- This topic has 54 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
All of the bloodshed should have been prevented by the u.s. agreeing to leave Ukraine a neutral nation.
The U.S. has the Monroe Doctrine which it pursues quite agressively, even invading and wrecking havoc in countries it perceives as a threat halfway around the globe. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan to name a few.
For a country that bombs others to oblivion whenever it feels like it – countries who don’t really pose a threat to think of itself as the arbiter of who should and shouldn’t defend itself is the height of arrogance and chutzpah.
Until 2008 Putin never had any interest in Ukraine. But the greedy west decided to push NATO further and further east eventually announcing in Bucharest that year that Georgia and Ukraine would be the next eastern bloc countries to fall under western hegemony after Hungary, Poland Czech, and others already had and Russia let it go. But with Ukraine and Georgia, which are right on the border, Putin said enough and destroyed Georgia to prevent that Georgia from becoming a threat. You know preemptive, like Israel in 1967.
In 2014 the Americans, in a violent coup d’etat overthrew a democractically elected Ukrainian president who agreed to a better deal offered to him Putin than the EU and installed a government that they liked better.
So shortly after, Russia took Crimea, they weren’t going to let a now hostile Ukraine have access to that strategically important real estate which had an important navy base. And they started to protect the pro Russian populace of the east.
The us should have backed down and let Ukraine remain neutral and all would have been fine. But the US needs for some reason to continue to give it to Russia and kept on egging on the hapless and corript Ukrainian pawns to keep on fighting.
But no. America must impose it’s will on the world like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years.
If Canada were to make a military pact with Iran or China the us would not just sit back and take it as per the Monroe Doctrine as we saw in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis.
How dare the us not allow Russia make moves to protect itself against perceived threats.
Just like we expect Israel to wipe out any threat coming into Lebanon from Syria Russia has the right to do the same.
Don’t want bloodshed? Respect the balance of power. Cut back the vicious rhetoric and the brazen military threats that you have doing for the longest time. Why does dictatorial and Genocidal china get a pass from the “moral” US, but non Genocidal, and simply authoritarian Putin get raked through the coals? And then you wonder why Putin is suspicious of US intentions.
The current path will bring america to a well earned nuclear war.
Bc if you think Putin is going to back down you have another thing coming. He has said repeatedly that if Russia is threateiin a manner that he feels Russian sovereignty is at risk he won’t hesitate to use nukes.
Stop the schoolyard bullying and leave Russia alone.
BY1212/OP: Excellent points. (I don’t agree with every detail you mentioned, but overall the vast majority of what you pointed out is accurate.)
100% agreed.
What should we do that the Democrats are priding themselves on a strong NATO when that was one of the big reasons Putin invaded Ukraine IMHOBiden wants to look “tough”
Too bad Americans may have to die to prove that ridiculous point.
You make some valid (and not as valid) points.
Look at history in Asia. There was China, Japan, Russia and the US. There was a balance of power because no one wanted to risk a war weakening themselves to another power. China became a non-power and Japan beat Russia. That left only Japan and the US. The other issue is strategic depth. The US was in the Philippines only a few hundred miles from Tokyo while Japan was thousands of miles from Washington DC. Understandably, Japan didn’t like that. That is why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. To get the US out of the Pacific. They mistakenly believed America would just walk away and let them have it.
It’s similar to what’s going on here Russia is not OK with NATO in Ukraine being a few hundred miles from Moscow while Russia is well over a thousand miles from (forget Washington) London, Paris, and Berlin.Russia objects to Ukraine being independent. It has object to Ukrainian membership in the EU, and has insisted it be a “satellite” state, and object to free elections in Ukraine. And to make it clear, the have invaded the country several times.
Non-interference and non-use of military force has been the based of European relations and has brought peace to a region that had been wracked by warfare. By breaking treaties guaranteeing Ukrainian independence and starting a war, Russia serious told the European to either submit to Russian domination, or be prepared to fight for your independence. Much to Putin’s horror, the Ukrainians and the Europeans are willing to fight.
Biden definitely misled Putin by surrendering in Afghanistan, and Putin thought that the US had sent a message that it would not object to tyrants conquering their neighbor.
Do any of you geopolitical gurus its just about Ukraine?? There about ten FORMER member states of the Soviet Union already participating in NATO and Putin has made clear his paranoia and illusions of grandeur to rebuild the former Russian empire have no bounds. Will the next target be Latvia, Lithuania etc.? Appeasing this madman with concessions on future strategic options for European security will have real consequences.
It was very clear that the Ukraine was not a threat to Russia. They never threatened Russia and would be idiots if they did. They just wanted to be left alone.
The only aggressor in the region has been Russia.If I was a Russian I would be asking myself the following.
What are we to do now that Putin, with his aggressive attacks and taking over of neighboring countries, including the Ukraine, has given NATO a very compelling reason to strengthen itself, increase its military’s presence in our region and add more members to it’s club?
Putin has scared all of our neighbors into being very worried that he is ready to attack them.
Now our neighbor’s ONLY defense is to join NATO.
We just gave NATO the GREEN LIGHT to grow even larger and stronger.BY1212,
Do you feel that America should apologize to Russia and that we are to blame for the bloodshed that Putin has unleashed?
If Putin decided to drop an atomic weapon should we apologize ?“There about ten FORMER member states of the Soviet Union already participating in NATO”
There’s only three. The rest were Warsaw Pact states but not Soviet states.
“We just gave NATO the GREEN LIGHT to grow even larger and stronger.”
Russia made very clear they’ll go to war against former Soviet states (Ukraine, Georgia) that attempt to join NATO — before they actually join.
ujm,
Thank you. That is the point. Beforehand NATO could say that it is just a threat from Russia and you don’t really need for security purposes to be part of NATO.
But now that Russia went to war and tried to destroy the country, they clearly have a military need to protect themselves from Russian aggression and a lunatic Rasha named Putin.>>>If I was a Russian I would be asking myself the following.
No you wouldn’t. If you be Russian you would probably agree with the over seventy percent of Russians who see the enlargement of NATO as a threat to them and like most Russian be happy you have a leader like Putin who is willing to do something about it.
Russians like citizens of the US and ALL countries only support their country going to war when they believe they are facing some threat otherwise. Putin doesn’t have seventy percent support for the invasion because people are dying to dominate Ukraine .
The reason this invasion did not happen when Trump was president was because for all his faults Trump understood Putin’s point of view and was careful not to provoke him.
You can scream about Trump being too friendly and soft with Putin but the end of the day Putin invaded Crimea under Obama and Ukraine under Biden. Nowhere under Trump. So apparently Trump’s friendly way of dealing with Putin really was better
UJM: You are 100 percent correct…perhaps I should have said in the “Soviet Orbit” or closely aligned with the Soviet Union.
You have been drinking up Russian Propaganda.
“the u.s. agreeing to leave Ukraine a neutral nation.” why isnt it up to Ukraine? An independent country has the right to conduct its own foreign affairs. It isn’t the US bringing Ukraien into NATO (unless Ukraine is being forced) it is Ukraine. If they view it as being in their best interests then by all means they should look to join. If not, not.
The rest of your post is largely riddled with whatboutism, what about IRaq what about China. (with a few fair points thrown in) but it is built on a distortion.
Bottom line. Putin is invading a neighbor not in self defense. That is wrong full stop.
by1212 –
Unless you insist on continuing to hold your hands tight over your eyes it is crystal clear from the actions of putin in his own country (even without looking at his actions to his neighbors) the last decade that he is a mad tyrant and the biggest threat in the world today to become hitler 2.0.
After ww2 anyone who suggests that tyrants should be left alone and allowed to continue growing stronger in peace is simply fooling themselves and kicking the barrel down the road.
if there’s one lesson that was learned from ww2 it is that tyrants need to be cut off asap.
For the record it is Russia who intervened in 1967 and prevented Israel from completely winning the war and chase away all the Arabs. It is thanks to Russia that the arabs remain in Israel and cause all the trouble they cause until today.
It is Russia who is the main obstacle today in allowing Israel freedom to act against their agressors, if one thinks about it it is Russia who is the main obstacle today that prevents Israel from removing the mosque and building a Beis Hamikdash.
These are historical facts as recorded here
no outside links
1) I did answer the point. Your point was as summed up by your opening sentence “All of the bloodshed should have been prevented by the u.s. agreeing to leave Ukraine a neutral nation.”
to which I directly replied (quoting it) why isnt it up to Ukraine? An independent country has the right to conduct its own foreign affairs.
2) Whataboutism is cheap and arrogant Calling it out is neither (ok maybe cheap your argument was so flimsy just calling it by its name undermines it) Though name calling? . Yes The US was wrong to invade Iraq. That has approximately zero bearing on Russia invading Ukraine. China is bad in no way does that justify Russia
3) You are king of name calling, surprised you have a problem with it
it is not about US. Ukrainians are now majority for NATO membership, including in areas with large russian population (currently being bombed by their “brothers”). They have a democratically elected government and they now have path to Nato in their constitution. Finns were neutral from 1939 (when they fought back Soviet invasion) but are now majority for Nato. Nations are literally standing in line to get into Nato, while nobody stands in line to partner with Russia. Stop blaming some possible tactical missteps for the situation.
In response to @ubiquitin and @BY1212:
Blaming US foreign policy for Russian actions does not necessarily mean Russia’s actions are justified. So it can be simultaneously true that the expansion of NATO eastward provoked Russia but just because one is provoked does not justify the invasion of a sovereign nation.
BY1212,
I detect so much hatred for America in what you write.
Does American really bomb others to oblivion whenever it FEELS like it? I am not sure what you are referring to.
Do you seriously believe that if Canada made a pact with Iran or the Taliban for mutual defense that America would invade Canada, kill millions of people and take it over?
The comparison between NATO and the Taliban is ridiculous.>>>Nations are literally standing in line to get into Nato, while nobody stands in line to partner with Russia
From the Russian point of view it is for a simple reason. They no longer have a militaristic alliance like NATO moving from country to country. When Putin and the Russians say “we disbanded the Warsaw Pact why does the West continue the militaristic buildup of NATO?” there is legitimacy behind what they are saying.
smerel
“we disbanded the Warsaw Pact why does the West continue the militaristic buildup of NATO?” there is legitimacy behind what they are saying.”firstly when have the Russians said that? And if they did there wouldn’t be legitimacy. nor even logic to such a claim. The idea of NATO is an attack on one equals an attack on all. To have a problem with NATO, you’d have to say “well what if I want to attack one of you and not face all” It is hard to argue that that is “legitimate”
And the Russians didn’t disband the Warsaw PAct, all the member countries chose to leave it (thus it was disbanded) and ALL (outside the USSR) joined NATO. Russia has since formed it s own treaty the CSTO which includes several former Soviet Republics.So in short Russia DOES still have a military alliance. and even if they didn’t , “well what if we want to attack one of you” doesn’t sound super legitimate
Smerel,
“When Putin and the Russians say “we disbanded the Warsaw Pact why does the West continue the militaristic buildup of NATO?” there is legitimacy behind what they are saying.”
After taking over crimea, donbas and invading Ukraine , they have ZERO LEGITIMACY.
Putin simply lied in order to weaken his enemies and make them easier to take over
“The us as any sane country, will always put its own safety first. No matter what the price. Russia is no different. Only extreme chauvinists can argue otherwise. Seems the west is full of said chauvinists.”
No question about that. though that isn’t the issue at hand.
Only someone extremely delusional can argue Ukraine poses a threat to Russia. THAT is the discussion.
>>>After taking over crimea, donbas and invading Ukraine , they have ZERO LEGITIMACY.
Do you know the Russian talking point justification for doing so? Like always and like ALL countries who make military invasions they claimed it was a defense maneuver .
In this particular case when you have a hostile military alliance (NATO) coming closer and closer to Russian borders they are lot more justified in claiming defense purposes than in many other military conflicts where the western views supports the invaders and claims of defense .
I stopped accepting the Western view about every conflict over thirty years ago because of this very conflict. Back then there was a question of Russia keeping Ukraine by force. The US of course was screaming against it. Gorbachev responded “The United States did the same thing and a lot, lot worse during the Civil War” The more research I did into the Civil War the more I came to realize that with all the American excuse (like Fort Sumter) Gorbachev was making an accurate analogy.
Getting back to this conflict going on now. When you have a military alliance (NATO) constantly moving closer to a country they are hostile to (Russia) with no other ostensible conflict at hand the hostile military alliance (NATO) has plenty of fault when a larger conflict erupts over it.
This is my last post on this thread.
You are providing evidence that NATO expansion eastward provoked and angered Russia which I agree with. But does that really justify a full scale invasion of a sovereign nation? To use your analogy, if Canada was considering allying with Iran would that justify a full scale invasion of Canada?
Smerel,
So I get this clear, according to you, Russia is allowed and is fully justified in invading any NATO country and any country that is part of the NATO’s enhanced opportunity partner interoperability program.
