d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Russia / Ukraine
Prev1226522662267226822695001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 20,044
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,397.50
Feb 28 2023 10:11am
Quote (ferdia @ Feb 28 2023 04:06pm)
see my edit above, i responded to you but here it is again:

you are referring to the enticing carrot offered by Nato and the EU to Ukraine and ignoring the whole sphere of influence thinking. The US has a sphere of influence and have it enshrined in their laws that if anyone tried to do what the US is doing with Ukraine, to the likes of Canada, Cuba or Mexico, the US would react just as Russia is.

ultimately smaller parties have less bargaining power then larger parties. thats why the school bully gets all the sweets and why certain trade deals favor the larger block. this is pretty basic logic.

Ukraine is beside Russia. Russia is bigger. this is a hard fact. the world is not fair and when you make a decision for your country you need to accept that some people (or countries) wont like it, and therefore you dont want to do stuff that will make the guy beside you hate you. its called good diplomacy, which is something completely lacking in Ukraine as related to Russia, over the last 15 years.


Actually this is precisely the framework of the United Nations charter. This rule of order in terms of countries territories has been in place since after ww2.
If we are appeasing Russia over eastern Ukraine, we are opening the door to 21st century imperialism; Queue wars of aggression on multiple continents.

Also your narrative of realpolitik could apply to Ukraine entering NATO. NATO is beside Russia, NATO is stronger then Russia.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 28 2023 10:12am
Member
Posts: 56,398
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 585,113.49
Feb 28 2023 10:11am
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 28 2023 04:09pm)
Not exactly. The US has a global military empire of installations and capabilities. That's just how it is; The US and Russia are not 1:1 on anything except for nuclear weapons.
What you are implying is a speculative fallacy and shouldn't have a bearing on the debate at hand. Or, its not accurate to say: If Mexico joined the Russian federation then the US would be pissed.


why is it not accurate? take my country and china. we do not report negative press about china because we are trade partners with various schemes. imagine if ireland joined in a military alliance with china. how do you think the UK, the US or the EU would respond ? or even dwell on WHY does ireland not report bad press about china ? because it would hurt us if we do.

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 28 2023 04:11pm)
Actually this is precisely the framework of the United Nations charter. This rule of order in terms of countries territories has been in place since after ww2.

If we are appeasing Russia over eastern Ukraine, we are opening the door to 21st century imperialism; Queue wars of aggression on multiple continents.


surely you can accept that the larger the trade block, the more favourable the deal they will get when dealing with a country or other trade block.
surely you accept the notion of "better together" in terms of Nato alliance.

the same principal applies here. Ukraine is on its own, and therefore, being on its own it is vulnerable and therefore should be very careful in what it does. instead ukraine IS ON RECORD as having said years ago that they will go to war with Russia and they are OK with that.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 28 2023 10:17am
Member
Posts: 28,878
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
Feb 28 2023 10:12am
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 28 2023 11:02am)
Fuck the United States for a minute, you don't think what Ukrainians want is even important? Russia expects them to roll over and capitulate.


Yes it's important but that doesn't change the fact that throughout history strong countries ruled their weaker neighbors by various means. Ireland and Scotland are prime examples. Lets say in alternate universe the USSR won and they were funneling weapons and rubles to the IRA to retake Northern Ireland or funneling some Scottish resistance army to go fight the English for independence, it would be a huge upset of the historical norms and not okay because outside powers interfering in regional power dynamics to weaken the regional power is overstepping. We won the cold war and thought that no longer applies to us.

I mean i can ask the same question, for a minute do you not believe what the Scottish or Irish want in this scenario even important?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Feb 28 2023 10:14am
Member
Posts: 56,398
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 585,113.49
Feb 28 2023 10:14am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Feb 28 2023 04:12pm)
Yes it's important but that doesn't change the fact that throughout history strong countries ruled their weaker neighbors by various means. Ireland and Scotland are prime examples. Lets say in alternate universe the USSR won and they were funneling weapons and rubles to the IRA to retake Northern Ireland or funneling some Scottish resistance army to go fight the English for independence, it would be a huge upset of the historical norms and not okay because outside powers interfering in regional power dynamics to weaken the regional power is overstepping. We won the cold war and thought that no longer applies to us.



to be clear parties in the USA funded the IRA for decades. it was a combination of the leaders of the Republic of Ireland, England and Northern Ireland, with support from the US government, that led to the Good Friday Agreement and a nominal end to violence in the north.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 28 2023 10:16am
Member
Posts: 20,044
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,397.50
Feb 28 2023 10:17am
Quote (ferdia @ Feb 28 2023 04:11pm)
why is it not accurate? take my country and china. we do not report negative press about china because we are trade partners with various schemes. imagine if ireland joined in a military alliance with china. how do you think the UK, the US or the EU would respond ?


