The Ukraine War

[Highgate]

Russia has summoned the US ambassador in Moscow, so they can make a formal complaint about Biden calling Putin a 'war criminal'.  

Genuinely deluded...or are Putin and his cronies just gaslighting the rest of the world now? 

 

[Leeds Ram]

16 hours ago, Highgate said:

Russia has summoned the US ambassador in Moscow, so they can make a formal complaint about Biden calling Putin a 'war criminal'.  

Genuinely deluded...or are Putin and his cronies just gaslighting the rest of the world now? 

 

They're gaslighting the rest of the world akin to those same people who are still flailing about blaming 'NATO expansionism' without seemingly possessing the first understanding of the difference between offensive and defensive realism in International relations. NATO expansionism as a threat only makes sense if you believe Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, Poland, Romania etc. are actually threats against Russia.. something which pretty much everyone knows to be more than a dubious proposition. It makes far more sense that these countries are joining for defensive purposes due to both historical and increasingly present threats that have and are being made against their sovereignty.

You've also got the tricky situation of nation-state sovereignty... a principle that has been enshrined internationally for a little while. There are very few reasons why a state may be presumed internationally to cede its sovereignty (aggression against its neighbours, crimes against humanity, genocide, and ethnic cleansing) and joining NATO is definitely not one of them. Putin cannot and should not be allowed to dictate if other countries want to join what is in that area of the world a defensive alliance. Again, I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp for some people but seemingly it is. 

Ditto with the 'but we invaded Iraq' crew who can't seem to grasp the difference between a war that may have lacked international support and been legally questionable and an outright annexation of a democratic neighbour for the purposes of territorial expansionism. Those two things are not legitimate equivalent actions in any way shape or form. The equivalent would have been in Trump had invaded Mexico on the pretence that Americans were being discriminated against and really wanted to be part of America. This is how bad Putin's actions are. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Leeds Ram

[Leeds Ram]

[Alph]

8 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

They're gaslighting the rest of the world akin to those same people who are still flailing about blaming 'NATO expansionism' without seemingly possessing the first understanding of the difference between offensive and defensive realism in International relations. NATO expansionism as a threat only makes sense if you believe Ukraine, Georgia, Estonia, Poland, Romania etc. are actually threats against Russia.. something which pretty much everyone knows to be more than a dubious proposition. It makes far more sense that these countries are joining for defensive purposes due to both historical and increasingly present threats that have and are being made against their sovereignty.

You've also got the tricky situation of nation-state sovereignty... a principle that has been enshrined internationally for a little while. There are very few reasons why a state may be presumed internationally to cede its sovereignty (aggression against its neighbours, crimes against humanity, genocide, and ethnic cleansing) and joining NATO is definitely not one of them. Putin cannot and should not be allowed to dictate if other countries want to join what is in that area of the world a defensive alliance. Again, I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp for some people but seemingly it is. 

Ditto with the 'but we invaded Iraq' crew who can't seem to grasp the difference between a war that may have lacked international support and been legally questionable and an outright annexation of a democratic neighbour for the purposes of territorial expansionism. Those two things are not legitimate equivalent actions in any way shape or form. The equivalent would have been in Trump had invaded Mexico on the pretence that Americans were being discriminated against and really wanted to be part of America. This is how bad Putin's actions are. 

No it wouldn't. For all your talk of wrong comparisons that's a shocker. 

The 'we invaded Iraq crew' didn't make comparisons between the objectives of each war. Only that both are disgusting invasions. 

Keep implying everybody that doesn't agree with you must be dumb. You're wearing that arrogance well. 

I noticed when Highgate pointed out the bombing of the Al Jazeera tower that you pointed straight to the small print (which by the way was as pathetic excuse as some of Putin's claims) 

I guess the Gulf Of Tonkin incident didn't happen because somebody from America said it didn't too

[Alph]

Why can't people just grasp that a country that has...

Been in nearly 400 military conflicts

Been in conflict for over 90% of its existence 

Has 750 military bases in 80 countries

Uses atomic bombs, Agent Orange, Napalm strikes

Waterboard a captive in 83 times in 1 month!! check out Abu Zubaydah... lovely read. Thinking of booking Guantanamo Bay for next year, myself. 

