d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Russia / Ukraine
Prev1161116121613161416155001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 4,147
Joined: Jun 30 2022
Gold: 6.42
Warn: 10%
Nov 8 2022 05:33pm
Quote (Santara @ Nov 8 2022 07:19pm)
Correct. Baker had no authority to speak for successive administrations, and attempts to claim the West reneged on promises made to Russia understandably fall on deaf ears.


So they expanded, Russia felt threatened and now Ukraine is in ruins, there is global economic insecurity, long time US allies are attempting to join BRICS and Russia has been pushed closer to China.

Seems like maybe that was poor foreign policy.
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Nov 8 2022 05:36pm
Quote (ownyaah @ Nov 8 2022 06:29pm)
Lemme simplify for you:

No agreement is timeless, only agreement that are valid are those that can be enforced(by will or force)


Agreed. Let's agree also that there are different sorts of agreements. A passing comment to a friend isn't the same as a serious commitment, for instance. The United States would come to the defense of Japan, because it is required by US law, and underpins US legitimacy abroad. What Baker said had no force of law, and so is worth the paper it wasn't printed on. That being said, it's understandable that the Russians felt misled. What I don't understand is what exactly they're so afraid of.

Quote (DizzyBusiness @ Nov 8 2022 06:33pm)
So they expanded, Russia felt threatened and now Ukraine is in ruins, there is global economic insecurity, long time US allies are attempting to join BRICS and Russia has been pushed closer to China.

Seems like maybe that was poor foreign policy.


It has made Russia more dependent on China, but that is almost a fait accompli. China has been absorbing Russian arms technology for years, and increasingly, they control the production. Russia is an authoritarian state in a not so dissimilar mold to China, it's far fetched to think that the West could ever wage an economic and ideological war against China and not expect that their ideological ally would perceive that to be a threat.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Nov 8 2022 05:43pm
Member
Posts: 23,947
Joined: Jul 15 2008
Gold: 122,361.69
Nov 8 2022 05:42pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 9 2022 02:28am)
1. Why would a country with the largest or second-largest stockpile of nukes in the world be scared of land-based invasions?

2. This theory of the case doesn't add up. Most of Europe tried to maintain neutral political and positive economic relations with Russia until the bitter end. Even back in February, when Russian tanks were already getting into position for their invasion, German chancellor Scholz still refused to end Nord Stream II. Even after the invasion begun, most non-eastern Europeans only cut ties with Russia very begrudgingly, more out of a sense of moral duty than because they were convinced it was in their best self-interest to do it. So the West actually tried to hold on to the status quo for as long as possible, until Russia's actions left them no other choice. This is not some secret 4d-chess move to destroy one of China's allies, this is Russia doing something horrible that called for a reaction.

3. The heavy industry in the Donbass is very old and not particularly competitive. It looks like the Ruhr region in Germany did... back in the 1960s. The gas and oil reserves which might be located there don't hold a strategic value to Russia since they already own more of those than they can sell. In fact, Russia's war and their antics with the throttled and then stopped gas supplies has soured the best customer they had. If Russia had started this war because they wanted to secure their dominant position on Europe's energy market, it has been a colossal failure.

4. I agree about Russia having some sort of legitimate claim on Crimea. This does not, however, justify waltzing in and stealing it from Ukraine. The fact that we haven't heard of insurgency in these places doesn't prove anything since the Russian administration would suppress any news of it, and since these places are basically under martial law where any insurgency will be nipped in the bud with force. (It does not prove that there haven been insurgencies either, just for the record.)

5. That's a legitimate point.

7. The story about the permanent "slaughter of innocent civilians in Donetsk" is straight up Russian propaganda. To the best of my knowledge, policies aiming at a derussification were passed after Russian paramilitary forces occupied and seceded Donetsk and Luhansk back in 2014, not the other way round.


1. Nukes are a last-order thing, countries usually create policy outside of their concept of nukes. Just the border of Ukraine funneling into Russia widely is problematic, especially since west-europe has historically been anti-russian.

