Your above quote is more of a statement. I cannot really argue with that. Please ask away questions, maybe I can help you but from our back and forth so far we can both see that you have quite a special view on the way world works so I am not sure I have time to go through politics 101 with you.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Your above quote is more of a statement. I cannot really argue with that. Please ask away questions, maybe I can help you but from our back and forth so far we can both see that you have quite a special view on the way world works so I am not sure I have time to go through politics 101 with you.
So more empty posturing and you still dodge the questions, what a surprise....
(If you're struggling to find them they're the sentences that end with a question mark in post #5775 and quoted for you a second time in #5780)
Well you knocked all the pieces on the chess board, are you finally going to go for the final act?
I did say, ask the question.
Regarding NATO statement, I am not sure why you linked it, I am well aware of NATO stance, hence I said that Ukraine's sovereignty takes priority, if they want to join they can.
Edit: You keep edition your posts. Can you not write it and then post. I can see the question that you are referring to so here is elaboration:
Russia is very annoyed that US/NATO is deploying anti ballistic missiles installations in Poland and Romania. NATOs formal point is that they are strictly defensive and against rogue states, not Russia. Russia's stance is that these installations are universal, they are not purely defensive as launchers can use both offensive and defensive missiles. Secondly Russia's view is that it reduces their capabilities in a possible war scenario and NATO telling Russia that they will not invade does not hold as much value as words are empty. Russia is saying they wont further invade Ukraine, we are not going to take their word for it are we. Same with Russia, it will not take NATOs word will it. Then there is precedent with Libya no fly zone UN mandated operation which was carried out by NATO. No fly zone was authorised but NATO went outside the sanctioned mandate and bombed dictators convoy, thus a successful regime change (successful part is a bit of a stretch though).
So what do we have in the end. If Ukraine joins then long term it means US/NATO military infrastructure in Ukraine (as it is Ukraine's right). This actually increases US's first strike capabilities and reduces Russia's first strike capabilities as well as reduce retaliatory strikes possibilities. This changes balance of power in the region, sovereignty neutering Russia's ability to guarantee sovereignty (similarly Russia neutered Ukraine's sovereignty).
When balance of power is firmly in the hands of external power, they can dictate the flow of politics. For example, if Russia was to go into another civil war then NATO can have infrastructure to enact a no fly zone and help other republics within Russia to achieve full independence, which further diminishes the state. Border disputes and conflict perpetually weaken states.
Dowie, I took a chance here and went for a genuine try. Please do not respond to this with "this still does not make it legitimate". It's not a moral or r righteous that Russia is taking but it is very much understandable and not surprising or unreasonable.
Last edited:
It's the UK Defence Secretary's statement to the House of Commons try to at least pay attention. Are you going to provide any clarification/answer the questions or not?
I did in the comment before, you keep editing you replies so I am playing catch up.
NATO/UK/US, it is all the same formal view. You can read NATOs reply to russian questions, it is a bit more reasonable that what gets presented in the media / political stage.
I don't think it is wrong to want to avoid war - but there needs to be some balance/pragmatism to it - sometimes a would be aggressor isn't interested in anything you have to offer or is a madman, etc. you shouldn't put off being prepared either as a token of appeasement to hope to avoid war or in the belief that war can be avoided by diplomacy, etc.
The way Macron is talking it is as if Putin doesn't really want war - we just need to placate Putin a bit, show some understanding and give him an off ramp and everything is going to be alright - maybe Putin isn't interested in an off ramp. Maybe he does want war or maybe he doesn't care either way or maybe he feels the choice is a long suffocating death or to go out swinging.
I don't think NATO enacting a no-fly zone above Russia is particularly plausible tbh... the balance of power is already in NATO's favour yes Ukraine joining would increase it a bit and/or allow the US to deploy weapons there... but it would mostly benefit Ukraine, Russia is ultimately still a nuclear power and NATO isn't looking to attack or invade.
Russia no doubt does have internal concerns, Putin is basically a dictator, of course, colour revolutions etc.. will worry him, he was quite keen to act re: both Belarus and Kazakhstan. That's the real crux of this IMO, yet another former Soviet state becoming a liberal democracy and aligning with the EU/the West.
Well it doesn't, that's my view, you can't just say dowie don't hold the view you hold. There is nothing legitimate about trying to treat neighbouring states like vassals and restrict what alliances they might join. Russia's stance isn't reasonable IMO, they're trying to dictate the foreign policy of an independent state.
International relations and conflicts do not work in absolutes. You think conflict between nuclear powers is not possible and it maybe be so in the short term but over long term anything is possible. Technology can change it at any moment and suddenly nukes are no longer sovereignty guarantee and conventional military infrastructure proximity will dominate. Incremental advantage is what changes balance of power in regions. For example the US is very unhappy that Russia is selling S400 to India, citing that it is destabilising the region. Here you can see how defensive weapons change balance of power such that in US's view it destabilises the region.
Regarding my last comment, it's not about changing your view, believe me I am well aware you will not change it, my point is that for every argument and explanation I provided your reply ignores absolutely everything and just says sometimes on the lines of "well I still think it is not legitimate". You see I went out of my way to genuinely engage with you and in return I get a a reply that is basically "nuh uh" and you must understand that at the very least it just feels insulting to me.
At this point I feel like you're going for pure semantics game with the word legitimate. You seemingly ascribe legal or moral reason to this but I frequently told you that it is not about morality or righteousness. Countless times I said it is not morally right what russia is doing but it is understandable from their point of view. By the definition of the word legitimate - "able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.". Legitimate also could mean justifiable by law and Russian position is definitely not justifying by international law.