Pumps billions of dollars into Israel to help it defend itself (grown a bit that place, hasn't it)

Chose to not publish drone strikes (of which there were over 2,000 in Trump's first 2 years but they probably were all landing on those goat feckers so ah well)

Armed rebellions, provided weapons and financed wars across the globe. 

Engineered incidents/made false accusations to justify wars

Account for a sizable portion of the world's gun crimes

Had a President that threatened to "totally destroy" an enemy nation

Accidently kills thousands and thousands of civilians (but most of them are far away so they're not really real people)

... why can't people just grasp that this country is not aggressive. OK, so a few Muslim farmers get hit in the crossfire but understand that America only does this to protect our freedoms and the freedom of this poor citizen... oops, not you... this poor citizen here. 

Is it really that hard to understand they're just trying to make the world a better place and there's no power to be gained from them. 

Some may say that they're the Ying to Russia's Yang. But not me. I say this nation is entirely defensive and anybody who disagrees is obviously from the barbarians hordes to the East or just not as smart as I am. 

Feck Putin too btw. Just in case somebody starts saying "you like dead Ukranian children" or some such nonsense. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Alpha

[Leeds Ram]

25 minutes ago, Alpha said:

No it wouldn't. For all your talk of wrong comparisons that's a shocker. 

The 'we invaded Iraq crew' didn't make comparisons between the objectives of each war. Only that both are disgusting invasions. 

Keep implying everybody that doesn't agree with you must be dumb. You're wearing that arrogance well. 

I noticed when Highgate pointed out the bombing of the Al Jazeera tower that you pointed straight to the small print (which by the way was as pathetic excuse as some of Putin's claims) 

I guess the Gulf Of Tonkin incident didn't happen because somebody from America said it didn't too

I can't really be bothered to go round in circles with you again tbh. If you think my example is rubbish then that's fair enough, I tried to think of a comparison that involved unprovoked aggression against a neighbour, increased strains of nationalism and authoritarianism with a bogus claim of discrimination. I felt like that hypothetical example ticked those boxes and as you know I dispute the 'NATO expansionist' narrative which is why I didn't include a European nation in that hypothetical thus not invoking the Monroe doctrine. But fair enough if you think the comparison is rubbish. 

I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is stupid (sure there are differences of opinion that are perfectly legitimate) but I've seen plenty of views on this matter that are stupid. I do feel like I've explained this distinction several times tbh.  I've seen plenty of people making stupid comparisons between completely different kinds of interventions and the reasonings for said interventions. The labelling of non-equivalent conflicts as equally awful as if there is any moral or political equivalence between the 2 is something I really don't agree with. I do think that is stupid and it does annoy me when it occurs. 

Actually it's not as pathetic as you think, there are numerous examples of non-state and even low-level state actors such as Hizbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda who have form for using civilian buildings as military headquarters or operations centres. This is done precisely because it is assumed they would not be targeted thus using civilians as a form of human shield which is a war crime in of itself. As I wasn't aware of the specific incident and couldn't find anything after a brief search, I didn't make a definitive view clear on the subject. 

Anyway, despite saying I wouldn't engage with you I seem to have done but I shan't be replying to you further as it's a waste of both of our time. 

[BaaLocks]

49 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I can't really be bothered to go round in circles with you again tbh. If you think my example is rubbish then that's fair enough, I tried to think of a comparison that involved unprovoked aggression against a neighbour, increased strains of nationalism and authoritarianism with a bogus claim of discrimination. I felt like that hypothetical example ticked those boxes and as you know I dispute the 'NATO expansionist' narrative which is why I didn't include a European nation in that hypothetical thus not invoking the Monroe doctrine. But fair enough if you think the comparison is rubbish. 

I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is stupid (sure there are differences of opinion that are perfectly legitimate) but I've seen plenty of views on this matter that are stupid. I do feel like I've explained this distinction several times tbh.  I've seen plenty of people making stupid comparisons between completely different kinds of interventions and the reasonings for said interventions. The labelling of non-equivalent conflicts as equally awful as if there is any moral or political equivalence between the 2 is something I really don't agree with. I do think that is stupid and it does annoy me when it occurs. 

