@vivify saidCrimea was mostly pro Russian. They asked Putin to come in. Crimea invited him.
a) Russia already annexed Crimea
b) Only a month ago Putin denied that he was even going to invade Ukraine. We can't trust him right now.
nor is Belarus part of Russia now just because they are somewhat allied ( not allied enough for Belarus to join the Ukraine war so far).
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/europe/belarus-ukraine/index.html
"Belarusian military could 'soon' join war in Ukraine, US and NATO officials say"
@earl-of-trumps said" But they surely can't stand by and watch this torment to so many innocent people"
They do have to tip-toe gingerly, now, don't they.
If NATO did not want to risk nuclear war, they never should have allowed the United States
to supply NATO states Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey with Nukes. *That* was reckless.
But that's water over the dam now.
What is NATO to do? Well, perhaps they can bargain it out with Putin, not sure. But they surely
can't stand by and watch this torment to so many innocent people.
You are repeating propaganda talking points. As if the USA doesn't torment many innocent people during invasions. Get real.
@vivify says -
"Should NATO do nothing? If Putin's annexation of Belarus was in Response to NATO expansion, shouldn't NATO be concerned about recent Russian expansion? Keep in mind Belarus borders Moldova, a former Soviet state."
------------------------
Putin has not annexed Belarus. they have been allies all along. Belarus would be a vassal state of Russia.
And Moldova does not border Belarus. Belarus is north of Ukraine, Moldova is south.
@vivify saidWhat do you propose? A nuclear war?
Russia has pretty much annexed the entire Ukraine. That means Russia now borders four Members of NATO and has missiles in striking range. Russia has also quietly retaken Belarus, with Lukashenko now in Putin's pocket.
Should NATO do nothing? If Putin's annexation of Belarus was in Response to NATO expansion, shouldn't NATO be concerned about recent Russian expansion? Ke ...[text shortened]... o call them idiots merely for gathering to discuss this latest Russian expansion doesn't make sense.
Are you off your bloody rocker?
Why do you think people pussy-foot around the US when they have mad-hatter leaders saying and doing unspeakable things? Or China?
Because when nutters are in charge, it’s difficult to estimate rationality. One nuclear war and climate change is gonna look like a fresh walk in the bloody park.
The terrible reality is that if Russia wants Ukraine, the US wants Mexico or China wants Taiwan… there is squat diddley to be done about it in the moment.
Protest it, sanction the bastards, but to save lives you have to surrender and work things out afterwards.
That’s the monster you’ve created with nuclear weapons. And to a lesser extent biological and chemical weapons. But nukes are the game changer.
The tactics for defeating a nuclear power are long, drawn-out financial pressures (like Afghanistan).
We can’t risk nuclear war. With someone like Putin in power God only knows where he’ll stop in Ukraine. The whole of Ukraine’s infrastructure is destroyed. Thousands of civilians dead. Millions of civilians displaced. And the world economy in tatters.
Say Ukraine had just surrendered. And then the world applied the economic sanctions. And Russia is the bad guy. And Ukrainians went into various forms of either civil disobedience or winning the souls of the stationed Russian troops with the exact opposite of disobedience…
No displaced people, no thousands of dead, infrastructure intact and the ultimate outcome will roughly be the same as it’s going to be. Bar a nuclear bloody war, that is.
What’s the ultimate outcome? You can’t control a whole area the size of Ukraine, Mexico, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam if the people don’t want it. Within a decade powers shift, concessions made and diplomatic face has to be saved.
Russia should never have invaded Ukraine. Full stop. Not just because it’s morally wrong, but because there is no positive outcome possible for Russia within that move. I made that argument a month ago.
There end-game here is completely unclear.
But by going head to head with a crazy nuclear nation (I’m deliberately not touching on the NATO expansion part of the situation for the moment, to keep it simple), Russia is forced to become ever more destructive.
That is not a good thing. Especially when you can’t really do anything about it except end the world in 6000+ nuclear explosions.
And that itch you feel, that feeling of powerlessness and hopelessness… that’s your ego. That’s your body reacting to how unfair it is.
That is, however, the reality when dealing with the US, China or Russia for the last 60 years.
@earl-of-trumps saidNo it didn’t.
@vivify says -
"Ukrainians have put up a very good fight, but just like every other city, it's only a matter of time before the capitol falls."
------------
But that alone does not win the war. Let us not forget that in WWII, the USSR lost Moscow to the Germans.
@metal-brain saidSo if the United States does something wrong, I am supposed to cheer it and let others do it too?
" But they surely can't stand by and watch this torment to so many innocent people"
You are repeating propaganda talking points. As if the USA doesn't torment many innocent people during invasions. Get real.
There is clearly something wrong with the metal in your brain
@earl-of-trumps saidNATO hasn't admitted Ukraine specifically because it did not want to risk war with Russia.
They do have to tip-toe gingerly, now, don't they.
If NATO did not want to risk nuclear war, they never should have allowed the United States
to supply NATO states Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey with Nukes. *That* was reckless.
But that's water over the dam now.
What is NATO to do? Well, perhaps they can bargain it out with Putin, not sure. But they surely
can't stand by and watch this torment to so many innocent people.
Now we're embarking on a path that greatly increases the chance of war to defend a country we declined to commit to go to war for.
It's borderline insanity.
@vivify saidRussia annexed Crimea 8 years ago after the Ukraine's supposedly pro-Russian President was violently overthrown in a coup supported by the West. There's very few experts in the field who don't believe that a substantial majority of the People in the Crimea supported the annexation.
a) Russia already annexed Crimea
b) Only a month ago Putin denied that he was even going to invade Ukraine. We can't trust him right now.
not allied enough for Belarus to join the Ukraine war so far.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/22/europe/belarus-ukraine/index.html
"Belarusian military could 'soon' join war in Ukraine, US and NATO officials say"
I don't care about "trusting Putin". NATO is already committed to defending its member States if they are attacked and that would remain true even if NATO had no troops in the Eastern European member nations (as they did not until 2014). But rushing such a substantial number of troops next to a war zone increases the chance of war beyond question.
@shavixmir said"Obviously I'm not suggesting war."---Vivify, from that some post you quoted.
What do you propose? A nuclear war?
Are you off your bloody rocker?
The terrible reality is that if Russia wants Ukraine, the US wants Mexico or China wants Taiwan… there is squat diddley to be done about it in the moment.
I guess you're right. But what then? Do we let the superpowers invade at will?
If Russia invades Moldova, a member of NATO and former Soviet state, should NATO come their defense?
And that itch you feel, that feeling of powerlessness and hopelessness… that’s your ego. That’s your body reacting to how unfair it is.
That is, however, the reality when dealing with the US, China or Russia for the last 60 years.
Well, that's utterly fukked up. But that seems to be reality.
Again, you're probably right.
@shavixmir saidI stand corrected, Moscow was not lost to the Germans, WWII. Close... but not quite.
No it didn’t.
1 edit
@vivify saidMoldova is not a member of NATO nor is it seeking membership. There have been Russian "peacekeeping" forces in Moldova for about 30 years. https://www.newsweek.com/moldova-monitoring-russian-troops-already-its-soil-we-are-alert-1684701
"Obviously I'm not suggesting war."---Vivify, from that some post you quoted.
The terrible reality is that if Russia wants Ukraine, the US wants Mexico or China wants Taiwan… there is squat diddley to be done about it in the moment.
I guess you're right. But what then? Do we let the superpowers invade at will?
If Russia invades Moldova, a member of NATO and ...[text shortened]... /b]
Well, that's utterly fukked up. But that seems to be reality.
Again, you're probably right.
@no1marauder saidWhich means what? That Crimean annexation was more justifiable?
Russia annexed Crimea 8 years ago after the Ukraine's supposedly pro-Russian President was violently overthrown in a coup supported by the West. There's very few experts in the field who don't believe that a substantial majority of the People in the Crimea supported the annexation.
But rushing such a substantial number of troops next to a war zone increases the chance of war beyond question.
Agreed. My point: are NATO's actions not justified?
Maybe this question is pointless. Whether NATO is justified or not, potential WWIII in the nuclear age isn't worth it. Maybe that's your overall point as well.