No, I didn't say that
I've not ignored what you've said, I just don't agree with it, big difference. I don't need to throw in a wall of text in order to do so, you ignore various points I made, you trolled for several posts, ignored questions several times despite quoting them, and then finally replied. You ignored rebuttals, you didn't even look at the letter linked to by the UK defence secretary and referred to it as a NATO letter, it certainly doesn't support your claim re: others and Russia's security concerns being "legitimate".
Of course, it isn't justifiable by international law, I don't see any way that it is "legitimate". That doesn't mean you can't look at their POV.
Russia's stance is unreasonable and isn't legitimate here, you can argue differently if you like but kicking off because someone disagrees with you is rather silly.
UK defence secretary statement is the same statement I've read thousand times over since 2008, that sovereign countries have the right to choose their own alliances/path. You linked an empty political rhetoric and think this somehow negates Russia's security concerns? You are throwing such unreasonable things at me that I had no other choice than to start talking to you at your level ie ignore other comments and just repeat something like you are doing again.
Yes, I remember, your view is that Putin and chums are entitled. A very unique perspective on a complex geopolitical situation. Good luck with that.
Also lets not forget this little gem
it is after this magnificent rebuttal of my wall of text that I should have realised that engaging with you would drag me down to your level. I remember your contribution in other topics and you had reasonable takes, so it is all more upsetting seeing you revert to "no u" arguments and calling other people trolls. Shame.
Last edited:
Nope, pay attention to the quote, clearly you skimmed past it when replying to it at the time but to recap; you said "nobody involved in current events are denying that Russia has legitimate concerns regarding their national security", neither the UK nor the US nor NATO's positon seems to support that.
It's hardly unique, you can pretend otherwise but we're basically dealing with a gangster in charge of a state here...
You were quite clearly trolling, you threw in several replies containing mostly posturing and bluster, yes I'll call that out.
Dowie, read this NATO reply to Russia. Read page 8 in particular. https://elpais.com/infografias/2022/02/respuesta_otan/respuesta_otan_eeuu.pdf
Regarding "posturing and blustering" I only came down to your level.
Even though I linked to you a NATO document that acknowledges Russian security concerns I am sure you absolutely ignore this as you have been ignoring everything I wrote and will come back with a heavyweight reply on the lines of Putin is a dictator. Well done, very brave and useful information. Do go on now.
I'd be highly surprised if it's the latter. Macron has apparently been in talks with Putin for some time. I think maybe France is seen as a powerful player but one with the least baggage so makes sense to have Macron lead.
I don't really get the fear of NATO expansion as the occupation in the east of Ukraine prevents them joining. Would be interesting if Ukraine offered to re-draw their borders.
My guess is Putin is testing the new boundaries given the relatively weak western governments.
I'm not sure where Russia gets its fear and paranoia from. You had the cold war years and from seeing the childrens gas masks on the floor in the schools in Pripyat, why didn't the US have the same? Why did Russia seem or actually feel more in danger of being attacked?
Now read point 1...
Macron also has elections coming up shortly and is keen to be seen to do this, whether it works out, in reality, is another matter I guess. I would hope that the supply of lethal aid, the threat of sanctions and funding/supporting of an insurgency and the calling out in public of Russia's plans for false flag attacks, coups etc.. might have made Putin think twice, but ultimately we're looking at someone who doesn't really do diplomacy, he doesn't act in good faith, the risk is still there.
I think at some point they're going to have to formally acknowledge the loss of Crimea, the other situation could be dealt with by federalisation if tensions with Russia were to settle, but right now it looks like an invasion is still more likely.
I suspect lots of the apparent fear and paranoia these days is more of an excuse here, this is Putin and his desire to increase Russian influence, he's known to regret the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was worried back in the 90s that they were going to be annexed by Russia, as a result, it took some assurances for them to ditch their nuclear arsenal, there was plenty of initial tension with Russia as the new Ukrainian state initially aligned itself with the west, that's part of why Russia was perhaps quick to guarantee Ukraine's borders. Putin views Ukraine as basically theirs and regrets its loss, he knows full well the west isn't going to try to go to war with Russia or to invade but rather just having a westernised Ukraine is enough for them to be fearful, that could well influence things domestically. Colour revolutions are what he's more worried about.
And this reply just drives the point home. I give you official NATO document acknowledging Russian security concern and your reply is to read clause 1, which I obviously have read and agree with. Nobody is even arguing against it. Just laughable, Dowie, laughable.
The third video is what it's all about:
I'm not sure the Ukrainians are too keen on that, Russias aggression in recent years seems to have solidified opposition to Russia!
Quite amusing to see it as Ukraine "starting" a war in Donbas, Russia already started it a few years ago! And we've already seen the reports of false flag attacks being a possibility to be used to justify a Russian invasion.
He's a complete loony tune and that's been kind.
I see the Russian/Chinese alliance is at work, we now have China agreeing with Argentina over thier claim regarding the Falklands, nothing to do with the big contract they just signed up to...
Also wtf is it with Macron...what security concerns? The ABM? That will do nothing to dent a Russian ICBM assault anywhere, their security concerns have arisen due to thier paranoia and invasions and alleged victim hood which is a laugh.
That seems like the most plausible explanation - but I don't get the feeling Putin is looking for an "off ramp" as it is being put - I think that is a bad misunderstanding which will likely make things worse rather than better.
Russia in the cold war era planned to survive/endure nuclear war and re-emerge (whether that is realistic or not is another matter), the US didn't (well not to that degree) - very different mentalities. Hence all the gas masks and Russia had huge bunker systems built, etc. it is an important distinction I think in current affairs as well - Russia has been planning to endure the worst case.
- Status