Russia was never attacked. It is not the victim. It never was the victim It is the oppressor. It has always been the oppressor.
Russia is killing thousands of people. It has already caused tremendous pain to the Jewish communities in Ukraine. There is no justification.BY1212,
We demonize Putin because he invaded Ukraine and started killing innocent civilians.
That earns him the title mini-hitler.@by1212, deep thoughts, please forward them to the Secretary of State.
i’ll admit i am a novice to this dispute and am learning as we go but I really have a hard time understanding any of OP’s points. Ukraine made a political decision to align itself with the western world. no one in the western world and no one in ukraine was an actual physical threat to russia. russia could have given ukraine a better deal than the west and tried to win their favor. instead, it decided to erase the country from the face of the world. how is that not a war crime? the only excuse i heard from the russians is that “well ukraine is not really a free, independent country anyway. it should be part of russia anyway.” that sounds like literal crazy speak. its like if mexico opened war on the usa because of texas.
ubiq: “Only someone extremely delusional can argue Ukraine poses a threat to Russia. THAT is the discussion.”
A Ukraine that is part of NATO can be considered threatening to Russia. Let’s take the following example to illuminate this point. Crimea was part of Russia for centuries until the Ukrainian dictator of the USSR simply transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine unilaterally in 1954. After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine simply kept Crimea. If Russia were to later contest Ukrainian sovereignty over Ukraine (as it did) on the basis that the 1954 transfer was illegitimate or that Crimean residents are vast majority ethnic Russians who prefer that their province be part of Russia, such a dispute between Russia and Ukraine is a far greater national security threat to Russia if Ukraine will have NATO, including a nuclear US, UK and France, militarily defend Ukraine against Russia.
ubiq: “Only someone extremely delusional can argue Ukraine poses a threat to Russia. THAT is the discussion.”
A Ukraine that is part of NATO can be considered threatening to Russia. Let’s take the following example to illuminate this point. Crimea was part of Russia for centuries until the Ukrainian dictator of the USSR simply transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine unilaterally in 1954. After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine simply kept Crimea. If Russia were to later contest Ukrainian sovereignty over Ukraine (as it did) on the basis that the 1954 transfer was illegitimate or that Crimean residents are vast majority ethnic Russians who prefer that their province be part of Russia, such a dispute between Russia and Ukraine is a far greater national security threat to Russia if Ukraine will have NATO, including a nuclear US, UK and France, militarily defend Ukraine against Russia.
“A Ukraine that is part of NATO can be considered threatening to Russia”
Threatening or a threat?
And you have lots of what ifs. The strangest part is that, as you may know Russia annexed Crimea. So your argument, that if Ukraine joins NATO then if Russia takes Crimea, is at best questionable.Your historical analysis, while interesting is a bit irrelevant too. As you know European borders changed dozens of times over the past centuries. Things change. all of Ukraine was part of Russia, as was Poland for that matter . I think it was you who first shared with me the “I was born in Austro-Hungary, bar mitzvahd in Czechoslovakia, married in Hungary, had my first child in the USSR, and died in Ukraine, without ever leaving Munkatch” in 1954 Crimea became part of Ukraine. Shoin! fertig Mazel Tov
ukraine is threat to russia
locks are threats to thieves
police are threats to robbersrussia had no problems with ukraine when a pro-russian president was in charge there. Finland is not a threat because Russians don’t speak Finnish. They simply can’t afford having a russian-speaking democratic country on their borders. It will melt their lies.
ubiq: Currently both Russia and Ukraine claim Crimea is their own sovereign territory. If Ukraine joins NATO today, any escalation of this territorial dispute can result in military conflict, which would automatically invoke Article 5 of NATO’s mutual defense pact, obligating the US and all NATO members to defend Ukraine against Russia.
As far as your second point about the fluidness of European borders, if your attitude is simply “Things change” and “in 1954 Crimea became part of Ukraine. Shoin! fertig Mazel Tov”, then presumably you’re being consistent and also saying “in 2014 Crimea became back part of Russia again. Shoin! fertig Mazel Tov.” And, even, in 2022 Kiev might become part of Russia, Mazal Tov!
Right?
Ujm
Though worth noting there’s a difference between taking by force and annexing with permission even if those who gave permission weren’t the “true” owners.
