Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[Nerusy]

Since we are on the topic of Chamberlain I am saddened that his attempt to avoid another major conflict in Europe is remembered as something cowardly or wrong.

Partition of Czechoslovakia where Germans people got to be returned to a German state and Polish people get to return to Polish state, and people now treat the idea as absolute horror. Self determination is apparently the worst thing, we ought to subjugate people to live in borders that other great powers decided, not what people want. The horror of self determination (I am making a heavy assumption that Sudetenland wanted to reunite with Germany, which I think is a fair view).

The absolute insanity of geopolitics that is largely created by unilateral view by great powers is obscene. We support certain separatist states because right to self determination but we oppose other's right to self determination because borders after WW2 cannot be changed as this is the supposed fundamental pillar of world stability.

I think Chamberlain did what he had to in order to avoid massive human life loss just after Europe had went through the Great War. Yes history tells us that Hitler was a bit too insane and that attempt did not save the world but I am glad he tried. I am glad that European countries will try to resolve this in a peaceful manner rather than continue to push Europe into another hot war. And yes this resolution will not be pleasant for either side but people seem to now have forgotten that war is an absolute hell. They have grown far too comfortable bombing somebody in middle east, far away and think of war as some nationalistic parade of power and might.

 

[Hagar]

I've only been off and on watching this situation. But from what I can tell Putin is wary of the amount of NATO activity near the Russian border. So he's moved his army and military fire power to his side of the border.

I think he has a point if that is what NATO is doing. It's not helped that every time a US spokes person speaks they keep mentioning NATO, as though Ukraine is part of NATO.

I don't see much appetite for a war with Russia from the European (EU) nations. There was no EU country involved in the Budapest deal. If they are ok if Russia invades why are we more concerned than they are?

Unless there are some minerals or natural resources in the Ukraine that's not being mentioned on the regular news?

Because after the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine was left with a **** load of ex soviet nuclear arsenal which it could have kept and become a nuclear state. Ukraine was persuaded to hand back the warheads etc. on a guarantee that it's sovereignty would be maintained if an invasion was threatened by Russia. Ergo, the guarantee may be being called.

 

[Firestar_3x]

Macron said a deal looks very close to stop a war

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60281863

Lol, Macron who is trying to win back any credibility both at home and on the world stage.

 

[NickK]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60281863

France isn’t a full NATO member from General Franco’s time. France believes in doing it’s own thing, regardless of what it means to the EU members being one of the larger economies in the EU. Also with strained US-French relations this continues to widen the divide following the loss of the Australian submarine contract.
So this offers the ability to give the US the finger. France could also cause problems for US companies wanting to access the EU market (Intel etc).
France has, in the past, provided arms to asia, so they could be looking to Russia to open good comms to sell into China..

I don’t know what France has in terms of leverage or to sell to the Russians.. other than withholding nuclear power to EU states forcing gas to be more important to Germany etc. as France isn’t a full NATO member, then it can’t speak on behalf of NATO.. which means it has no sway over NATO membership applications by now sovereign ex-soviet states.

 

[GGizmo]

Because after the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine was left with a **** load of ex soviet nuclear arsenal which it could have kept and become a nuclear state. Ukraine was persuaded to hand back the warheads etc. on a guarantee that it's sovereignty would be maintained if an invasion was threatened by Russia. Ergo, the guarantee may be being called.

I know about the deal. But apart from the UK and US (and Ukraine itself) nobody else seems concerned.

I think before we get involved we need to think about the repercussions for us in potentially going in to conflict with Russia. It's not really about right and wrong. It's about balancing the risk. If more european countries were getting involved, especially France and Germany i.e. committing armed forces, then the threat would be shared.

Biden removing the sanctions on the building of the NS2 as caused this. Now Germany doesn't care about Ukraine. It had to before because thats where the oil pipeline was coming from. Biden should try and put sanctions back on NS2 and hope Germany/EU doesn't tell him where to go.

If an invasion happens and we mount a resistance, we could look very weak.

 

[Hagar]

I know about the deal. But apart from the UK and US (and Ukraine itself) nobody else seems concerned.

I think before we get involved we need to think about the repercussions for us in potentially going in to conflict with Russia. It's not really about right and wrong. It's about balancing the risk. If more european countries were getting involved, especially France and Germany i.e. committing armed forces, then the threat would be shared.

Biden removing the sanctions on the building of the NS2 as caused this. Now Germany doesn't care about Ukraine. It had to before because thats where the oil pipeline was coming from. Biden should try and put sanctions back on NS2 and hope Germany/EU doesn't tell him where to go.

If an invasion happens and we mount a resistance, we could look very weak.

If an invasion happens we are unlikely to be immediately involved other than sanctioning the hell out of Russia and supplying hardware assistance to Ukraine. If that does not work then it may escalate

 

[NickK]

Because after the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine was left with a **** load of ex soviet nuclear arsenal which it could have kept and become a nuclear state. Ukraine was persuaded to hand back the warheads etc. on a guarantee that it's sovereignty would be maintained if an invasion was threatened by Russia. Ergo, the guarantee may be being called.

however if the soviets invade and succeed then there will be nobody to chase compensation of a broken contract.

 

[Hagar]

however if the soviets invade and succeed then there will be nobody to chase compensation of a broken contract.

Nice one.

 

[NickK]

Nice one.

Bah I'd never be a diplomat!

 

[BongoHunter]

The denuclearization of Ukraine and other former Soviet states was quite a big deal as far as nuclear proliferation is concerned, the Budapest Memorandum had more than just the US as a signatory we're on the hook as well. France and China also provided some assurances. Guess it isn't going to count for much now.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.

6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

 

[dowie]

Security concern is not an excuse, it is an explanation for the reaction.

I disagree, it is more nuanced than that, in reality, Russia knows full well the West isn't planning to invade nor that they're threatened by Ukraine, it's more that their regime itself, the current dictatorship of Putin and chums is threatened by the prospect of a pro-western liberal democracy in Ukraine, the threat being instability within their own country from their own people.

We are not debating whether Russia has legal or moral right to invade Ukraine, we are discussing reasons why this might happen.

Well, don't call it legitimate then as it isn't!

 

[Nerusy]

I disagree, it is more nuanced than that, in reality, Russia knows full well the West isn't planning to invade nor that they're threatened by Ukraine, it's more that their regime itself, the current dictatorship of Putin and chums is threatened by the prospect of a pro-western liberal democracy in Ukraine, the threat being instability within their own country from their own people.

Well, don't call it legitimate then as it isn't!

That's not how any of this work. The west does not need to invade to threaten Russia. Balance of power plays a bigger role. A lack of strategic advantage could force Russia to cede national interests as position cannot be defended militarily.

It is a legitimate concern of of the Russia state from their prospective, that's just the objective reality. I am not sure why would you want to even try to argue otherwise, this thread has been quite good in terms of information and analysis and different point of view, there is no need to degrade it by claiming that Russian concerns are superficial, they literally invaded a country and caused 14k deaths over it and took on economic sanctions that erased 8 years of progress, I am fairly certain they do not think their concerns are not legitimate.

If you want an eco chamber that will disregard any and all nuance then go to youtube/reddit, you might just have more fun there.

 

[dowie]

That's not how any of this work. The west does not need to invade to threaten Russia. Balance of power plays a bigger role. A lack of strategic advantage could force Russia to cede national interests as position cannot be defended militarily.

What position would they cede? What national interests? This is rather vague stuff...

It is a legitimate concern of of the Russia state from their prospective, that's just the objective reality.

No it really isn't, no one is planning to invade Russia... there is no threat from Ukraine moving closer to the EU or the west, this is just Putin & chums and their sense of entitlement, treating it like a vassal state.

they literally invaded a country and caused 14k deaths over it and took on economic sanctions that erased 8 years of progress, I am fairly certain they do not think their concerns are not legitimate.

That they had a cost as a result of their actions doesn't imply their actions were legitimate. They might believe that Ukraine is legitimately their domain etc.. that doesn't make it so.

Perhaps you should be in the Russia Today comments section tbh...

 

[Nerusy]

What position would the cede? What national interests? This is rather vague stuff...



No it really isn't, no one is planning to invade Russia... this is just Putin & chums and their sense of entitlement re: Ukraine.

You got it all figured out. Reach out to Boris and Putin, you can save the day. The major piece of brilliant analysis that everybody was missing is that Putin and chums are entitled. Bravo. 100% well informed and useful contribution to the discussion. (on the other hand this is not Speaker's corner, so you're well within your right to chime in with this brilliant take)

 

[ianh]

No it really isn't, no one is planning to invade Russia... this is just Putin & chums and their sense of entitlement re: Ukraine.

Which is exactly how a "Westerner" thinks and not how a Russian thinks and, unless you can drop that mentality and attempt to think like a Russian, you'll never understand why they think what they're doing is legitimate because to you it's not legitimate and that inability stagnates your ability to understand.

And, as I can already feel the "so you think Russia is good" reply incoming, for the literal millionth time - Understanding something does not equal agreement with what they do

 

[dowie]

You got it all figured out. Reach out to Boris and Putin, you can save the day. The major piece of brilliant analysis that everybody was missing is that Putin and chums are entitled. Bravo. 100% well informed and useful contribution to the discussion. (on the other hand this is not Speaker's corner, so you're well within your right to chime in with this brilliant take)

If you're getting this salty because someone has a different view to you and thinks calling Russia's concerns "legitimate" is rather silly then perhaps you should take some of your earlier advice yourself...

Which is exactly how a "Westerner" thinks and not how a Russian thinks and, unless you can drop that mentality and attempt to think like a Russian, you'll never understand why they think what they're doing is legitimate because to you it's not legitimate and that inability stagnates your ability to understand.

That's rather a lot of projection tbh... It isn't legitimate, that doesn't inhibit understanding. Plenty of Russians aren't in favour of invading Ukraine, which Russians are you trying to think like? Putin and chums?

 

[Nerusy]

If you're getting this salty because someone has a different view to you and thinks calling Russia's concerns "legitimate" is rather silly then perhaps you should take some of your earlier advice yourself...



That's rather a lot of projection tbh... It isn't legitimate, that doesn't inhibit understanding. Plenty of Russians aren't in favour of invading Ukraine, which Russians are you trying to think like? Putin and chums?

The irony of this comment is palpable.

This feels like the whole arguing with a pigeon story, I give you explanations and you just repeat that "it is not legitimate" and "Putin and chums are entitled".

Good day to you my friend, I clearly do not posses enough information to help you understand the situation better, so stick with the view that putin and chums are entitled.

 

[dowie]

The irony of this comment is palpable.

Sure, you get your claim questioned, objected to;

What position would they cede? What national interests? This is rather vague stuff...

and rather than answer or clarify it's just more ad hominem here:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35416064/

And then the post above, where you're throwing in a reference to a pigeon story. It's not really adding anything to the thread, if you're unable to discuss or can't cope with people having different views to you and are just going to carry on with salty replies then perhaps don't post.

 

[Nerusy]

Sure, you get your claim questioned, objected to;



and rather than answer or clarify it's just more ad hominem here:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35416064/

And then the post above, where you're throwing in a reference to a pigeon story. It's not really adding anything to the thread, if you're unable to discuss or can't cope with people having different views to you and are just going to carry on with salty replies then perhaps don't post.

How can I possibly argue with your incredible intellectual rebuttal of

Well, don't call it legitimate then as it isn't!

I explained to you why it is legitimate, I gave you a hypothetical example with Ireland (because people tend to think differently when framed away from their bias to home perspective). However your masterfully destroyed my arguments with a sheer undeniable fact that "putin and chums are entitled" and I conceded. But you are still not happy. Perhaps you are not happy because you are starting to realise that what you are typing is not exactly reasonable...or at least I hope there's a feint thought there.

Btw if it matters to you (probably doesn't) the issue of Russian security concerns are not being questioned, nobody involved in current events are denying that Russia has legitimate concerns regarding their national security, the issue is that Ukraine's sovereignty takes priority and this is where major conflict arises, the impasse that is heating up rhetoric and militarisation of Ukrainian-Russian border.

But I like your take better now, it's just putin and chums being entitled. Such a view is spectacularly refreshing.

 

[dowie]

[...]

So are you going to answer the question and clarify what you were referring to or is it going to be more posturing and bluster?

nobody involved in current events are denying that Russia has legitimate concerns regarding their national security, the issue is that Ukraine's sovereignty takes priority and this is where major conflict arise

Sure...

https://www.gov.uk/government/speec...etary-in-the-house-of-commons-17-january-2022

Let me be clear, Mr Speaker, no one is trying to “rule” the Russian nation. Only 1/16th of Russia shares a border with a NATO Ally. And NATO is – and always has been – a defensive alliance.

NATO – at its core – holds a belief that any country in the alliance, no matter how big or how small they are, is – by right of membership – owed a pledge of mutual defence. You attack one of us, you attack us all. From 12 founding countries in 1949, the NATO Alliance has grown to a total of 30 today.

These countries have joined the Alliance not because NATO is making them do so - but because of the freely expressed will of the governments and peoples of those countries. Countries choose NATO; NATO does not choose them. If Russia has concerns about the enlargement, it should perhaps ask itself why, when people were free to choose, they chose NATO.

NATO is an Alliance of like-minded nations who, as well as sharing a commitment to mutual defence, also share a set of common values, and sovereignty of other nations is respected by all. Each nation has a sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one indeed to which Russia has subscribed in the past. And yet now Russia seeks a veto over who joins NATO.