Russia/Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heatherg21 said:
Can I ask a really simplistic question? Mind you I’m just a mom of a SA kid and midsib and have no geopolitical education or military experience.

I don’t see how bringing Ukraine into NATO would ever have benefited NATO. As I understand it, to bring a country in, all member countries must have some benefit.
Ukraine would be one step too close to Putin’s beloved Mother Russia and the buffer zone of Ukraine would be gone. Conversely, if he raised a pinky against Ukraine all NATO nations would then be obligated by Article 5 to act. Keeping Ukraine out keeps NATO more protected as a whole, at least from going toe to toe with a massive nuclear power with a billionaire oligarch with his hand on the launch codes.

Why didn’t we just say Ukraine becoming a member nation was a no go. A hard no go. Would that have helped? We have had months, months to try that tact and we didn’t. It boggles my mind.

Open to some polite schooling.
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly an expert in geopolitics, but I will give it my best attempt.

One interpretation of why it would benefit NATO to allow Ukraine to join is rather simple. If it is assumed that Putin (who has shown all signs he intends to massively expand the Russian sphere of influence through military force, if necessary) was already planning on slowly destroying the more-Western friendly relatively democratic government of Ukraine, then it makes sense from a strategic perspective to counter Putin in his goal to prevent him from gaining power and victory. Making Ukraine a NATO member would undoubtedly cause blowback from Russia, but the threat of nuclear war and/or a conventional war could force Putin to back down. If this could be accomplished it would be an undoubted setback for Putin, showcasing his weakness to all of Russia, and a massive victory for NATO proving that it could successfully force Russia to back down. Now that is admittedly a best-case scenario and a highly hypothetical one at that. NATO previously stood as the opposition to Soviet influence in Europe and is now the inheritor of the Soviet legacy is Russia. It is not exactly a stretch to claim that NATO's purpose was/is to counter Russian influence.

As for conceding to Russian demands regarding NATO membership of Ukraine? Ukraine has consistently shown interest in NATO membership but has effectively been denied. This has been for various reasons from my understanding, and denying Ukraine membership based simply on Putin's demands could set a poor precedent. Putin's list of demands strikes me as more of a Munich Diktat. Little more than a power grab with flimsy excuses being used to justify the war. Putin has also said he is leading this war to "denazify" Ukraine, a democratic country led by a Jewish President. And that's not even considering the damage the Einsatzgruppen and other Nazi forces did to Ukraine during Operation Barbarossa and beyond. All of this is to say, giving in to Russian demands may simply have caused more excuses to be made and the war may have happened anyway.

Note: this is just my hastily written opinion. I apologize for the lack of sourcing and possible errors. When I have more time I'll do my best to get some sources to back up some of my claims. Hopefully, this helps.
 
Last edited:
A1Janitor said:
Read the basic history here:

en.m.wikipedia.org

Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
That might have confused me further. I have a general understanding. I have tried to follow along.
My central question still stands. At least for me.
Also, many mentions of change of leadership. It isn’t clear whether these changes occurred via democratic elections or placed individuals.
 
Last edited:
***NATO previously stood as the opposition to Soviet influence in Europe. Now the inheritor of the Soviet legacy is Russia.
 
Big NATO meeting today. Even non-NATO members Sweden and Finland (the last country to kick Russia’s a$$) are attending. A lot of NATO armor will be moving east. All you A-10 pilots, get ready to spend a year in Poland.
 
NJROTC-CC said:
Big NATO meeting today. Even non-NATO members Sweden and Finland (the last country to kick Russia’s a$$) are attending. A lot of NATO armor will be moving east. All you A-10 pilots, get ready to spend a year in Poland.
Click to expand...
Yes. Unfortunately seems like Sweden and Finland joining NATO is out of the question, but hopefully, this will lead to a deepening of our ties.
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
www.newsweek.com

These QAnon Predictions All Failed To Come True

The conspiracy theorists' belief that Donald Trump will be inaugurated as president is not their first wild claim that has failed to come to fruition.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

I had no idea intelligent people thought these folks have gotten so much correct in the past.
Click to expand...
Qanon is not q. So you understand. I said q. Qanon is a bunch of followers and others that made up a bunch of nonsense. And the media latched on.

A lot of the q stuff related to the russian hoax.

We can discuss what intelligence got wrong too. ;)
 
justdoit19 said:
🤔 hmmmmmm

www.militarytimes.com

As Russia attacks Ukraine, Taiwan wonders: What will China do?

The U.S. has no official ties with Taiwan but has historical relations and sells Taiwan billions of dollars worth of weapons. It is also bound by its own law to ensure Taiwan can defend itself.
www.militarytimes.com www.militarytimes.com
Click to expand...
Interesting article. Sounds like China is being very careful. It will be interesting to see what kind of morale campaigns we see in the event that China makes the decision to invade Taiwan.
 
A1Janitor said:
Qanon is not q. So you understand. I said q. Qanon is a bunch of followers and others that made up a bunch of nonsense. And the media latched on.

A lot of the q stuff related to the russian hoax.

We can discuss what intelligence got wrong too. ;)
Click to expand...
A great deal of that nonsense stems directly back to easily findable posts from q (now suspected to be a South African journalist called Paul Furber) on right wing media planforms, the satanic cannibals, direct q post, pizzagate, direct q post, secret executions of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, direct q post, JFK still alive slight interpretation of a direct q post.

Deciding you like the Russian hoax conspiracy and so trying to somehow divorce it from the madness of Qanon is frankly as ridiculous as it is impossible.

Finding ways to shift the narrative around Russian behavior that somehow suggests that we just don't know who the good and bad guys are in this complex situation suits a certain agenda because it both feeds the idea that Biden is warmongering because of his interests in Ukraine and makes it seem less awkward that the previous POTUS appeared bizarrely infatuated with Putin. But it is a party political talking point and nothing more. Is the Ukrainian government corrupt, I mean did you ever meet an Eastern European government that wasn't, but who the bad guys is here and why we should by siding with Ukraine over Russia is not something anyone else pretty much in the world (outside of some people in Russia) is having any problem discerning.
 
Emsa said:
A great deal of that nonsense stems directly back to easily findable posts from q (now suspected to be a South African journalist called Paul Furber) on right wing media planforms, the satanic cannibals, direct q post, pizzagate, direct q post, secret executions of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, direct q post, JFK still alive slight interpretation of a direct q post.

Deciding you like the Russian hoax conspiracy and so trying to somehow divorce it from the madness of Qanon is frankly as ridiculous as it is impossible.

Finding ways to shift the narrative around Russian behavior that somehow suggests that we just don't know who the good and bad guys are in this complex situation suits a certain agenda because it both feeds the idea that Biden is warmongering because of his interests in Ukraine and makes it seem less awkward that the previous POTUS appeared bizarrely infatuated with Putin. But it is a party political talking point and nothing more. Is the Ukrainian government corrupt, I mean did you ever meet an Eastern European government that wasn't, but who the bad guys is here and why we should by siding with Ukraine over Russia is not something anyone else pretty much in the world (outside of some people in Russia) is having any problem discerning.
Click to expand...

For five years we have heard the former president was in bed with Russia, he colluded with Russia to beat Hillary, he had a server connected to a Russian bank, Russia had a bounty on our soldiers in Afghanistan, etc.

What we really had was lying on FISA applications, spying on journalists, spying on political opponents, a false narrative pushed by the media.

This isn’t conspiracy. There are current indictments by a special prosecutor. With more to come.

Did anyone pushing that care that they were accusing Russia, perhaps our first or second most powerful enemy, of something not true?

This is a horrible invasion by Putin. I side with Ukraine. Innocent lives are lost with needless and endless wars. Russia and the US have experience with Afghanistan. Where did that get either country.

Ukraine corruption must be explored. Hunter’s laptop wasn’t russian disinformation.
 
Perhaps we should try and keep the conversation restricted to matters directly related to this conflict? Not that I don't love the totally productive political conversations the internet is known for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top