That's a speculative fallacy.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Feb 28 2023 04:12pm)
Yes it's important but that doesn't change the fact that throughout history strong countries ruled their weaker neighbors by various means. Ireland and Scotland are prime examples. Lets say in alternate universe the USSR won and they were funneling weapons and rubles to the IRA to retake Northern Ireland or funneling some Scottish resistance army to go fight the English for independence, it would be a huge upset of the historical norms and not okay because outside powers interfering in regional power dynamics to weaken the regional power is overstepping. We won the cold war and thought that no longer applies to us.


I don't think you understand what the United Kingdom is. Alas what your implying is also a speculation.
What your advocating is "might is right" and its a dangerous precedent in my opinion.
Member
Posts: 92,973
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Feb 28 2023 10:18am
Quote (ofthevoid @ Feb 28 2023 09:59am)
To minimize that hand shake agreement as if that somehow makes okay our creep eastward to their border is silly, and it's one of the primary reasons why Ukraine is in an all out war currently and the whole of central Europe is destabilized. It kind of reminds me of post WW1 treatment of Germany and somehow being surprised that the specific treatment directly led to the economic and social conditions that spawned fascism.

The US won the cold war, and as the USSR was collapsing, we made these promises to make that collapse as smooth and painless as possible for everyone involved really. There really was no need to pen these agreements because the evil empire was dead and we were the victors with nothing left to fight over, both sides understanding this with the USSR in no position to ask for conditions. There also was no threat to many of these countries in central Europe, because the USSR and Communism were dead. Instead we continued to add these countries to our military alliance not because they were threatened or there was some impending war but because we wanted control. Of course they were happy to agree because there were so many economic carrots attached to this proposition. It's the equivalent of going to some back water, economically comatose town and saying hey we want to build these huge money making businesses in your town that will bring billions of dollars to your economy and every one will be given jobs making 200% more than you are now, are you in? Is it a mystery why Romania or Poland or the Baltics would want to join with their shitty reeling economies when the US/EU are coming in promising billions in investments & loans, which are obviously tied to being 'one of us' both in economic as well as military alliance terms.

So fast forward to early 2000s, Russia is still not in any position or has any appetite to dominate anyone but they see this military alliance creep, as a result they start to get more defensive and start rebuilding they military in response. As a result it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because well look the Russians are once again being militaristic therefore the 'defensive' military alliance that's continuously growing is justified for protective and defensive reasons. Never mind the fact that we were growing this alliance before they started their military buildup.

But to your point that because there wasn't some sort of binding agreement or accord therefore we were okay to do this is dishonest of how powers talk to each other. There was an understanding that we won and they lost but they will get to keep their sphere of influence mostly of its satellite ex-soviet states and then have these other central European states act as buffers. We reneged on this in the late 90s because we said fuck it we won and we run the world. Just like today we are saying it fuck it, we run the world therefore what we say is more important and goes all across the globe, weather its Ukraine, Taiwan, Syria, Iraq, Solomon Islands, etc. There are no regional powers to push back, it's just us and what we say goes.


why is it no one seems able to read?

is explicitly said it's NOT ok. i just said it's not so NOT OK that it justifies the invasion of Ukraine.

if it were listed in a 10 point discussion it would be valid context. but justification on its own for the war? puh-leeze.

meanwhile Putin was allowed to expand west into Syria, we drew a red line (stupid mistake), didn't enforce it, then entirely left the nation for him to pull into his sphere of influence.

the agreement was simple, we wouldn't march east en masse and encircle the former soviet union, we wouldn't absorb each nation and their weapon arsenals. we could have. in the wake of the collapse of the USSR these nations were in dire need of support, dire need of stable currency as hyper inflation tore through them and their national banks collapsed. and we didn't. we left them to figure things out, to sell their weapons caches to buy bread, to shift their national banks to whatever currency they could find a store of value in, and reform as they saw fit. independent of mother russia (rare) or as a proxy for russia under the guise of autocracy.

what we did was bad, but it doesnt justify the war in ukraine. period. the spirit of the agreement was never meant to last decades, and putin is using it as an excuse to shore up allies and try and send a message to other satellite states because his two most valuable resources even beyond fuel are young men and old military tech.
Member
Posts: 56,398
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 585,113.49
Feb 28 2023 10:18am
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 28 2023 04:17pm)
That's a speculative fallacy.



