Ukraine V

[DimitryZ]

Hey, arming and training the Afghans to crush the USSR seemed like a great idea to some, eh? What about arming Iranian fundamentalists? How are those situations which happened years ago working out for the west here in modern times?



Klassik was befuddled as to why @Le Baron omitted Venezuela initially.

Tony Blair was certainly more than willing to overlook atrocities in Chechnya when British Petroleum could benefit from good relations with Russia. Certainly he wasn't the only one. How's the illustrious neoliberal Gerhard Schröder of the ruling SPD party looking these days?

The whole demand for a simple answer about arming Ukraine is preposterous. Ukraine has been armed by the west. The question isn't about arming as much as it is about that the goal of the arms is for the west. Is it to achieve peace expediently or is it to continue a long-term war in which Russia might be beaten back, but at the expense of an arms-filled country with few people left but extremists and the subsequent regional destabilization which leads to forever wars seen elsewhere across the globe where the US has intervened?

The Crimea issue is not a simple matter and neither is anything else really. Crimea for one has been in conflict, internal and external, for many years now. Perhaps Khrushchev had a great idea in his mind, but we don't know what that is. We're dealing with the consequences of it and diplomacy is the only way to solve it. Actually, there was some peace in the matter in the 1990s until the west stuck their nose into matters which led to Russia sticking their noses into matters.

Crimea "story" is simple - it sits squarely within internationally recognized borders of Ukraine. End of story.

 

[Klassik]

Crimea "story" is simple - it sits squarely within internationally recognized borders of Ukraine. End of story.

Simple posts lead to simply incorrect conclusions. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea within Ukraine was formed following the Yury Meshkov situation and the abolition of the Crimean constitution. The subsequent Autonomous Republic of Crimea seemed to be working well enough under the 1997 Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty which, likewise, was working well until tensions arose once again following the previously mentioned Sea Breeze 2006 NATO exercise where Klassik wonders why the people behind that are not viewed as psycopaths.

Crimea has a unique history with a unique population. There are reasons why such an area might become an area of contention if there is a foreign policy rift as there was and things devolved from there after a fairly long period of peace. Simple solutions to areas such as Crimea lead to forever wars such as those the US has majority contributed towards in the Middle East. Delicate issues such as these require those with knowledge of geopolitics and also diplomats who are looking for peace and not for political/economic victories for their home countries.

 

[DimitryZ]

Simple posts lead to simply incorrect conclusions. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea within Ukraine was formed following the Yury Meshkov situation and the abolition of the Crimean constitution. The subsequent Autonomous Republic of Crimea seemed to be working well enough under the 1997 Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty which, likewise, was working well until tensions arose once again following the previously mentioned Sea Breeze 2006 NATO exercise where Klassik wonders why the people behind that are not viewed as psycopaths.

Crimea has a unique history with a unique population. There are reasons why such an area might become an area of contention if there is a foreign policy rift as there was and things devolved from there after a fairly long period of peace. Simple solutions to areas such as Crimea lead to forever wars such as those the US has majority contributed towards in the Middle East. Delicate issues such as these require those with knowledge of geopolitics and also diplomats who are looking for peace and not for political/economic victories for their home countries.

Honestly, I stopped reading after you said "within Ukraine."

 

[palindrome]

Klassik is not specifically throwing this allegation towards palindrome, but why is it that Putin is considered a psychopath and megalomaniac and not western leaders who have invaded countries?

This is not a defense of Putin, but rather a call for even-handed treatment of the belligerents and perhaps a call for understanding that both the west and Russia have had their fair share of unjustified invasions in recent times. Once that's established, perhaps there is some legitimacy to Corbyn calling for another global pact to put pressure on both Russian and American foreign policy.....

This was written in reply to Le Baron, but Klassik assumes at least some of this was meant as a reply to Klassik. With that in mind, Klassik will comment.

Maybe so, but then what do we make of, say, the George W. Bush administration? Is that some sort of group psychopathy? Remember, that administration was the same which thought sending NATO into Crimea with Sea Breeze 2006 was a sensible thing to do even though it led to a protest in Feodosia and a general decline in internal affairs which had been peaceful for quite a while.

But, anyway, it must be remembered that the current State Department is not of much different construction than the Bush one and State Departments and presidents in between Bush and Biden have conducted similar foreign policy 'blunders' (Klassik is sure they'd be labeled different if Putin did them) which could be labeled as being psychotic as well. It is vitally important that US foreign policy be assessed critically. As Klassik mentioned earlier, the highest-ranking officials in the State Department have ties to profiting off militarization and arms deals. That fact alone should cause great concern and scrutiny about how the 'world's police' formulates their decisions and policies. Remember, a war 15-25 years from now might be caused by faulty policymaking today.

In answer to your question - Maybe one could argue that certain Western leaders were/are psychopathic, but those Western leaders have not threatened a nuclear holocaust; nor threatened blackmail by famine, that would have literally millions of innocent people starving to death. Both/either of which may still happen. This sets Putin apart, in a league of one, and psychopathy covers it. At least for me.

I can't speak to 'Feodosia', although I don't doubt the veracity of your knowledge here, which is much greater than mine, and I agree that the US miltary/industrial complex has an awful lot to answer for.

And now you've carefully tested my (lack of) in-depth knowledge concerning US governance, corruption and foreign policy @Klassik, maybe you will answer this question for me - Putin is a liar, literally anything he says cannot be trusted. So if Corbyn is right and pressure is to be brought to bear via a 'global pact', what makes you think Putin would 1. agree to be sublimated into forging a peace deal with Ukraine and 2. could be trusted to honour said deal?

John

 

[Le Baron]

Whichever country you hold a passport of?

Should that country give weapons to Ukraine?

Like blood from a stone, honestly...

You're asking the permanently wrong and simplistic question, trying really hard to find a simple checkmate 'there! so you support the defeat and death of Ukraine!'. It's transparent. To transfer arms from practically every country in the EU, US/UK/Australia... will do what? What happens when Ukraine runs out of people to deploy them? Will they start supplying soldiers?

 

[Le Baron]

Honestly, I stopped reading after you said "within Ukraine."

No doubt. A fixed ideology can be a grim obstacle.

 

[DimitryZ]

You're asking the permanently wrong and simplistic question, trying really hard to find a simple checkmate 'there! so you support the defeat and death of Ukraine!'. It's transparent. To transfer arms from practically every country in the EU, US/UK/Australia... will do what? What happens when Ukraine runs out of people to deploy them? Will they start supplying soldiers?

I learned that asking questions your opponent refuses to answer exposes the subterfuge employed in their argument.

 

[Le Baron]

In answer to your question - Maybe one could argue that certain Western leaders were/are psychopathic, but those Western leaders have not threatened a nuclear holocaust; nor threatened blackmail by famine, that would have literally millions of innocent people starving to death. Both/either of which may still happen. This sets Putin apart, in a league of one, and psychopathy covers it. At least for me.

Do you know I don't think it does. The U.S. and the rest of the west does not operate in that way. Dirty-ops by the U.S. are not open invasions, they have made use of proxy wars and funding of groups directed by foreign policy objectives, which means you can withdraw on the sly should it go wrong. The U.S. learned this after Vietnam.

It's why Thatcher was never in the dock for originally supporting Pol Pot as being against their considered enemy of the time. Never mind that Pot was a self-confessed "Marxist". Or Pinochet.

 

[Le Baron]

I learned that asking questions your opponent refuses to answer exposes the subterfuge employed in their argument.

It hardly matters though when the questions are clumsy attempted gotchas. There's no point carrying on a claimed 'discussion' and then dropping to lowest common denominator questions, black & white questions, when you don't get your way.

 

[Klassik]

but those Western leaders have not threatened a nuclear holocaust;

Remind Klassik again which country it was who used nuclear weapons for mass destruction. The Japanese know this answer and it isn't the USSR/Russia.

This might have been a long time ago, but it is an outcome of US foreign policy.

nor threatened blackmail by famine, that would have literally millions of innocent people starving to death.

This is the definition of the US's support for organizations such as the IMF and also the ill-effects of US forced regime change in places such as South America and the Middle East. Ask Guatemalans about the ~40 year civil war they had following the US's coup of a democratically elected leader and the economic pain caused afterwards, which contributes to modern refugee crises in the US today, all because a produce company in the US opposed labor laws in Guatemala by a democratically elected leader.

And now you've carefully tested my (lack of) in-depth knowledge concerning US governance, corruption and foreign policy @Klassik, maybe you will answer this question for me - Putin is liar, literally anything he says cannot be trusted. So if Corbyn is right and pressure is to brought to bear via a 'global pact', what makes you think Putin would 1. agree to be sublimated into forging a peace deal with Ukraine and 2. could be trusted to honour said deal?