2. I don't agree with your assessment in any meaningful way, it is very obvious there is far less lee-way for russia and their interests aren't considered at all because americans/west have already decided they will be part of the chinese-lead bloc. Germany did sorta attempt to hold europe together, i mean the entire german production depends on russia. Also because germany doesn't want to secede their autonomy to the americans. Americans wanted a divided europe by the way, easier to fold west europe and pit them against the growing concept of euroasia. (There is a reason victoria nuland leak was "fuck europe". There is a reason kissinger talked shit about the establishment, saying that russia can and should be peeled from china, to give them what they want in ukraine and force zelensky to stop. (before it is point of no return) This is all about the new world order. Personally i think americans did right in dividing europe, because russia would've joined the euroasian bloc, and europe would've abandoned america at some point.

3. There will always be a massive need for energy, there is no such thing as too much reserves. Look what is happening to europe production competitiveness just because there isn't enough gas/energy.

4. "sort of legitimacy" LOL, Crimea is as much Russia as Washington DC is America. Russia will nuke Europe and America with 6000 nuclear war heads before they give Crimea to NATO, that was always the case. By the way you can't hide insurgencies, sucide bombers, ieds and mass shootings. This is fantasy. Look what happened in iraq as an example.

7. Are we forgetting about the first events? When nazis burned 50 pro-russians alive in odessa? and everything else that happened?

This post was edited by ownyaah on Nov 8 2022 05:50pm
Member
Posts: 23,947
Joined: Jul 15 2008
Gold: 122,361.69
Nov 8 2022 05:45pm
Quote (bogie160 @ Nov 9 2022 02:36am)
Agreed. Let's agree also that there are different sorts of agreements. A passing comment to a friend isn't the same as a serious commitment, for instance. The United States would come to the defense of Japan, because it is required by US law, and underpins US legitimacy abroad. What Baker said had no force of law, and so is worth the paper it wasn't printed on. That being said, it's understandable that the Russians felt misled. What I don't understand is what exactly they're so afraid of.


My memory is a bit hazy, but if i remember correctly UK and poland had a written agreement that they would defend poland if it was invaded in ww2, yet they just watched when poland got crushed.

Thing is written agreements have always been moot(unless sides voluntarily follow or by force). About US coming to japans defense, also isn't a timeless 100% deal, it all depends on scenario and interests.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Nov 8 2022 05:49pm
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: Sep 7 2022
Gold: 3.00
Nov 8 2022 05:50pm
Quote (bogie160 @ Nov 9 2022 01:36am)
Agreed. Let's agree also that there are different sorts of agreements. A passing comment to a friend isn't the same as a serious commitment, for instance. The United States would come to the defense of Japan, because it is required by US law, and underpins US legitimacy abroad. What Baker said had no force of law, and so is worth the paper it wasn't printed on. That being said, it's understandable that the Russians felt misled. What I don't understand is what exactly they're so afraid of.


Trying to find rationale in what Russians are so afraid of is pointless, they are not afraid of anything. To Putin it seemed that further land grab will be as easy as the one in 2014, now his both hands are stuck and he is being dragged on the road. His entire "ideology" is about becoming Peter the third the "Re-unificator of Russian lands" and for Russians to remember him as such, Putin the "builder of castles" or "gymast plower" not that cool a title.

I mean these guys will be fantasizing about Putins yachts and how they should become criminals to get there like uncle Vlad


But people who have higher education will forever see Putin as the destroyer of Russia.
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Nov 8 2022 05:51pm
Quote (ownyaah @ Nov 8 2022 06:45pm)
My memory is a bit hazy, but if i remember correctly UK and poland had a written agreement that they would defend poland if it was invaded in ww2, yet they just watched when poland got crushed.

Thing is written agreements have always been moot. About US coming to japans defense, also a timeless 100% deal, it all depends on scenario and interests.


The United Kingdom did come to the defense of Poland, though. They declared war as their defense pact demanded, and they refused to capitulate to Germany even after France surrendered and Great Britain was fighting alone against the Continent.

Japan is by far America's most important ally. It's a country they helped rebuild from scratch after the second world war, simultaneously being the most economically powerful, the most populous, the most strategically located, and the most technologically advanced. Every American, myself included, would be thrown into the beaches of Okinawa if the alternative were Chinese control of the Japanese home islands.
Member
Posts: 23,947
Joined: Jul 15 2008
Gold: 122,361.69
Nov 8 2022 05:52pm
Quote (bogie160 @ Nov 9 2022 02:51am)
The United Kingdom did come to the defense of Poland, though. They declared war as their defense pact demanded, and they refused to capitulate to Germany even after France surrendered and Great Britain was fighting alone against the Continent.