Though assuming you don’t view the two as different, Then yes they’re the same both would make it theirs. Not that both wouldn’t.Obviously
I don’t know how long it takes. But Obviously this is true. I do t think there is a movment to go back to the “correct” borders of 1939, 1914, etc.
UJM,
And even in 2022, the Ukrainians will never accept being Russian and will terrorize Russia daily.
And even in 2022, the world has united to ostracize Russia and will never let go of the economic, financial, political , military , and social sanctions that it has imposed on Russia. Russia is no longer a member of the world community.
Russia has already lost big time and will continue to lose big time.
“All they are being asked to do is respect their neighbors existential concerns….”
Are you trolling and we are missing your sarcasm or are you truly that naive? How about Ukraine’s “existential” concerns. If they forego their right to align themselves with whomever they choose, they will be slowly swallowed by Russia w/o any need for military action. NATO has never “threatened” another country and indeed has been rather toothless in response to multiple provocations over the years. There is no existential threat to Russia aside from Putin’s own sense of paranoia.
Here is how world companies reacted to the war in Ukraine:
• Apple Pay — a complete blockage for Russian Federation;
• Apple — complete exit from the market;
• Adidas — stopped cooperating with the Russian national football team;
• Audi — exit from the market;
• AMD — a ban on the supply of microchips and soon a ban on the supply of video cards;
• Amazon — a full block of all retail will be for dessert;
• Adobe — turned off their services;
• British Petroleum – withdrew 20% of shares from Rosneft;
• BMW — closes factories, blocks the supply of cars and spare parts;
• Bolt — € 5 million in assistance to Ukraine;
• Chevrolet — leave the Russian market;
• Cannes Festival — block of the Russian delegation;
• Cadillac — leaving the market;
• Carlsberg — export restrictions;
• CEX IO — crypto-platform ban users of the Russian Federation;
• Cinema 4D — the application does not work;
• Coca-Cola — out of the market;
• Danone — exit the market together with its subsidiary Prostokvashino;
• Dell — exit the market;
• Dropbox — stops working in a few days;
• DHL — leaves the market;
• Eurovision — disqualification;
• Ericsson — exit from the market;
• Exxon Mobil — recall all specialists from Russian oil companies;
• Etsy — block of all balances on Russian accounts;
• Facebook — a ban on Russian media accounts;
• FedEx — complete ban on supplies;
• Formula 1 — cancellation of the Grand Prix in Sochi;
• Ford — closes all stores;
• FIFA — disqualification of the national team for the World Cup and a ban on holding any international matches in Russia;
• Google Pay — partial block;
• Google — $15 million in humanitarian aid to Ukraine;
• Google Maps — a block of information for Russians;
• Get Contact — mass distribution of truthful news;
• General Motors — stops exports;
• HP — leave the market;
• Harley Davidson — termination of supply;
• Instagram —blocking propaganda;
• Intel — ban on the supply of microchips;
• Jaguar — leaves the market;
• Jooble — removed the job search service;
• KUNA — impossibility of mining crypts for Russians;
• Lenovo — exit from the market;
• LinkedIn — preparing for full exit from the country;
• IOC — cancellation of all competitions;
• MasterCard — suspension of card production, disconnection of several sanctioned banks;
• Maersk — stop deliveries to / from Russia;
• Mercedes — exit from the market;
• Megogo — delete all Russian movies;
• Metro — 10,000 employees per exit;
• Mitsubishi — employees of 141 service centers — for exit;
• Microsoft Office — “a wide range of activities is being discussed”;
• Mobile World Congress — the Russian delegation was not accredited;
• NFT — block of funds of users of Russia and Belarus, transfer of their money to Ukraine;
• Netflix — a block for Russian subscriptions, stop production of Russian TV series;
• Nike — closing of all stores;
• Nintendo — a ban on purchases in rubles;
• Nestle — closes all 6 factories in Russia;
• OnlyFans — closure in Russia;
• Paysera — blocking;
• PayPal — freezing accounts for withdrawals.
• Paramount — block of film distribution;
• Parimatch — revoked the franchise; • PlayStation — cannot be paid;
• Porsche — exit from the Russian Federation;
• Renault — exit from the Russian Federation;
• Samsung Pay — blocking the service;
• Snapchat — a block of applications in Russia and Belarus, $ 15 million in assistance to Ukraine;
• Scania — exit from the Russian market;
• Shell — termination of the contract with Gazprom;
• Spotify — subscription cannot be paid;
• Sony — a block of film distribution.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.