Actually it's not as pathetic as you think, there are numerous examples of non-state and even low-level state actors such as Hizbollah, Hamas, and Al-Qaeda who have form for using civilian buildings as military headquarters or operations centres. This is done precisely because it is assumed they would not be targeted thus using civilians as a form of human shield which is a war crime in of itself. As I wasn't aware of the specific incident and couldn't find anything after a brief search, I didn't make a definitive view clear on the subject. 

Anyway, despite saying I wouldn't engage with you I seem to have done but I shan't be replying to you further as it's a waste of both of our time. 

Everything that has happened since Feb 24th is wrong, inexcusable, horrific (a point everyone, except Putin, agrees on). But you seem to be saying "ah, see, that's why we asked for NATO bases in Romania, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine. Because if we didn't have them then we wouldn't be able to defend against this lunatic whose now invaded their neighbours. Ergo, we were right". But the point is that the argument falls down when you say "but their reaction justifies our initial action" because we all know that if the initial action hadn't been proposed we wouldn't have the reaction. Newton's Third Law!

NATO, a blatantly Cold War construct akin to the Warsaw Pact in it's arcaneness, is now suggesting it is right to place military installations right up against the border of Russia and everyone, including Russia, should appreciate this is being done for defensive purposes. Nothing aggressive in that at all. Just making sure we're all safe in our beds. What is NATO there for? What is it's purpose? Genuinely, in the absence of the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War what purpose does it serve, other than to be an aggressor to those that America choose to provoke or believe to be hostile in their intent? Team America World Police it sure ain't. yet those who don't buy into the model of manifest destiny are somehow blind and stupid because they can't see the wonder that American democracy, white picket fences and free trade deals on Chevrolet cars is going to bring them.

To your point on Trump (or Biden) - I wonder how he would have reacted if Russia had proposed military support of Mexico and potential missile installations right up to his famous wall. Don't answer that, we all know.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/03/23/russia-demands-inclusion-bidding-process-host-european-championships/

Are they having a giggle.

[Leeds Ram]

11 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Everything that has happened since Feb 24th is wrong, inexcusable, horrific (a point everyone, except Putin, agrees on). But you seem to be saying "ah, see, that's why we asked for NATO bases in Romania, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine. Because if we didn't have them then we wouldn't be able to defend against this lunatic whose now invaded their neighbours. Ergo, we were right". But the point is that the argument falls down when you say "but their reaction justifies our initial action" because we all know that if the initial action hadn't been proposed we wouldn't have the reaction. Newton's Third Law!

NATO, a blatantly Cold War construct akin to the Warsaw Pact in it's arcaneness, is now suggesting it is right to place military installations right up against the border of Russia and everyone, including Russia, should appreciate this is being done for defensive purposes. Nothing aggressive in that at all. Just making sure we're all safe in our beds. What is NATO there for? What is it's purpose? Genuinely, in the absence of the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War what purpose does it serve, other than to be an aggressor to those that America choose to provoke or believe to be hostile in their intent? Team America World Police it sure ain't. yet those who don't buy into the model of manifest destiny are somehow blind and stupid because they can't see the wonder that American democracy, white picket fences and free trade deals on Chevrolet cars is going to bring them.

To your point on Trump (or Biden) - I wonder how he would have reacted if Russia had proposed military support of Mexico and potential missile installations right up to his famous wall. Don't answer that, we all know.

You're just assuming that Putin's response to 'NATO expansionism' is founded upon that supposed expansion (the supposed expansion being chosen by democratic sovereign states btw) which as I've said and have used analysts and experts to argue that this simply isn't the case. NATO is obviously for those nations in and around eastern Europe a defensive mechanism that's predicated upon a defensive balancing of power from a traditionally hostile neighbour. It's a simple balancing of power strategy i.e., combine with one another for mutual security and bring in a big player that can act as a financer and military ally.  This is starting to play out in Ukraine as Russia isn't appearing as mighty as it appeared before this invasion. It's pretty basic stuff really and given Russia's actions for over a decade it's hardly unsurprising nations are now queueing up to join. Again, this is their right to do this. 

No-one is talking about invading Russia and dethroning Putin to create a liberal democratic state and no-one serious has ever imagined such a thing..... that's just repeating Putin's propaganda at this point. I don't think it's necessary blind or stupid to believe American Democracy isn't perfect but Putin's decrepit authoritarian cesspool of a state is hardly a viable or pleasant alternative. Like most authoritarian states they begin to run into certain limits of legitimation that starts to decay their rule and rely more on coercive techniques. 

I have previously discussed the hypothetical missiles in Mexico scenario and stated my reasoning as to why I don't think it's a valid comparison. 

[Gone]

@Alpha  @BaaLocks just a question. My assumption is your are British citizens living in the UK (that could be wrong I know) based on your posts on this topic it seems your have a dislike of the West/NATO and their policies. So seriously would you rather the UK be stand alone, in NATO or in a Coalition with Russia or China or maybe the Middle East countries ?  

[Tamworthram]

11 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Everything that has happened since Feb 24th is wrong, inexcusable, horrific (a point everyone, except Putin, agrees on). But you seem to be saying "ah, see, that's why we asked for NATO bases in Romania, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine. Because if we didn't have them then we wouldn't be able to defend against this lunatic whose now invaded their neighbours. Ergo, we were right". But the point is that the argument falls down when you say "but their reaction justifies our initial action" because we all know that if the initial action hadn't been proposed we wouldn't have the reaction. Newton's Third Law!

NATO, a blatantly Cold War construct akin to the Warsaw Pact in it's arcaneness, is now suggesting it is right to place military installations right up against the border of Russia and everyone, including Russia, should appreciate this is being done for defensive purposes. Nothing aggressive in that at all. Just making sure we're all safe in our beds. What is NATO there for? What is it's purpose? Genuinely, in the absence of the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War what purpose does it serve, other than to be an aggressor to those that America choose to provoke or believe to be hostile in their intent? Team America World Police it sure ain't. yet those who don't buy into the model of manifest destiny are somehow blind and stupid because they can't see the wonder that American democracy, white picket fences and free trade deals on Chevrolet cars is going to bring them.

To your point on Trump (or Biden) - I wonder how he would have reacted if Russia had proposed military support of Mexico and potential missile installations right up to his famous wall. Don't answer that, we all know.

I think there is, and has been, fault on both sides - East and West but, doesn’t the current situation prove that there doesn’t need to be a Warsaw Pact in existence for some Eastern European nations to be wary of Russia? I suspect the Baltic states for example might be feeling rather more nervous about Russia’s actions and perceived desire to re-establish, through military action, their spheres of influence, if those states were not now part of NATO. That’s my theory as to why NATO still exists.

[Alph]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

@Alpha  @BaaLocks just a question. My assumption is your are British citizens living in the UK (that could be wrong I know) based on your posts on this topic it seems your have a dislike of the West/NATO and their policies. So seriously would you rather the UK be stand alone, in NATO or in a Coalition with Russia or China or maybe the Middle East countries ?  

Dream scenario for me is a United States of Europe without America. 

And instead of calling Blair "sir" he should be called "that war criminal"

[BaaLocks]

11 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

You're just assuming that Putin's response to 'NATO expansionism' is founded upon that supposed expansion (the supposed expansion being chosen by democratic sovereign states btw) which as I've said and have used analysts and experts to argue that this simply isn't the case. NATO is obviously for those nations in and around eastern Europe a defensive mechanism that's predicated upon a defensive balancing of power from a traditionally hostile neighbour. It's a simple balancing of power strategy i.e., combine with one another for mutual security and bring in a big player that can act as a financer and military ally.  This is starting to play out in Ukraine as Russia isn't appearing as mighty as it appeared before this invasion. It's pretty basic stuff really and given Russia's actions for over a decade it's hardly unsurprising nations are now queueing up to join. Again, this is their right to do this. 

No-one is talking about invading Russia and dethroning Putin to create a liberal democratic state and no-one serious has ever imagined such a thing..... that's just repeating Putin's propaganda at this point. I don't think it's necessary blind or stupid to believe American Democracy isn't perfect but Putin's decrepit authoritarian cesspool of a state is hardly a viable or pleasant alternative. Like most authoritarian states they begin to run into certain limits of legitimation that starts to decay their rule and rely more on coercive techniques. 

I have previously discussed the hypothetical missiles in Mexico scenario and stated my reasoning as to why I don't think it's a valid comparison. 

But the NA stands for North Atlantic - what part of Ukraine or Romania needs to be part of a North Atlantic defence programme?

You are right, they are democratic sovereign entities but it was interestingly different in 2015 when 52% of Britain voted not to be in the EU for fear of ending in the same economic organization as Turkey and - oh yes - Ukraine. Your point will be that we exercised our democratic right and left the EU but we primarily did it - number one reason, clearly stated - was immigration from, and economic association with, those countries.

And why would Putin's response not be founded on NATO expansion? NATO has been the biggest threat to Russia since Putin was a KGB agent driving a taxi in Berlin, it pre-dates the Berlin Wall and it's presence does little except reconfirm to Russia that they are somehow the enemy, besmirched with the reputation of the regime that went before and hey, guess what, they ended up playing the very part they were set up to. It has defined pretty much every political, territorial and economic decision Putin has ever made. Sorry, and you can tell your experts from me, NATO made Putin.

NATO was founded to oppose an entity - the Soviet Union - that no longer exists. If you don't believe me this is from their website.

The North Atlantic Alliance was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom – all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union.

It should have been disbanded at the same time as the Warsaw Pact was in order to help Eastern Europe rebuild and reposition itself without fear of a 'defensive neighbour' arming countries right up to it's borders. Which is what Russia ended up doing, and which is why (in part) we are where we are today. BTW - if your point is that then would have left countries and regions like Ukraine and the Baltics open to aggression then I would suggest there are other entities, such as the UN, whose role it is to support in those scenarios.

And I agree, no one is talking about invading Russia - that's just the support people use to regale against the false opposition they create to help make their own spurious arguments stand up in their own heads.

 

[Eddie]

15 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Dream scenario for me is a United States of Europe without America. 

And instead of calling Blair "sir" he should be called "that war criminal"

Careful. You'll trigger the Brexiteers.

[Gone]

6 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Dream scenario for me is a United States of Europe without America. 

And instead of calling Blair "sir" he should be called "that war criminal"

Ok fair enough, I think the 1st bit is a bit risky knowing some of our European friends history in battle. On the 2nd bit I agree.

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

@Alpha  @BaaLocks just a question. My assumption is your are British citizens living in the UK (that could be wrong I know) based on your posts on this topic it seems your have a dislike of the West/NATO and their policies. So seriously would you rather the UK be stand alone, in NATO or in a Coalition with Russia or China or maybe the Middle East countries ?  

I'm not opposed to all policies, I appreciate we live with freedoms and benefits that many, many others do not enjoy.

Your question in some way defines the problem I have - your suggestion is the very core of how America has managed it's foreign policy and influence globally since WWII. You're either with us or you're against us. And that has not been a successful policy for anyone but the United States - note the Middle East, parts of Africa and the current Eastern European conflicts as evidence of that.

My model of preference is a global peacekeeping force that is there to help and support any country that faces undue aggression. But it is not mired in Cold War (such as NATO) or WWII (like the UN) history. For example, how ridiculous is it that Germany is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council? The greatest power in Europe, top four in the world but not invited based on a regime that was in place before any of us were alive. It's, well, potty.

It makes sense for America to have an enemy, then to offer to be the leader of the free world in order to protect those against that enemy. For the past 20 years it has been al Qaeda / ISIS / Iraq / Syria / Daesh / Afghanistan, now it's Russia, tomorrow it will be China. And I struggle to see how so many don't see how we are being played on this one, with the casualties of war being somehow the acceptable price to pay to keep America in that place.

[Leeds Ram]

40 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

But the NA stands for North Atlantic - what part of Ukraine or Romania needs to be part of a North Atlantic defence programme?