The aforementioned 1997 Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty worked well...until it didn't...but it did work well for quite a number of years, including many under Putin, did it not? It seems logical to believe Putin will want to end the war at some point as this has not been a painless experience for Russia. There might have to be some compromise, one which factors in the desires of the locals of Ukraine, and Putin might well be open to such things if the Ukrainians are as well. The US can fund a permanent war in Ukraine. This is not that much of a pain to the US. The US will not be without gas and people will not be cold in their homes in the US like they will in, say, Germany. Putin's under more pressure to negotiate than the US is. Furthermore, negotiation from those not involved with the US might well carry more weight with Putin since it is surely the US that Putin feels that he is fighting.

 

[DimitryZ]

It hardly matters though when the questions are clumsy attempted gotchas. There's no point carrying on a claimed 'discussion' and then dropping to lowest common denominator questions, black & white questions, when you don't get your way.

Well, if we can't ask questions how could we learn?

Instead of answering an important question re. your position on a relevant question of the thread, let's engage in circular thread crapping, right?

 

[Le Baron]

Well, if we can't ask questions how could we learn?

Instead of answering an important question re. your position on a relevant question of the thread, let's engage in circular thread crapping, right?

But I'm not doing that. I (and Klassik up there) am expanding it into a realistic set of questions rather than the thin line of inquiry being pursued.

 

[Hook]

It hardly matters though when the questions are clumsy attempted gotchas. There's no point carrying on a claimed 'discussion' and then dropping to lowest common denominator questions, black & white questions, when you don't get your way.

You say you are an economist, but your post sounds like a politician.

Dimitry asked if your country should send arms to Ukraine. Let’s make it less personal. Should any country send arms to Ukraine?

If you do not think this is a legitimate question, worthy of your answer, please explain why. Thank you.

 

[Le Baron]

You say you are an economist, but your post sounds like a politician.

Dimitry asked if your country should send arms to Ukraine. Let’s make it less personal. Should any country send arms to Ukraine?

If you do not think this is a legitimate question, worthy of your answer, please explain why. Thank you.

Well let's see, this just happened:

On July 31, 2022, a United States drone strike in Afghanistan killed Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Why aren't the US doing that to Putin if they think they have the legitimate right to do these things?

 

[Hook]

Well let's see, this just happened:

Why aren't the US doing that to Putin if they think they have the legitimate right to do these things?

No clue what point you are trying to make, but is impolite to answer a question with another question. Please reread my post.

 

[Le Baron]

No clue what point you are trying to make, but is impolite to answer a question with another question. Please reread my post.

I already addressed this black & white question. They can send them, but how long will it last? When Ukraine starts running low on operatives to deploy the endless weapons supply, will the suppliers start sending soldiers? What are the objectives for sending the weapons? To 'defeat Russia'? I'm not into warmongering and this isn't WW2 where people pretend it's a battle against the Nazis trying to conquer Europe, so that arming people in proxy wars is justifiable.

Should the EU and the US do some world diplomacy and broker a peace agreement or just sell and ship arms?

 

[Hook]

I already addressed this black & white question. They can send them, but how long will it last? When Ukraine starts running low on operatives to deploy the endless weapons supply, will the suppliers start sending soldiers? What are the objectives for sending the weapons? To 'defeat Russia'? I'm not into warmongering and this isn't WW2 where people pretend it's a battle against the Nazis trying to conquer Europe, so that arming people in proxy wars is justifiable.

Should the EU and the US do some world diplomacy and broker a peace agreement or just sell and ship arms?

If you had addressed the question, it wouldn’t have to be asked multiple times. You still haven’t.

First you say “They can send them…”. Well yes, that is true. They have the capability. But the question was should they?

After asking several questions, you say that arming countries to fight the Nazis was justifiable. I agree.

Again, the question was “Should any country send arms to Ukraine?”.

 

[Spraggons Den]

Forfar 4 East Fife 5

used to be my favourite score line (I recall hearing it on the bbc pools results as a kid) but after tonight’s argument it’s now

DimitryZ 2 Le Barn Bot 0

 

[ks.234]

I learned that asking questions your opponent refuses to answer exposes the subterfuge employed in their argument.

You’ve had answers, you just don’t like them.

 

[ks.234]

Honestly, I stopped reading after you said "within Ukraine."

Which is why you never understand answers