Russia invades Ukraine

[TwoYellas]

Well, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that. There was a chance for the USSR and United States to have been actual allies (or at least not enemies) after WW2 but there was a breakdown of trust, and the rest is history.

There was also an opportunity for Russia and the US to be friends after the Cold War, that also went to pot!

Believe it or not, however unfathomable it may seem now, there could be friendship between the West and Russia at some time in the future if the current crisis can be resolved. Pootin isn't going to be there forever as wasn't say Blair, for example.

Take for example France and Germany, a cycle of hatred, war, destruction and revenge for hundreds of years; including the 'Thirty Years War' where up to a half of the German population were wiped out! After WW2 they finally realised next time it would be terminal and maybe it's time to begin to cooperate. Not a bad idea, more stress free for Joe Public!

It is possible, one problem that is a barrier to cooperation between nations and the subsequent betterment to the populations of respective countries (apart from inept planners and leaders) is dumbed down, flag draped, 'my country is always fantastic' type of nationalistic thinking. These people are the easiest to manipulate by corrupt leaders. IMHO

 

[Cloud Strife]

Believe it or not, however unfathomable it may seem now, there could be friendship between the West and Russia at some time in the future if the current crisis can be resolved. Pootin isn't going to be there forever as wasn't say Blair, for example.

However, Russia has no democratic traditions. Post war France and Germany has worked because (West) Germany was forced to have a very liberal Basic Law, and most of their stability comes from the fact that it requires a lot of compromise between the federal and state governments there.

If we invade Russia, change the regime and impose shackles like the three post-war German states had, then it's possible.

Apparently Kadyrov in Chechnya has refused to implement the draft. He claims that they already supplied far more troops than they were required to, although the gossip is that he's privately furious over the latest prisoner exchange for the defenders of the Azovstal plant.

 

[najaB]

There was also an opportunity for Russia and the US to be friends after the Cold War, that also went to pot!

Believe it or not, however unfathomable it may seem now, there could be friendship between the West and Russia at some time in the future if the current crisis can be resolved. Pootin isn't going to be there forever as wasn't say Blair, for example.

I don't doubt that's possible, but sadly it isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

[TwoYellas]

However, Russia has no democratic traditions. Post war France and Germany has worked because (West) Germany was forced to have a very liberal Basic Law, and most of their stability comes from the fact that it requires a lot of compromise between the federal and state governments there.

Democratic values are for the people of each regions to work on. Yes, we are further along the democracy path than Russia - history has shown it can't be implemented by the gun.

Externally however, well you can make your own mind up about how we have assisted democracy (or not) in other places. It's for people to do their own research independently, by being balanced and taking off ones rose tinted specs.

My view is each place works for democratic reform and continual improvement. Including here, it's got to be fought for (in the peaceful sense). And all nations cooperate with each other. Sounds like utopian delusion, perhaps. But not impossible.

Let's hope this conflict doesn't result in some quite unpleasant, strife arriving from the direction of the clouds - anywhere. @Cloud Strife.

 

[Perthsaint]

If we invade Russia

Say what now?

 

[najaB]

Say what now?

That's rather the point - it ain't going to happen.

 

[yorksrob]

Democratic values are for the people of each regions to work on. Yes, we are further along the democracy path than Russia - history has shown it can't be implemented by the gun.

Externally however, well you can make your own mind up about how we have assisted democracy (or not) in other places. It's for people to do their own research independently, by being balanced and taking off ones rose tinted specs.

My view is each place works for democratic reform and continual improvement. Including here, it's got to be fought for (in the peaceful sense). And all nations cooperate with each other. Sounds like utopian delusion, perhaps. But not impossible.

Let's hope this conflict doesn't result in some quite unpleasant, strife arriving from the direction of the clouds - anywhere. @Cloud Strife.

Exactly, as Ukraine had been doing before an enemy power chose to invade them.

If Russia chooses to remain an authoritarian cess-pool, that's up to them, but when they attempt to impose that on neighbouring states, those states should be supported.

 

[TwoYellas]

O

Exactly, as Ukraine had been doing before an enemy power chose to invade them.

If Russia chooses to remain an authoritarian cess-pool, that's up to them, but when they attempt to impose that on neighbouring states, those states should be supported.

Very very simplistic and incorrect interpretation of the conflict. I've already given my reasons for this and provided credible sources such as former diplomat and expert on the area George Kennan. I've posted them today and last night. If you want to engage those arguments feel free to do so.

You've got look at the history of the build up to hostilities which goes back to the end of the Cold War. Nobody chooses a future of being an 'authoritarian cess-pool’.

As I say I'm willing to engage in a sensible, productive debate. But the idea that Ukraine was well on the way to a democratic future before the evil empire invaded and we in our efforts to spread freedom and democracy intervened is a reductive argument. Much, much more to it than that.

 

[gingerheid]

It's not a reductive argument; it's in fact the entire point. Russia is intervening entirely to stop Ukraine exercising it's choice to take steps towards a more democratic path (and of course the often overlooked aspect to this is that at the same time it has successfully invaded Belarus, in order to prevent it doing so).

The argument that you offer is there, and might be a good one except as far as any conclusions it draws about how we might react. It's the same argument that says if you have nice things someone will steal them. People still try to have nice things.

 

[yorksrob]

O

Very very simplistic and incorrect interpretation of the conflict. I've already given my reasons for this and provided credible sources such as former diplomat and expert on the area George Kennan. I've posted them today and last night. If you want to engage those arguments feel free to do so.

You've got look at the history of the build up to hostilities which goes back to the end of the Cold War. Nobody chooses a future of being an 'authoritarian cess-pool’.

As I say I'm willing to engage in a sensible, productive debate. But the idea that Ukraine was well on the way to a democratic future before the evil empire invaded and we in our efforts to spread freedom and democracy intervened is a reductive argument. Much, much more to it than that.

Well, you're not because you're a Russia apologist.

What needs to happen is that Russia needs to return to its borders where it belongs.

I hope that the one good thing that may come of this, is that the West learns to not become reliant on enemy powers.

 

[TwoYellas]

Well, you're not because you're a Russia apologist.

What needs to happen is that Russia needs to return to its borders where it belongs.

I hope that the one good thing that may come of this, is that the West learns to not become reliant on enemy powers.

Well, now you're just making things up - a puerile slur. As I posted only this morning at 9:45:

Of course there was no excuse for *Pootin to recklessly attack and it makes him the chief aggressor. But I think Russia does have security concerns going back to Gorbachev and Yeltsin which is the viewpoint not given to us in the media. Therefore I think there's blame to go round. But once again, that's not to absolve the aggressor of war crimes (which people usually get away with anyway, east or west).

Just because I don't agree with your viewpoint does not make me an 'apologist'.
As I only wish to engage in civilised debate - I'm leaving it there.

 

[najaB]

But the idea that Ukraine was well on the way to a democratic future before the evil empire invaded and we in our efforts to spread freedom and democracy intervened is a reductive argument. Much, much more to it than that.

Yes, there are more details, but at a high level the fact remains that Putin felt threatened by Ukraine's attempts to move away from being a Russian client state. Had the events of 2014 not occurred then the events of 2022 wouldn't either.

 

[takno]

Well, now you're just making things up - a puerile slur. As I posted only this morning at 9:45:




Just because I don't agree with your viewpoint does not make me an 'apologist'.
As I only wish to engage in civilised debate - I'm leaving it there.

You're literally quoting yourself being an apologist for Russia here. Just because you state that Putin is a big meanie, it doesn't really offset the fact that you are apologising for and justifying the actions of Russia based on an utterly discredited worldview which was widely rejected 20 years ago. Several people on here have made it clear that Russia doesn't "own" a buffer zone, and that Nato expansion happened following the democratic will of the countries surrounding Russia. As far as I'm aware you've only quoted the ancient words of an already hopelessly-outdated American former diplomat, and noted idiot Noam Chomsky. There isn't a lot to respond to in that.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Say what now?

That's what it would/will take to transform Russia into a normal European state. Otherwise, the best we can hope for is the break up of the Russian Federation, which might allow for the formation of a Western-orientated "Malarossiya" encompassing everything west of a line stretching from Arkhangelsk to Rostov-on-Don. The rest of the Russian Federation would then become bandit and authoritarian states, depending on various local factors.

Several people on here have made it clear that Russia doesn't "own" a buffer zone, and that Nato expansion happened following the democratic will of the countries surrounding Russia.

Indeed. The concept of the Russian 'near abroad' is dead, and was never accepted by most states.

I understand why Russia wants a buffer zone, and I understand their way of thinking when it comes to imposing a regime in Kyiv. It doesn't mean that either is acceptable.

 

[yorksrob]

Chomsky's position is interesting, but it seems to hinge on the idea that because the USA wouldn't accept Mexico (for example) becoming a Chinese satellite, Russia shouldn't be expected to accept Ukraine becoming a "western" satellite.

It's nonsense really, because Ukraine is just expressing its desire not to be a Russian satellite. It can join the EU to trade. It could apply to join NATO because it doesn't trust its neighbour. Quite rightly as it turns out.

 

[TwoYellas]

You're literally quoting yourself being an apologist for Russia here. Just because you state that Putin is a big meanie, it doesn't really offset the fact that you are apologising for and justifying the actions of Russia based on an utterly discredited worldview which was widely rejected 20 years ago.

No, you have totally misunderstood or deliberately chosen to misinterpret . I've said that Putin is a war criminal and that the attack was completely unjustified. In fact I'd like there to be war crimes trials for all war criminals. As I don't like the poor to suffer because of the actions of a few.

I've also said there are other factors that have led to provocation as seen from the Russian side these concerns precede Putin and go back to Gorbachev.

So unjustified war where the criminals should face justice, but there are security concerns that have to be addressed in a peace deal. The powers that be understand this - may not be in the news at the minute, but they know the concerns. Nothing too controversial or difficult to understand.

As far as I'm aware you've only quoted the ancient words of an already hopelessly-outdated American former diplomat, and noted idiot Noam Chomsky. There isn't a lot to respond to in that.

One of the most important intellectuals of all time. Righto!

As for the apologists it's those that don't call for war crimes trials for ALL war criminals.

 

[Perthsaint]

Chomsky's position is interesting, but it seems to hinge on the idea that because the USA wouldn't accept Mexico (for example) becoming a Chinese satellite, Russia shouldn't be expected to accept Ukraine becoming a "western" satellite.

It's nonsense really, because Ukraine is just expressing its desire not to be a Russian satellite. It can join the EU to trade. It could apply to join NATO because it doesn't trust its neighbour. Quite rightly as it turns out.

Mexico isn't going to become a Chinese satellite anytime soon because there would be no benefit to it in doing so. But if it did decide to the US couldn't stop it short of annexing it. And it couldn't annexe a nation of 130m people without significant cost.

 

[takno]

One of the most important intellectuals of all time. Righto!

I did say he's a noted idiot. I'm not sure I'm willing to take back the suggestion that he's an idiot just because a large section of the left gives such reverence to his increasingly-erratic ramblings on topics he doesn't appear to understand

 

[Ediswan]

As far as I'm aware you've only quoted the ancient words of an already hopelessly-outdated American former diplomat, and noted idiot Noam Chomsky.

When did Noam Chomsky serve as a diplomat ?

 

[yorksrob]

Mexico isn't going to become a Chinese satellite anytime soon because there would be no benefit to it in doing so. But if it did decide to the US couldn't stop it short of annexing it. And it couldn't annexe a nation of 130m people without significant cost.

It is a silly example - it was Chomsky's - but it's interesting in ways.

(I have family in Mexico, and they have no interest in being anyone's satellite)

 

[Perthsaint]

When did Noam Chomsky serve as a diplomat ?

Note the comma.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2022 ==

It is a silly example - it was Chomsky's - but it's interesting in ways.

(I have family in Mexico, and they have no interest in being anyone's satellite)

Sure. The point is that Chomsky believes the USA would prevent Mexico becoming a Chinese satellite. A view that belongs in the 1950s.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose the equivalent is that the US could roll the tanks into Mexico and try and replace its government, if it chose to orientate itself more towards South America.

Very unlikely I think.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As far as I'm aware you've only quoted the ancient words of an already hopelessly-outdated American former diplomat, and noted idiot Noam Chomsky.

When did Noam Chomsky serve as a diplomat ?

And there you have the perfect example of why the Oxford comma is sometimes essential! What a shame this is the Ukraine thread, not the Threse Coffey thread

 

[yorksrob]

Note the comma.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2022 ==


Sure. The point is that Chomsky believes the USA would prevent Mexico becoming a Chinese satellite. A view that belongs in the 1950s.

That would pre-suppose Mexico wanting to become a Chinese satellite (which it wouldn't).

 

[Perthsaint]

I suppose the equivalent is that the US could roll the tanks into Mexico and try and replace its government, if it chose to orientate itself more towards South America.

Very unlikely I think.

The Americans aren't going to roll their tanks into a nation of 130m people irrespective of what Chomsky thinks.

 

[Ediswan]

And there you have the perfect example of why the Oxford comma is sometimes essential! What a shame this is the Ukraine thread, not the Threse Coffey thread

The Oxford comma only applies to lists of three or more items.

 

[yorksrob]

The Americans aren't going to roll their tanks into a nation of 130m people irrespective of what Chomsky thinks.

Quite. Which goes to illustrate that his equivalence is not really credible.

 

[TwoYellas]

I did say he's a noted idiot. I'm not sure I'm willing to take back the suggestion that he's an idiot just because a large section of the left gives such reverence to his increasingly-erratic ramblings on topics he doesn't appear to understand

I'm sorry but you failed to understand, along with another equally confused poster, my quite straightforward and easy to understand argument about the conflict.

And now you say that the good professor, one of the most important intellectuals and humanitarians in the world doesn't understand topics he comments on.

The irony of this is quite astonishing!

 

[yorksrob]

I'm sorry but you failed to understand, along with another equally confused poster, my quite straightforward and easy to understand argument about the conflict.

And now you say that the good professor, one of the most important intellectuals and humanitarians in the world doesn't understand topics he comments on.

The irony of this is quite astonishing!

He has an interesting view, worth considering, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Perthsaint]

Quite. Which goes to illustrate that his equivalence is not really credible.

Indeed. His views are decades out of date.