratic, nation states (and EU members) that are currently outside NATO, namely Sweden and Finland, should they wish to exercise that option, or choose that path.

Likewise, there is no protection strong enough that I would not support for the Baltic states, although, as they are already members of both the EU and NATO, they currently enjoy strong protection under international law.

 

[User.45]

Going to war does not have to mean throwing missile strikes and rolling tanks. War in the nuclear era includes cyberwar. Part of Europe's earlier reluctance to go deep on sanctions this time around with Russia is likely grounded in considering impact of Russia's retaliatory cyberstrikes. It's not like the Russians are amateurs at it even if they have peers elsewhere and in the west. I'm sure this has figured into the USA's calculations of how far to go on sanctions as well. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander and the US and some of its allies are not no-talents at cyber intrusion, so Russia has to consider that as well, along with the potential impact of increased sanctions.

The information warfare part is interesting to me. I don't think the Russians have a working plan right now, and honestly my fear was that the information we'll get will be so confusing we won't know WTF is going on (like with COVID). The fascinating parts are, I have Reddit with a North American view, and not a single piece of russian propaganda could hit the front page, or the comment section in the front page. This is unheard of. And I have FaceBook with mostly Eastern European view, and FB is scrubbed of direct references to the conflict. On Thur I could see some posts hitting my timeline but those disappeared. Nothing pro, nothing con. It's so striking, it cannot be by accident.

 

[lizkat]

I don’t disagree with you or Lizkat.

However you would admit that it’s a different side of the die that has been cast, and it’s a long term plan that might or might not work even in the long run.

Military action (as in the classical way of defining war) deals with the immediate on the ground and it deals with sovereignty.

I said before that Ukraine is not Belarus. Putin said he didn't mean to occupy the country so he does mean to just put in a puppet. But Ukraine will not settle down the road for a rigged election causing a non-puppet winning candidate to have to set up opposition in exlle. Ukrainians are more likely to turn their country into a quagmire for puppets, puppet candidates and their sympathizers. After all, the first thing the Ukranians did as the invasion began was to burn their own bridges in the north, which is another "classical" way of repelling the enemy in combat.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Fair enough, and I take your point.

Certainly, I will freely admit that while I increasingly came to think that Mr Putin would wish to include Kyiv in his version of what passes for Ukraine, I never thought that his aim, ambition, and deluded take on Russian history, would persuade him that an attack on the entire country was somehow justified.

@Huntn: You have been raising the subject of (appplications) for NATO membership throughout the thread.

At this stage, I would strongly support (and expedite) any applications for NATO membership that might come from the two Nordic sovereign, democratic, nation states (and EU members) that are currently outside NATO, namely Sweden and Finland, should they wish to exercise that option, or choose that path.

Likewise, there is no protection strong enough that I would not support for the Baltic states, although, as they are already members of both the EU and NATO, they currently enjoy strong protection under international law.

Do you remember what is actually needed for NATO membership? As in, does it need to be ratified by all the parliaments of the various members? Or through some vote?

Basically I am wondering if membership can be obtained “in secret” and quickly or if it requires some sort of long, public process.

 

[Huntn]

Always has been the way… a toothless null entity.

View attachment 11955
Number of resolutions vetoed by each of the five permanent members of the Security Council from 1946 until present. Link

Russia has nukes, but deserves no place on something called the Security Council.

 

[lizkat]

It was something to behold the other night, watching the ambassador to the UN from the Russian Federation ticking boxes on his list of council speakers, reading his scripts and consulting his phone in case new instructions had arrived, but mostly looking like "Are we done yet?" -- including even when Ukraine's representative announced the invasion had actually begun and that he was thus "dispensing with most of my speech". I guess there was a box for the Russian guy to tick there too. Everything went like clockwork.

 

[Huntn]

Fair enough, and I take your point.

Certainly, I will freely admit that while I increasingly came to think that Mr Putin would wish to include Kyiv in his version of what passes for Ukraine, I never thought that his aim, ambition, and deluded take on Russian history, would persuade him that an attack on the entire country was somehow justified.

@Huntn: You have been raising the subject of (appplications) for NATO membership throughout the thread.

At this stage, I would strongly support (and expedite) any applications for NATO membership that might come from the two Nordic sovereign, democratic, nation states (and EU members) that are currently outside NATO, namely Sweden and Finland, should they wish to exercise that option, or choose that path.

Likewise, there is no protection strong enough that I would not support for the Baltic states, although, as they are already members of both the EU and NATO, they currently enjoy strong protection under international law.

The more who join NATO the better, if they are real assets to the alliance and should be fast tracked. I’ve spent a minimal amount of time, but have searched for articles about why Ukraine is not a NATO member and I’ve not really found a precise reason or set of reasons. Your opinion? Apologies if you have already said. If so, maybe you could point me at it.

When I look at this list and see all the former satellites that broke away from Russia and joined NATO, I wonder was Ukraine just to close (however you want to define close) to Mother Russia?

List of NATO Member States | NATO Members 2022

At present, NATO Member States comprises 30 countries from the original 12 countries that signed the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. Check the complete NATO countries list below.

www.jagranjosh.com

 

[Arkitect]

Do you remember what is actually needed for NATO membership? As in, does it need to be ratified by all the parliaments of the various members? Or through some vote?

Basically I am wondering if membership can be obtained “in secret” and quickly or if it requires some sort of long, public process.

From what I understand is it is a long drawn out process and there is no way it could be kept under wraps.

As an aside, I see Georgia is also under consideration to join NATO. They were offered Intensified Dialogue status in 2006...

 

[DT]

I'm certainly not making light of the horrific situation, but this is apparently a thing