d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Russia / Ukraine
Prev1154815491550155115525001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 765
Joined: Aug 25 2022
Gold: 2,602.00
Warn: 10%
Nov 1 2022 01:18pm
Quote (ferdia @ Nov 1 2022 12:09pm)
this is all old ground. I guess there is a lull for now.

news around the world:

Al Jazeera (and cnn): Iran plans to send ‘over 200 drones’ to Russia – Kyiv

No, there isn't a lull. The last week has seen the degradation of the electrical grid come close to the breaking point, and the Russians are on the offensive after months of retreat and holding.
Member
Posts: 56,456
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 580,181.52
Nov 1 2022 01:19pm
Quote (kusotarre1 @ Nov 1 2022 07:18pm)
No, there isn't a lull. The last week has seen the degradation of the electrical grid come close to the breaking point, and the Russians are on the offensive after months of retreat and holding.


i mean in the topic, noting we are going over old ground again.
Member
Posts: 765
Joined: Aug 25 2022
Gold: 2,602.00
Warn: 10%
Nov 1 2022 01:24pm
Quote (ferdia @ Nov 1 2022 12:19pm)
i mean in the topic, noting we are going over old ground again.

Because if they had to talk about what's happening on the ground they'd have to reach for frankly pathetic levels of cope.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 1 2022 12:06pm)
So the unofficial words from Western diplomats, spoken in backroom negotiations in 1989 and 1990 when it wasn't even clear yet whether the Warsaw Pact would disolve, are to be treated as gospel... but we're supposed to look the other way when it comes to Russia's brazen violation of the promises they made to Ukraine in an official treaty which was signed by their literal president?

Now you're starting to understand. All that you still need to realize is that the Budapest memo was violated when the West couped Ukraine and then started training and supplying their army while they engaged in an ethnically-driven conflict on the border with Russia and kept announcing their intention to cross the red line of joining NATO.

You refuse to accept these facts, though, so you're stuck at an infantile level of understanding.
Member
Posts: 52,226
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
Nov 1 2022 01:50pm
Quote (kusotarre1 @ Nov 1 2022 01:37pm)
This is why any sort of negotiation with America is impossible. America is, and is increasingly so as it experiences this political degeneration, agreement incapable.

But it goes beyond that. You can't even sign an agreement with America and expect it to be enforced the next day, let alone after the next midterm or presidential election. America never abided by the JCPOA. America and it's vassals didn't abide by this recent grain deal. Agreements are often just exercises for Americans to massage PR.


There're these things called treaties. And when an administration signs them, it means nothing, until the US Senate ratifies them.

You can't expect for one administration to be like "it is the policy of the United States to fund abortions all over the world," and when the next administration is sworn in, expect that to remain so. NATO not expanding was the policy of the United States. Until it wasn't.

This post was edited by Santara on Nov 1 2022 01:50pm
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Nov 1 2022 02:03pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 1 2022 01:12pm)
Whether Russia is a real democracy or not is irrelevant. Just like if China or any other country doesn't fit into our defined standard of what's appropriate politically internally doesn't somehow give us the right to minimize their concerns and infringe and get under their skin on their borders. Taiwan, Ukraine are exactly that.

If they wanted promises that we won't go into their sphere of influence 30 years ago, we do anyways, they warn, we continue to do so until it gets to the point that we have half a dozen countries on their border with American and NATO bases, with US missile systems pointed "defensively" in Russia's direction it's pretty easy to see their frustration. On top of that you have American NGO's sprouting like mushrooms all over in ex-soviet states which often times are just covert ways to buy influence. So then the argument evolved into "everyone is entitled to chose who they ally themselves with" which of course on it's face sounds democratic and fair and all of those wonderful things but is a hypocritical joke when you look at what we did to unfriendly democracies in South America, Iran, etc historically.

We have to live in a world which recognizes that no one country has a monopoly on setting the rules politically, economically, etc. It's not Russia or China spreading their influence in an antagonistic manner all over the globe tbh. Do either of them have military bases next to us? Are either of them trying to bring in missile systems and have standing armies in Mexico or Cuba for "defensive" reasons?

And the bold is kind of the issue at hand, you and many westerners in general have this attitude that other parts of the world should just accept how things ought to be based on what we say because reasons, because democracy, because fill in the blank. Russia is the first big domino to say no. Smaller ones tried i.e. Libya, Iraq and got smacked down but in this case idk what the results will be. It's pretty obvious though that our influence is being pushed back on with rising regional powers like India, SA, south Africa, etc. Who would of thought that the brown world through their inaction is telling us to fuck off with the dictates.


countries left the USSR and gained independence. some of them left the favor of Russia rather quickly, some of them have left much later, and some are still in the favor of Russia. once they do leave russia, through american led coups or simply from electing more liberal leaders (other places have ebbs and flows of a conservative to liberal pendulum just as we do) they're seen as an enemy of Russia. and just as we led a coup in Ukraine, Russia is prone to lead a coup in their country to stop any liberal movements from detaching from the Russian sphere of influence. if they have a liberal govt that is feeling the pressure of Russia who are we to deny them aid, whether it's NATO membership or just aid/intel, because of an informal hand shake 30 years ago made to a country that was on the brink of violent collapse and in fact asking the USA for inaction to facilitate said collapse. we could have moved in and destroyed them but did not due to the threat of MAD during said collapse. they had a broken leg, we allowed them time to heal. and by proxy they basically said leave us be and we wont end the earth or sell nukes to terrorists. yet a single line from an informal agreement is taken as literally as idiotic interpretations of the 2nd amendment claiming we should be able to as private citizens own intercontinental ballistic missiles. just as we moved more than an inch west Russia has violently defended the expansion of western governance across international borders. they're not kittens, they're poisoners, they're assassins, they're run by ex-KGB, and they've carried on it's legacy.

Quote (kusotarre1 @ Nov 1 2022 01:28pm)
Red lines don't require agreement, they are declarations. Did Venezuela agree to the Monroe Doctrine? Did the USSR agree to it during the Cuban missile crisis, done in response to missiles in Turkey?

Of course not. You're just continuing to do what Westerners always do: one rule for me, another for thee.


i'm unilaterally anti-NATO and anti-War. i'm making a logical, not ideological point.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 1 2022 02:04pm
Member
Posts: 765
Joined: Aug 25 2022
Gold: 2,602.00
Warn: 10%
Nov 1 2022 02:13pm
Quote (Santara @ Nov 1 2022 12:50pm)
There're these things called treaties. And when an administration signs them, it means nothing, until the US Senate ratifies them.

You can't expect for one administration to be like "it is the policy of the United States to fund abortions all over the world," and when the next administration is sworn in, expect that to remain so. NATO not expanding was the policy of the United States. Until it wasn't.

This is all pointless because as I pointed out, with examples, America will not abide by deals it makes with other nations even before any change in any level of government. JCPOA is the prime example.

Layer all the technical and legalistic explanations you want into the situation, all I'm interested in is the outcome: America is incapable of any sort of reliability when it comes to agreements and deals.

Hell, I live in Canada and you guys extorted billions from us on softwood lumber by denying multiple NAFTA board and WTO rulings, so even your senate-approved deals are fucking meaningless.

Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 1 2022 01:03pm)
i'm unilaterally anti-NATO and anti-War. i'm making a logical, not ideological point.

My point is ideological in what sense? I am explaining to you that both sides of this conflict, of any conflict, are able to impose whatever red lines they want, because red lines are not binding legal agreements. They are declarations.

You are trying to denigrate your adversary's red lines by saying they don't line up with whatever conditions you think should be imposed on them, from a position of superiority. That's an ideological position, not mine.

This post was edited by kusotarre1 on Nov 1 2022 02:13pm
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Nov 1 2022 02:18pm
Quote (kusotarre1 @ Nov 1 2022 03:13pm)
This is all pointless because as I pointed out, with examples, America will not abide by deals it makes with other nations even before any change in any level of government. JCPOA is the prime example.

Layer all the technical and legalistic explanations you want into the situation, all I'm interested in is the outcome: America is incapable of any sort of reliability when it comes to agreements and deals.

Hell, I live in Canada and you guys extorted billions from us on softwood lumber by denying multiple NAFTA board and WTO rulings, so even your senate-approved deals are fucking meaningless.


My point is ideological in what sense? I am explaining to you that both sides of this conflict, of any conflict, are able to impose whatever red lines they want, because red lines are not binding legal agreements. They are declarations.

You are trying to denigrate your adversary's red lines by saying they don't line up with whatever conditions you think should be imposed on them, from a position of superiority. That's an ideological position, not mine.


hands were shaken, an agreement was informally struck. it was not the result of Russia just declaring a red line, it was supposedly agreed to behind closed doors. if there's an agreement then there are also conditions and leeway.

this is of course compared to say Obama's failed redline in Syria, that he drew, then was crossed, then he declined to enforce.
Member
Posts: 765
Joined: Aug 25 2022
Gold: 2,602.00
Warn: 10%
Nov 1 2022 02:21pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 1 2022 01:18pm)
hands were shaken, an agreement was informally struck. it was not the result of Russia just declaring a red line, it was supposedly agreed to behind closed doors. if there's an agreement then there are also conditions and leeway.

You're conflating NATO expansion in general with the red line of Ukraine in NATO.

Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Nov 1 2022 02:23pm
Quote (kusotarre1 @ Nov 1 2022 03:21pm)
You're conflating NATO expansion in general with the red line of Ukraine in NATO.


my post you responded to was in regards to the 1990s agreement of "not one inch" of nato expansion. at no point in time was i talking about a Ukranian redline, apparently you were.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 1 2022 02:23pm
Member
Posts: 765
Joined: Aug 25 2022
Gold: 2,602.00
Warn: 10%
Nov 1 2022 02:42pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 1 2022 01:23pm)
my post you responded to was in regards to the 1990s agreement of "not one inch" of nato expansion. at no point in time was i talking about a Ukranian redline, apparently you were.


Quote
and the USA just agreed to a red line with zero compensation? lol. see that's the part no one seems to ever mention. behind closed doors we just for nothing promised not to expand an inch westward? heh.


I mentioned red lines as a distinct thing, so we were talking about two things, I guess.

What does this second line, mean, then? Are you denying that the US promised no NATO expansion? It's well recorded. Are you saying it doesn't matter because you didn't go through a ratification process? Then we're back to a few pages ago talking about how insane it is to act like international relations is a game of clever wordplay, riposte and pranks.

America promised no eastward expansion, it broke that promise and expanded eastward.

America saw Russsia's red line about Ukraine in NATO, it decided it could cross it without consequence and now we have a war. (Edit: actually, I think America intentionally crossed it precisely to cause this conflict to happen because it thought it could "win" somehow)

America sees Russia's red line about nukes on it's borders, and now we have US puppets openly inviting American nukes into border states with Russia. Love to risk the entire world in a pointless game of chicken with a guy who has said "there's no reason for a world without Russia."

This post was edited by kusotarre1 on Nov 1 2022 02:44pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1154815491550155115525001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll