The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[SolarisKenzo]

Will slaughtering Ukrainians in Donbass help not getting NATO closer?

Looks like they got the exact opposite.

 

[Redshift]

@rsemmes, can I ask this genuinely: do your arguments ever substantially go beyond whataboutism?

This thread isn’t about the U.S., EU hypocrisy, or whether other countries have committed crimes in the past. It’s about Russia’s war against Ukraine and its outcomes.

If the standard is that no action can be judged as a mistake or irrational because “someone else once did something similar”, then discussion here becomes pointless. Under that logic, nothing is ever a good or bad decision or outcome, and there’s nothing left to analyse.

So I’m trying to understand: are you arguing that Russia’s actions were strategically sound given the outcomes, or are you simply saying others are also doing mistakes? Because those are very different claims.

Well said

 

[Redshift]

There is no reason to believe that further nato expansion would not have happened anyways is there? After all Ukraine was never supposed to be part of NATO either. So from Russia's point of view it was a lose or lose less option. Have Ukraine as NATO for sure and potentially Finland later or have just potentially Finland later. It also needs to be taken into account that the nation's NATO has since expanded to are not really all that mush of a shock. As in there were decidedly pro western as it was. Or at least very unlikely to be pro Russian in any event. This prior to the reforms made under zelenski was not the case in Ukraine, Ukraine was untill then something of a buffer state for Russia so NATO was in terms of threat perception from Russia much more of a issue then finniland for example. There is of course alot more to this aswell eg. Military capabilities, relative diplomatic influence, even the fact Russian had made clear they would respond to such a action and the ramifications for it if it had not are factors worth of consideration I'll just say ect for the rest here

The jury is still out if it was a wise decision but there is a solid argument it was also a forced choice of bad or worse options. This was not a choice made in a vacuum after all

What does "never supposed to be" mean? No nation or human is bound for all of eternity to be one thing or another, NATO threats to Russia didn't exist, there is ZERO political will within Europe to invade Russia and NOBODY should be anyone else's BUFFER state against their will no latter how many "ramifications" are made clear.

 

[rsemmes]

NATO threats to Russia didn't exist

We have been here before:
If Russia considers that Ukraine's NATO's membership is a threat, it is a threat. The threat (to Russia) exist based on Russian's considerations, not on yours, not on NATO's.
It is naive, or something else, to think that we rule what is a threat from a second country to a third country. (And, adding -out of thread- hypocrisy to that, we react to those threats very selectively.)

 

[Aleks.ov]

It’s an interesting formulation, and I’m aware of how much modern Russian elite rhetoric is shaped by reactive opposition to the West.

What I’m less clear on is whether this really reflects how the broader population sees it. Do people genuinely believe they’re “fighting the West” as such? And do they actually see Russia as operating on the same level as the US, China, or even the EU bloc, to the point where it could meaningfully restrain this Western impunity?

Are you surprised ? And what should be the reaction of ordinary people if we see the continuous discrediting of Russian athletes, tens of thousands of sanctions introduced, Western companies renouncing their obligations within Russia, the blocking of cross-border transfers, the seizure and essentially theft of foreign assets, etc. Not to mention Western pop culture, where Russians are overwhelmingly portrayed as villains.
I hope you understand that the full brunt of the consequences of this confrontation hardly touches the political elites and mainly hits ordinary people?
The global world has irreversibly changed, new centers of power have emerged, and the traditional Western model of expansion and dominance no longer works, this is precisely why conflicts are inevitable.

 

[swerve]

...Again the is not a policy they embarked upon its one they were forced into and honestly is one from all indications they would have preferred to avoid. ...

Nonsense. You're seeing it only from ONE point of view, that of the Russian leadership. I'm looking at it from multiple points of view. You're saying that only Russia is right, & Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Moldova, Romania & a dozens of others are all wrong.

 

[swerve]

We have been here before:
If Russia considers that Ukraine's NATO's membership is a threat, it is a threat.

Many people imagine dangers that do not exist. You're saying that it doesn't matter how false a belief is, if someone (anyone, however deluded) has it, it is true. Do you really not understand how utterly ridiculous that is?

 

[rsemmes]

Many people imagine dangers that do not exist. You're saying that it doesn't matter how false a belief is, if someone (anyone, however deluded) has it, it is true. Do you really not understand how utterly ridiculous that is?

May I suggest that a moderator using the word "nonsense" doesn't look too moderate?

 

[rsemmes]

Many people imagine dangers that do not exist. You're saying that it doesn't matter how false a belief is, if someone (anyone, however deluded) has it, it is true. Do you really not understand how utterly ridiculous that is?

If Kenya (or Russia) says that Russia is not a threat to Ukraine, the threat ceases to exist? (However deluded, misinformed, un-informed or biased.)

 

[swerve]

If Kenya (or Russia) says that Russia is not a threat to Ukraine, the threat ceases to exist? (However deluded, misinformed, un-informed or biased.)

That's consistent with your opinions, not mine. You're the one saying that evidence doesn't matter, only opinions, however false.

 

[Vivendi]

All the evidence points to Russia invading Ukraine not because of a hypothetical "NATO threat" (irrespective of that perceived threat being is real or not) but because they wanted to expand their empire. Ukraine was not about to enter NATO, and Russia knows full well that just the threat of invasion would have been enough to keep Ukraine out of NATO, indefinitely. However, Russia wanted much more than that, they wanted their empire back. Putin found it difficult to build an empire without invading Ukraine. So from his perspective it was logical to invade. Most people in Europe will not accept this, and therefore we should and must support Ukraine until Russia accepts that they must stop this madness. And Ukraine should of course be accepted into NATO, if they want to of course.

Russia can of course believe and say whatever they want. What they cannot do, is invade other countries in Europe, whatever reason they have invented for doing so, and I believe there have been many (NATO, de-Nazification, de-satanisation, de-jewification, etc.).

 

[Vivendi]

If Kenya (or Russia) says that Russia is not a threat to Ukraine, the threat ceases to exist? (However deluded, misinformed, un-informed or biased.)

We have hard evidence that Russia is a threat to Ukraine so not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[rsemmes]

That's consistent with your opinions, not mine. You're the one saying that evidence doesn't matter.

I think my point is what Russia considers evidence. (However deluded, misinformed, un-informed or biased.)

 

[Vivendi]

The question becomes, what now. And the situation is that the level of expenditure in materiel and lives is sustainable for Russia for likely years to come. How many years is unclear, but at least a couple. It's unsustainable for Ukraine, who depends on foreign funds to keep their state budget afloat, nevermind the actual war effort.

I disagree that the war is "sustainable for Russia for years to come" -- you are right that Ukraine needs a lot of support from other countries however also Russia is dependent on support from China, North Korea to keep things running. If in particular if China stopped all support Russia would soon run into issues. So both parties are dependent on other countries to keep the war going at least at the current level.

 

[rsemmes]

All the evidence points to Russia ... expand its empire.

I started reading after the invasion, I have to disagree with that "all the evidence".

 

[rsemmes]

I disagree that the war is "sustainable for Russia for years to come" -- you are right that Ukraine needs a lot of support from other countries however also Russia is dependent on support from China, North Korea to keep things running. If in particular if China stopped all support Russia would soon run into issues. So both parties are dependent on other countries to keep the war going at least at the current level.

True, but not at the same level, that difference is important "for years to come". Also, Russia has something to trade.

 

[Vivendi]

I think my point is what Russia considers evidence. (However deluded, misinformed, un-informed or biased.)

You do know that Russian officials lie a lot, about almost everything? So how do you know what they actually think about this?

In any case; People in Ukraine don't want to be raped, tortured, killed, they don't want to be pressed into military service by Moscow and sent to kill their fellow countrymen in Ukraine, and they don't want their children kidnapped and sent to Russia or even North Korea. So they fight, and Europe should increase support to Ukraine, and do more to sanction russia.