Japan is by far America's most important ally. It's a country they helped rebuild from scratch after the second world war, simultaneously being the most economically powerful, the most populous, the most strategically located, and the most technologically advanced. Every American, myself included, would be thrown into the beaches of Okinawa if the alternative were Chinese control of the Japanese home islands.


I'm talking about when soviets invaded poland, uk was ok with it, because it was favourable for them (a border of soviet&germany -> conflict)

bold part: Today, tomorrow, in 10 years? in 50 years? Things change. Alliances shift, interests shift and agreements -> toilet paper.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Nov 8 2022 05:53pm
Member
Posts: 4,147
Joined: Jun 30 2022
Gold: 6.42
Warn: 10%
Nov 8 2022 05:55pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 8 2022 07:28pm)
1. Why would a country with the largest or second-largest stockpile of nukes in the world be scared of land-based invasions?

2. This theory of the case doesn't add up. Most of Europe tried to maintain neutral political and positive economic relations with Russia until the bitter end. Even back in February, when Russian tanks were already getting into position for their invasion, German chancellor Scholz still refused to end Nord Stream II. Even after the invasion begun, most non-eastern Europeans only cut ties with Russia very begrudgingly, more out of a sense of moral duty than because they were convinced it was in their best self-interest to do it. So the West actually tried to hold on to the status quo for as long as possible, until Russia's actions left them no other choice. This is not some secret 4d-chess move to destroy one of China's allies, this is Russia doing something horrible that called for a reaction.

3. The heavy industry in the Donbass is very old and not particularly competitive. It looks like the Ruhr region in Germany did... back in the 1960s. The gas and oil reserves which might be located there don't hold a strategic value to Russia since they already own more of those than they can sell. In fact, Russia's war and their antics with the throttled and then stopped gas supplies has soured the best customer they had. If Russia had started this war because they wanted to secure their dominant position on Europe's energy market, it has been a colossal failure.

4. I agree about Russia having some sort of legitimate claim on Crimea. This does not, however, justify waltzing in and stealing it from Ukraine. The fact that we haven't heard of insurgency in these places doesn't prove anything since the Russian administration would suppress any news of it, and since these places are basically under martial law where any insurgency will be nipped in the bud with force. (It does not prove that there haven been insurgencies either, just for the record.)

5. That's a legitimate point.

7. The story about the permanent "slaughter of innocent civilians in Donetsk" is straight up Russian propaganda. To the best of my knowledge, policies aiming at a derussification were passed after Russian paramilitary forces occupied and seceded Donetsk and Luhansk back in 2014, not the other way round.



NATO wants to put anti nuclear defenses along Russian borders, which could also be easily converted to delivery systems according to Russia. No nuclear country would be okay with that, it limits their most powerful military asset.

Also, If they could be converted to delivery systems they are extremely close to all major russian population centers which would limit their ability to respond in time to a nuclear threat. I think it's between a 5 and 30 minute missile flight to Moscow depending on type used. Look at a population map of Russia and its quite evident why they wouldn't be okay with it.


Member
Posts: 893
Joined: Sep 7 2022
Gold: 3.00
Nov 8 2022 05:57pm
Quote (ownyaah @ Nov 9 2022 01:45am)
My memory is a bit hazy, but if i remember correctly UK and poland had a written agreement that they would defend poland if it was invaded in ww2, yet they just watched when poland got crushed.

Thing is written agreements have always been moot(unless sides voluntarily follow or by force). About US coming to japans defense, also isn't a timeless 100% deal, it all depends on scenario and interests.


UK+France and they did what they had to "officially" though French folded, and we know exactly what followed largely thanks to that weak initial answer. (At the time the most developed weapons dreadnought France half-assed response mostly)
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Nov 8 2022 06:06pm
Quote (ownyaah @ Nov 8 2022 06:52pm)
I'm talking about when soviets invaded poland, uk was ok with it, because it was favourable for them (a border of soviet&germany -> conflict)

bold part: Today, tomorrow, in 10 years? in 50 years? Things change. Alliances shift, interests shift and agreements -> toilet paper.


My understanding of the Anglo-Polish treaty was that it was German-specific. If anything, the takeaway should be that Anglos are, like the Romans, a very legal people who like to obey the letter of the law.

The bold is not quite true. If the United States can be expected to defend Japan for ~10 years, or 20 years, then the agreement means something.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1161116121613161416155001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll