advertisement


Ukraine V

NATO was mistaken to expand into eastern Europe when Russia was temporarily weak and even more mistaken to continue this enlargement into the 21st century. A world map with Russia at the centre of it shows how Russia is surrounded by hostile powers.

5c83f7017b3a39e20ef1562d5f01b54a.jpg


So it might be of value to consider how Russians view the constant advancement of NATO and what a considerable threat it presents them as their buffer is continually eroded.

USA were going to start a nuclear war when Khrushchev installed nukes in Cuba, whereas Russia has been restrained so far despite nuclear weapons pointing at them from western Europe and Turkey plus assistance in nuclear missions from eastern European countries. The actions of USA in this context are ridiculously provocative and interference in the Ukraine which has such great significance to Russia is understandably intolerable to them.

This all contrasts with the uneasy peace of the Cold War where the boundaries were more clearly defined by the Iron Curtain where there was the cruel suppression of Russian 'satellites' but relative stability compared to what we are seeing now, and of course much the same as was being conducted in the Americas in the USA's own sphere of influence, only the Russians were by no means as cruel.

I'm not sure how we are to get out of this mess, and it may not be possible to now that USA and Russia are both controlled by warmongers with vested interests in perpetuating the death and destruction, but I think that the best outcome would be a negotiated peace solution which involves NATO reversing on some of its expansion and the creation of another Iron Curtain which is formally agreed upon by both sides in the manner of that after WW2.
 
DimitryZ said:
Once Ukraine starts rolling back Russian troops, they would have gotten enough arms.

This is not a first war humans have gotten into...
Click to expand...
Why has sufficient arms not been given for that objective already?

Is it because the US et al has good intentions, ie it fears catastrophic consequences?

Or is it because the US sees an opportunity to profit from restructuring and the longer it goes on the more restructuring there will be to profit from?

Which is it?
 
Hook said:
Again, I'm confused. At last count, 31 countries are currently sending arms to Ukraine. Are you talking about something else?
Click to expand...
After all this time of demanding a yes no answer to a specific question, you appear to have forgotten what the question was
 
Super Bigote said:
NATO was mistaken to expand into eastern Europe when Russia was temporarily weak and even more mistaken to continue this enlargement into the 21st century. A world map with Russia at the centre of it shows how Russia is surrounded by hostile powers.

5c83f7017b3a39e20ef1562d5f01b54a.jpg


So it might be of value to consider how Russians view the constant advancement of NATO and what a considerable threat it presents them as their buffer is continually eroded.

USA were going to start a nuclear war when Khrushchev installed nukes in Cuba, whereas Russia has been restrained so far despite nuclear weapons pointing at them from western Europe and Turkey plus assistance in nuclear missions from eastern European countries. The actions of USA in this context are ridiculously provocative and interference in the Ukraine which has such great significance to Russia is understandably intolerable to them.

This all contrasts with the uneasy peace of the Cold War where the boundaries were more clearly defined by the Iron Curtain where there was the cruel suppression of Russian 'satellites' but relative stability compared to what we are seeing now, and of course much the same as was being conducted in the Americas in the USA's own sphere of influence, only the Russians were by no means as cruel.

I'm not sure how we are to get out of this mess, and it may not be possible to now that USA and Russia are both controlled by warmongers with vested interests in perpetuating the death and destruction, but I think that the best outcome would be a negotiated peace solution which involves NATO reversing on some of its expansion and the creation of another Iron Curtain which is formally agreed upon by both sides in the manner of that after WW2.
Click to expand...
Reinforcements!
 
ks.234 said:
Why has sufficient arms not been given for that objective already?

Is it because the US et al has good intentions, ie it fears catastrophic consequences?

Or is it because the US sees an opportunity to profit from restructuring and the longer it goes on the more restructuring there will be to profit from?

Which is it?
Click to expand...
You sure have a lot of questions for someone who won't state their own position.

Straightforward answer is that:

1. Modern weapons require extensive training, which takes time and effort. No sense giving Ukraine more weapons than they have operators for.

2. West doesn't entirely trust Ukraine not to escalate suddenly (say like rushing into Crimea, once Russians get moving), this provoking a nuclear response from Putin.
 
George J said:
It is what anyone who values self-determination wants. Those who muddy waters with obfuscation are in reality fellow-travelers of people like Putin and his progenitors both in Russia and elsewhere.

Really simple. Every single Russian military person, every land weapon, every aircraft and every ship needs removing from Ukraine. The Ukrainians have shown they don't want to be invaded. More strength to them.

George
Click to expand...
You might want that, I might want that, but is that what the US wants. If it is, why hasn’t it done it?
 
DimitryZ said:
You sure have a lot of questions for someone who won't state their own position.
Click to expand...
I have stated my position very clearly very many times, Strange how someone who has been demanding answers to questions all day has such a problem answering them
 
Super Bigote said:
I think that the best outcome would be a negotiated peace solution which involves NATO reversing on some of its expansion and the creation of another Iron Curtain which is formally agreed upon by both sides in the manner of that after WW2.
Click to expand...
I am sure that the citizens of Eastern and Central European countries would be glad to endure another 40 years of repression and exploitation towards this noble end. Which ones would you be prepared to throw under the bus?
 
DimitryZ said:
Nope, still waiting... Weapons, no weapons...
Click to expand...
No, you were very clear, it was “more” weapons. How many more? To what end? If the end is to push Russia back to some predetermined line, what then? How to ensure that line, what about those people living along that line? A demilitarised zone? a wall? Who will police it? Who will pay for that policing? What will happen in Ukraine is a successful push back is achieved? Who will pay for reconstruction? What will that reconstruction look like? To put things back as they were? Or privatisation, deregulation and cuts to public services?
 
ks.234 said:
No, you were very clear, it was “more” weapons. How many more? To what end? If the end is to push Russia back to some predetermined line, what then? How to ensure that line, what about those people living along that line? A demilitarised zone? a wall? Who will police it? Who will pay for that policing?
Click to expand...
You are like a child new in the world, who woke up and started asking questions about the world around him. What is war? Why do people use weapons? What is a nation? Why do countries attack one another? Why are we here?

Have you ever had to defend yourself against violence or is that potential just a theoretical construct for you?
 
DimitryZ said:
You are like a child new in the world, who woke up and started asking questions about the world around him. What is war? Why do people use weapons? What is a nation? Why do countries attack one another? Why are we here?

Good luck.
Click to expand...

Good luck to you too
 
Joe Hutch said:
I am sure that the citizens of Eastern and Central European countries would be glad to endure another 40 years of repression and exploitation towards this noble end. Which ones would you be prepared to throw under the bus?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the citizens of eastern Europe would love to have their towns and cities and population destroyed by war. Which ones would you throw under the bus?

Is there no possibility at all of having a sensible, well-meaning and intelligent discussion on this site?
 
I think that, almost without exception, the citizens of Eastern and Central Europe were only too pleased to escape from the repressive regimes imposed on them by Russia post-WW2. How would you convince them that going back to the Iron Curtain would be a good idea? Appeal to their better nature? Threaten them that, unless they do, they will be bombed to Hell and back?

(I'm being charitable and assuming that you're just being a bit naive here).
 
ks.234 said:
After all this time of demanding a yes no answer to a specific question, you appear to have forgotten what the question was
Click to expand...

Not at all. I will try one last time. The question was "Is sending arms to Ukraine a good idea?". It was your question, remember?

Then you said, "If the answer is yes, then why hasn't any country done it?". I assumed you were talking about your own question, and I replied that 31 countries already had.

I started becoming confused when you said your own question was meaningless. Tell me please, what exactly have I forgotten?

Lastly, I never demanded yes or no as the only content of any answer. I invited caveats and substantiation multiple times.
 
George J said:
Though the USA really made a lot of money from the armament sector in WWII, I doubt that many in the USA would regard Six Million Jews' lives as a happy ending ...
Click to expand...

The people of the US aren't so concerned about the money made by the arms industry in WWII as much as the 'pride' of becoming the world's police as George J posts below. The US's callous foreign policy has not had much impact on the US mainland...at least not directly. Repeated destabilization of Central and South America has directly contributed to refugee crises the US suffers, but this is rarely linked to poor US foreign policy by the media so most US citizens are rather unaware of this connection. Obviously, US's proxy war where they supported Afghanistan and trained fighters in places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s came back to haunt the US in 2001 and that led to a whole bunch of other foreign policy disasters which has impacted the American public, but again, people don't think of failed foreign policy in the 1980s as the reason why the US was in such a bad position in the 2000s.

George J said:
As for the consequences of US foreign policy, they are the self-proclaimed policeman of the world as was Britain prior to 1918. One can but wonder at US policy and indeed the quality of those at the top [and possibly largely throughout] the political class, but that is not unique to the US these days. The UK is arguably in just a bad state regarding the quality of our politicians .. of all stripes. I am still amazed that Tony Blair dare show his face after backing the Sin Iraq ...
Click to expand...

This is why Klassik believes Corbyn is correct in wanting a separate pact independent of the US. The Tories and New Labour have completely supported the US on just about all of their recent foreign policy blunders/plunders. The UK has given the US a blank check to do what they want. The UK could well be the greatest force in stopping US excesses diplomatically just as how President Eisenhower ordered the UK and France to back down in regards to the Suez decades ago. Eisenhower prevented the UK and France from embarrassing themselves and causing more warfare. The US needs that pressure put against them.

As @Super Bigote points out, the callous nature of NATO expansionism is what precipitated this conflict. Presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton, during his first term at least, realized that NATO expansionism was not in the best interest of anyone. Unfortunately, as @ks.234 points out, this also came during a time of austerity economics in the East (and West) which hindered growth and partnerships in the region, but even then, peace was achieved between Ukraine and Russia with their peace pact in 1997 and that held until the US led a NATO exercise, Sea Breeze, in 2006 near Crimea. Such callous actions by the US, it should have been known this was a geopolitical nightmare, and subsequent mistakes to handle that mistake have certainly contributed towards a division between the US and Russia.

George J said:
But that is no reason to deny Ukraine the sovereign right to determine its methods of fighting against Russia.
Click to expand...

This is at the heart of the issue. Based on the US's comments and history, there's little reason for Klassik to believe that the US is arming Ukraine for Ukraine to determine their course. The US seems intent on draining Russia the way they did to the USSR in the 1980s with Afghanistan. That was a long, brutal war with long-range consequences long after the war was over with that the US and the rest of the world is still dealing with. Arming Ukraine for Ukraine to fight for their self-determination is one thing, but arming Ukraine in order to use Ukraine as a pseudo-US Army is a whole different matter.

George J said:
If they are offered the suitable weaponry to defeat the seemingly somewhat hopeless and ill-motivated Russia military with apparent remarkably motivated people, then that is their absolute right to do so.
Click to expand...

If Russia is so ill-motivated and hopeless, why are people screaming about Russian expansionism into NATO territories? This seems like a major contradiction to ole' Klassik.


George J said:
Will there be consequences for Ukraine? I would think so. It took the UK decades to pay the USA back for their assitance during WWII. But does that mean the USA will be as demonstrative with the future Ukraine governments as Russia would be if it wins? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

The idea of 'paying back' for assistance is not correct. The goal should be to help Ukraine and Russia develop their economies and fund in their citizenry. Ukraine's social structure, as well as Russia's, should be such that people who have left the country will be proud to want to return. This means significant funding for green energy, healthcare, and so forth.

Everyone wants to talk about Putin, but Putin won't be around in charge of Russia forever. That hardly means that the gulf between Russia and the US in foreign policy will be bridged. There will need to be a lot of diplomatic work done to help these problems. Of course, since countries such as China and India are not exactly anti-Russia, the US might have to deal with a global bloc which the US cannot overcome through typical means the US tried to use in the 20th century and often failed even then. This makes diplomacy even more important. At some point, the US has to learn how to use diplomatic means to solve problems rather than militaristic ones because at the very least, militarization is completely taking away from environmental reforms. It's putting things the other way...and in many ways, that only benefits Russia given their resources.

George J said:
I am probably fairly normal in taking more interest in the Ukrainian Crisis than in those of the Middle East and Far East. I would guess those in the Far and Middle East are somewhat more interested themselves in warfare more proximate to their own states.

I think that makes fairly normal on a global scale.
Click to expand...

They're all important. Conflicts in the Middle East have an impact everywhere. Conflicts in Asia have an impact everywhere. Conflicts in South America have an impact everywhere. Some impacts may be more felt in certain places than others, but the foreign policy of our countries (Klassik assumes that would be the UK, EU, and US for most here) is vitally important even if it does not impact the west directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top