You are right, they are democratic sovereign entities but it was interestingly different in 2015 when 52% of Britain voted not to be in the EU for fear of ending in the same economic organization as Turkey and - oh yes - Ukraine. Your point will be that we exercised our democratic right and left the EU but we primarily did it - number one reason, clearly stated - was immigration from, and economic association with, those countries.

And why would Putin's response not be founded on NATO expansion? NATO has been the biggest threat to Russia since Putin was a KGB agent driving a taxi in Berlin, it pre-dates the Berlin Wall and it's presence does little except reconfirm to Russia that they are somehow the enemy, besmirched with the reputation of the regime that went before and hey, guess what, they ended up playing the very part they were set up to. It has defined pretty much every political, territorial and economic decision Putin has ever made. Sorry, and you can tell your experts from me, NATO made Putin.

NATO was founded to oppose an entity - the Soviet Union - that no longer exists. If you don't believe me this is from their website.

The North Atlantic Alliance was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom – all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union.

It should have been disbanded at the same time as the Warsaw Pact was in order to help Eastern Europe rebuild and reposition itself without fear of a 'defensive neighbour' arming countries right up to it's borders. Which is what Russia ended up doing, and which is why (in part) we are where we are today. BTW - if your point is that then would have left countries and regions like Ukraine and the Baltics open to aggression then I would suggest there are other entities, such as the UN, whose role it is to support in those scenarios.

And I agree, no one is talking about invading Russia - that's just the support people use to regale against the false opposition they create to help make their own spurious arguments stand up in their own heads.

 

NATO has had a long-standing commitment of mutual defence in Europe and yes as an organisation it was formed after the second world war to provide potential collective security for what was a time a very real threat. Given in the past 10 years of Putin's actions it's no wonder why there has been an upsurge in countries wanting to join a collective defence arrangement. Countries including Ukraine by the way did largely disarm following the fall of the Soviet Union, it was in 1994 Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapon capability which in hindsight looks like a mistake. Again, given the geo-political history it is not exactly a mystery as to why some wish to join. Nato has even rejected applications from countries such as Georgia and Ukraine rather than bringing them into the fold. Ditto with those who like with the EU have not wished to join either. Claiming it stands for 'North Atlantic' therefore why is it in Europe is as silly as the people who claim the Nazis were socialists because they were called 'National Socialists'. 

I'm honestly not sure why you're bringing in Brexit... My own view is that yes we had a right to leave the EU and exercised that right. Turkey realistically wasn't going to be granted membership anytime soon under Erdogan's leadership and this country has had a turbulent history with not only the EU but its predecessors in the form of the EEC and the Coal and Steel arrangements before the EEC. I actually predicted we'd leave the EU the moment the referendum was announced (1 of only 2 correct election predictions I have made from the off). The reasoning why we did it if you look at multiple surveys was complex and if you dig deeper can be seen in part from decades of economic neglect from core areas of England and Wales that haven't been fixed rather than a simple 'anti immigration' drive. But that's a discussion for another thread. 

Putin could easily seek to re-establish Russian territory that he believes is his by right following the fall and break up of the Soviet Union. There is plenty of documentary evidence from Putin himself establishing this motive where he tries to de-link these nations from their sovereignty and increasingly from Medvedev as well. If you want to buy into the 'It's all NATO's fault' card you can but given that it wasn't that long ago Putin was seen as an ally on the war on terror it hardly really stacks up. We certainly turned a blind eye on his antics in Chechnya because it suited us to do so at the time and as the letter from the defence attaché to Russia for us points out this long-running plan for escalation and expansionism. His actions in Georgia in 2008 again point to a broader view of re-establishing and re-asserting Russian spheres of influence and control over territories. Even his support of the Assad regime in Syria can also be viewed via the prism of him retaining and getting a stronger foothold in the region via an old ally. Again 'NATO expansionism' couldn't occur unless these sovereign nations wanted to join. It's not being foisted upon these countries and it's a form of collective self-defence for precisely this occurrence. 

Well the UN would struggle to manage a crisis like this involving Russia given Russia has a permanent seat on the security council and thus has the power of veto. The only way around that is through a vote via the general assembly. But given the UN's terrible track record stretching back decades on intervening in ethnic cleansings, genocides and aggressive interventions then I wouldn't hold out much hope.  The EU is not designed to provide collective security but is largely an economic and increasingly a governing body but it is not a military alliance.  NATO provides a useful mechanism of collective security for those who want to be under its umbrella and again acts as a balancing force to deter such activity in the first place, it's essentially IR 101. 

Anyway like with Alpha, I feel like I've had the same discussion numerous times with you so I won't be replying further. 

[BaaLocks]

22 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Anyway like with Alpha, I feel like I've had the same discussion numerous times with you so I won't be replying further. 

Fair point and agreed, you clearly haven't taken a single moment to consider a word I (or others) wrote but just simply rolled out the same arguments you've cited over and over. That's probably why it feels like you're going round in circles, and I agree there's not much point in our discussing it further.

I mean, by way of final examples, your very first sentence states "NATO has had a long-standing commitment of mutual defence in Europe" as if it is the divine right of America to be responsible for that. Yet whenever it gets to Putin he's "re-establishing and re-asserting Russian spheres of influence". The irony is palpable.

And then in the second sentence you say "Given in the past 10 years of Putin's actions" when the whole point of previous mails was that Putin has become what he has become based on events stretching way back before that. Again, no attempt to address the point, just another chance to roll out the same arguments again and again. Which is why myself and others have observed you're not listening, you don't want to listen, because you have a PhD, have read the views of experts and clearly know better than those of us trying to get a grasp on what is going on.

You obviously have your agenda firmly set, your views are not for bending, let's not waste each other's time any further.

Edited March 24, 2022 by BaaLocks

[Leeds Ram]

34 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Fair point and agreed, you clearly haven't taken a single moment to consider a word I (or others) wrote but just simply rolled out the same arguments you've cited over and over. That's probably why it feels like you're going round in circles, and I agree there's not much point in our discussing it further.

I mean, by way of final examples, your very first sentence states "NATO has had a long-standing commitment of mutual defence in Europe" as if it is the divine right of America to be responsible for that. Yet whenever it gets to Putin he's "re-establishing and re-asserting Russian spheres of influence". The irony is palpable.

And then in the second sentence you say "Given in the past 10 years of Putin's actions" when the whole point of previous mails was that Putin has become what he has become based on events stretching way back before that. Again, no attempt to address the point, just another chance to roll out the same arguments again and again. Which is why myself and others have observed you're not listening, you don't want to listen, because you have a PhD, have read the views of experts and clearly know better than those of us trying to get a grasp on what is going on.

You obviously have your agenda firmly set, your views are not for bending, let's not waste each other's time any further.

I'd say the same in regards to your argument on NATO as well. You've stuck to the same line from my previous conversations with you. I think that's fine if that's honestly what you think but don't pretend it's just me who is the inflexible one in this conversation, rather than 2 people with strong views that fundamentally probably aren't for shifting. 

The difference is the consent of the nations involved, the reasoning for it, and the nature of nations involved. Again, I feel like I've discussed the differences between Syria and Ukraine before so I'm not re-treading old ground. Btw America isn't NATO- NATO is an organisation of which America is a part of but not the sole member. 

I did attempt to address the points you made by disputing the narrative you're crafting with an alternative one that attempted to unpick what you were claiming. I even listed reasons why in the past 20 years this 'NATO made Putin' narrative is just very hard to sustain so I feel like I did attempt to address this narrative. Maybe you didn't notice that I don't know. You're just rolling out the same arguments about how NATO has made Putin who he is today and how it's all NATO's fault and if only we'd back off he'd play nicely. It's something I've challenged and don't buy because it ignores certain things that I've spelled out again and again that you just ignore. I didn't engage you in this round of conversation, you engaged me and I suggest you don't in the future as it simply leads to this kind of 'conversation'. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Leeds Ram

[Gone]

4 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

You're either with us or you're against us

I’m glad we’re with them, rather them than most others imo.