I don't think you understand what the United Kingdom is. Alas what your implying is also a speculation.
What your advocating is "might is right" and its a dangerous precedent in my opinion.


in this word power does what power wants. whether it be via trade or troops it is what it is. this is me acknowledging what we have, no where did i say i like it.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 28 2023 10:20am
Member
Posts: 20,044
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,397.50
Feb 28 2023 10:21am
Quote (ferdia @ Feb 28 2023 04:14pm)
to be clear parties in the USA funded the IRA for decades. it was a combination of the leaders of the Republic of Ireland, England and Northern Ireland, with support from the US government, that led to the Good Friday Agreement and a nominal end to violence in the north.


No accident, its divide and conquer in my opinion. Ireland and also Scotland were final bastions of the British empire after the 1950's. Look how they left other former territories.
Partition India/Pakistan.
Advocate Israeli state/Palestine.
Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland.

Scotland might be unique because of the land border of Scotland and England. We have a split of people who identify as British and people who identify as Scottish, similar to Northern Ireland I imagine. We have an added vector in alot English people who live/study in Scotland.
Member
Posts: 20,044
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,397.50
Feb 28 2023 10:23am
Quote (ferdia @ Feb 28 2023 04:18pm)
in this word power does what power wants. whether it be via trade or troops it is what it is. this is me acknowledging what we have, no where did i say i like it.


By that moral compass there ought to be no derision with the US/NATO influencing and membering up former soviet states.
Russia is a regional power with a global powers nuclear arsenal. As proven by the war in Ukraine.

Russia's "power" is far from 1:1 with the US.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 28 2023 10:23am
Member
Posts: 28,878
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
Feb 28 2023 10:32am
Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 28 2023 11:18am)
why is it no one seems able to read?

is explicitly said it's NOT ok. i just said it's not so NOT OK that it justifies the invasion of Ukraine.

if it were listed in a 10 point discussion it would be valid context. but justification on its own for the war? puh-leeze.

meanwhile Putin was allowed to expand west into Syria, we drew a red line (stupid mistake), didn't enforce it, then entirely left the nation for him to pull into his sphere of influence.

the agreement was simple, we wouldn't march east en masse and encircle the former soviet union, we wouldn't absorb each nation and their weapon arsenals. we could have. in the wake of the collapse of the USSR these nations were in dire need of support, dire need of stable currency as hyper inflation tore through them and their national banks collapsed. and we didn't. we left them to figure things out, to sell their weapons caches to buy bread, to shift their national banks to whatever currency they could find a store of value in, and reform as they saw fit. independent of mother russia (rare) or as a proxy for russia under the guise of autocracy.

what we did was bad, but it doesnt justify the war in ukraine. period. the spirit of the agreement was never meant to last decades, and putin is using it as an excuse to shore up allies and try and send a message to other satellite states because his two most valuable resources even beyond fuel are young men and old military tech.


What's the point to continually bring up that it wasn't legal and binding other than as some sort of exception clause? It doesn't justify the war* but ignoring it that it's a central reason why the war is happening is dishonest.

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Feb 28 2023 11:17am)
I don't think you understand what the United Kingdom is. Alas what your implying is also a speculation.
What your advocating is "might is right" and its a dangerous precedent in my opinion.


I don't think you do. Before the Scottish became domesticated house cats they fought against British dominance. Just because many years later they accepted being ruled by London doesn't change the historic reality of how Scotland was folded into the dominion. Scotland is to England as Ukraine is to Russia. The English wouldn't accept the USSR funneling independence movements just like today Russia is chaffing at the west trying to rip Ukraine from it's sphere.

Might is right is the truest and most fundamental principle in this world today when it comes to understanding geopoltics. That's why we can go into a country like Iraq under the pretense of WMDs and find out a few months later there are no WMD's and stay there regardless for 9 years killing 300k civilians in the process and no one in the civilized world sanctions us or gives a fuck, because we run the world.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Feb 28 2023 10:43am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1226522662267226822695001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll