War in Ukraine/Med Cruising

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by ausnp84

Isn’t that America’s justification for starting SO many wars over the recent past?

The hypocrisy coming out of the “leaders of the free world” (which in itself is a title slathered in arrogance) is astonishing.

N

Yes.. we have all seen NATO and the USA's competence in establishing new regimes in the Middle East and N Africa..
Still, I suppose chaos and destruction serves the purpose just as well.
NATO has been a defensive force in name only for decades..

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I see simply installing said missiles in Poland and Romania is some how ok then

The US acts in its own interests 100% of the time , it acted unilaterally to blockcade cuba , since when is merely siting missiles an act of war. If it was the US has declared war about 50 times so far.

The situation is entirely comparable , the US regarded hostile missiles that close to its borders that it felt it must unilaterally act ( and it received much international criticism ). Russia feels the same about the “ westernisation “ of Ukraine and the attempts to choose militarily which side it’s on. Russia will not accept NATO on its immediate border, just as the US would not accept missiles on its borders

The west can deflate tensions by offering Russia guarantees its will not maneouveur the Ukraine into any western military alliances , this is the core of what Russia is demanding. I see it as a reasonable request given the encirclement of Russia. It’s no more then the US demanded in Cuba.

You keep saying that, but it's not an apt comparison.

The Cuban missile crisis was precipitated by a very specific and acute military threat by the Russians.

What the United States said was that the placement of missiles in Cuba was considered an act of war. At that time, missiles didn't have the range and accuracy they have today. Now, each country is very capable of striking each other accurately from their own country, so the missile thing (while important) just isn't the same. In your analogy, the United States' response should have been doing a full-scale military invasion of Venezuela.

If Russia considers NATO admittance for the Ukraine an act of war, it can say so. There is plenty of room for discussion on that. Instead, Russia is preparing a military invasion.

The fact is that Russia doesn't like the Ukraine having a strong relationship with the West as trading partners and influence. This is the real reason. It's not because it's a threat, it's because Russia's non-democratic world is getting smaller, and Putin is "old school Kremlin". Russia thinks of the Ukraine as part of their territory. Not unlike China with Taiwan.

Sure, there is always a threat to having neighbors. But this is more about thinking that the territory "belongs" to them. The analogy here is that your best friends next door start hanging out with their neighbors on the other side, so you invade their house so you don't have to be lonely on Saturday nights.

All of this is the same logic Hitler used in WWII. And exactly what the UN was created to help avoid. It's unacceptable. And the international community can, and will, hold Russia (and Putin, personally) fully responsible for lives lost.

The US and the UK have done an excellent job of showing this for exactly what it is.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

2014 was a long time ago. To be honest, I don't know that history in detail enough to know if your accusation is valid or not. But even if valid, it's not justification for a Russian invasion today. Are you suggesting that the current government in the Ukraine is illegitimate? Because anything short of that makes Russia wrong here. Even if the government were illegitimate, that's a UN problem to solve, not Russia.

Russia being unhappy that they aren't able to install a puppet government in the Ukraine is NOT justification for a military invasion that will kill a lot of people.

Of course not! No one said an invasion is jusitifed. It's one thing to explain their logic, and entirely different thing to say it's OK.


Of course it's absolutely wrong, barbaric, against international law, against different treaties obligations. We would never do such a thing! Right?



Oops, well, hmm, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Serbia . . . I could go on.


When we invaded Iraq and overthrew its government, killing about 600,000 people and laying waste to the country, we did it in flagrant violation of international law -- because we COULD. We did it because we thought our national security needed it. Afghanistan was the same story. I wrote at the time that we were setting a horrible precedent. Now we see that coming home to roost.



The Russians will invade Ukraine because their national security demands it, in their understanding, and because they CAN. They have the force to do it, they can withstand the sanctions, and the West won't go to war over it.



It's WRONG, but we have to deal with it realistically. There will be no deal without reasonable concessions to Russia's security needs. If there will be no deal, there will be an invasion. The Ukrainians are the big losers here, and it's our fault because we've played around with them, like with a toy, without being willing to do anything which would save them. If you don't believe me, read Henry Kissinger on the subject. I provided the link.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Are you accusing the U.S. of installing missiles in the Ukraine? That's what happened during the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy responded correctly. That would have been a defacto declaration of war. That's not an apt comparison for what is happening in the Ukraine today.

I answered this question above. I don't want to bore everyone by repeating myself. We spent $5 billion subverting Ukraine and we financed a violent coup there. Ever heard of Victoria Nuland? Yats? You should read up.


The missiles were only one part of the Cuban crisis. The fact is that we wouldn't tolerate hostile military foces in our backyard with or without missiles. NATO membership for Ukraine would mean the same thing to the Russians. And the missiles would follow anyway -- we have put them in Poland, for example. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I see simply installing said missiles in Poland and Romania is some how ok then

The US acts in its own interests 100% of the time , it acted unilaterally to blockcade cuba , since when is merely siting missiles an act of war. If it was the US has declared war about 50 times so far.

The situation is entirely comparable , the US regarded hostile missiles that close to its borders that it felt it must unilaterally act ( and it received much international criticism ). Russia feels the same about the “ westernisation “ of Ukraine and the attempts to choose militarily which side it’s on. Russia will not accept NATO on its immediate border, just as the US would not accept missiles on its borders

The west can deflate tensions by offering Russia guarantees its will not maneouveur the Ukraine into any western military alliances , this is the core of what Russia is demanding. I see it as a reasonable request given the encirclement of Russia. It’s no more then the US demanded in Cuba.

Henry Kissinger said much the same thing.


What is our objective here? Why wouldn't we do something like that, which is so obvious? Some in our foreign policy establishment are actually looking forward to the invasion of Ukraine. It will make Russia a pariah state, will bring NATO together (which has been a little wobbly lately), will destablize Eastern Europe, and will make Europe more dependent on the U.S. No one, of course, cares anything about Ukraine, which is a mere toy in all of this.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Yes.. we have all seen NATO and the USA's competence in establishing new regimes in the Middle East and N Africa..
Still, I suppose chaos and destruction serves the purpose just as well.
NATO has been a defensive force in name only for decades..

We shouldn't confuse NATO, which is a defensive treaty organization, with it's member states. NATO didn't participate in the conflicts you're talking about.

NATO member states have their own military forces. The UN also has peacekeeping troops.

That said, you're right. Nation-building doesn't work. But that's not what's happening in Ukraine.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Of course not! No one said an invasion is jusitifed.
When we invaded Iraq and overthrew its government, killing about 600,000 people and laying waste to the country, we did it in flagrant violation of international law -- because we COULD. We did it because we thought our national security needed it. Afghanistan was the same story. I wrote at the time that we were setting a horrible precedent. Now we see that coming home to roost.

The Russians will invade Ukraine because their national security demands it, in their understanding, and because they CAN. They have the force to do it, they can withstand the sanctions, and the West won't go to war over it.

It's WRONG, but we have to deal with it realistically. There will be no deal without reasonable concessions to Russia's security needs. If there will be no deal, there will be an invasion. The Ukrainians are the big losers here, and it's our fault because we've played around with them, like with a toy, without being willing to do anything which would save them. If you don't believe me, read Henry Kissinger on the subject. I provided the link.

I answered this question above. I don't want to bore everyone by repeating myself. We spent $5 billion subverting Ukraine and we financed a violent coup there. Ever heard of Victoria Nuland? Yats? You should read up.

The missiles were only one part of the Cuban crisis. The fact is that we wouldn't tolerate hostile military foces in our backyard with or without missiles. NATO membership for Ukraine would mean the same thing to the Russians. And the missiles would follow anyway -- we have put them in Poland, for example. Why is this so hard to understand?

We aren't in a cold war. And we're not going to re-litigate it. Russia lost that one. They need to get over it and join the rest of the world. These are all the same excuses Hitler used in WWII. Don't forget, he had a rationale, too.

As far as the Ukraine, it's a tough nut to crack. They want to join the international community, and that makes Russia feel awfully alone.

And we're agreeing. It's WRONG for Russia to invade a sovereign country. So throwing out excuses and saying "well, it's understandable, though" isn't all that helpful.

It's wrong, no BUTS about it. If Russia invades people are going to die because Russia is choosing invasion over diplomacy.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

My understanding is that Novgorod was not conquered by the Mongols 'militarily' because Alexander Nevsky agreed/forced the city to pay tribute and become a vassal of the Golden Horde to prevent this.

The other cities attempted to fight, so they were sacked and destroyed.

Alexander Nevsky had the wisdom to pick his battles. Would that we had a bit of that today!

But it was more than wisdom:

1. Novgorod was the main trading link between Europe and Russia, and was actually a member of the Hanseatic League. It was fabulously wealthy, so could afford tribute which was pretty attractive to the Mongols, unlike other Russian cities like Kiev, which attempted to negotiate but couldn't put an acceptable offer on the table.

2. The Mongol army was divided and not in its best condition when it got as far as Novogorod.

3. The Mongols wisely understood that their tactics which were so effective in the steppes, were not so good in the forests and bogs of Northern Europe. Novgorod was a formidable military power, having defeated Sweden and the Teutonic Knights on many occasions.

So the Mongols had perhaps as little appetite for war as the Novogordians did. Reason prevailed and a mutually beneficial deal was struck, war was averted, and Novgorod continued to prosper as perhaps the most advanced European city of the middle ages -- with a democratic form of government, universal literacy (even girls), advanced technology like street lights and centralized underground sewers, centuries before Paris or London got street lights or got rid of their open sewers.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

We aren't in a cold war. And we're not going to re-litigate it. Russia lost that one. They need to get over it and join the rest of the world. These are all the same excuses Hitler used in WWII. Don't forget, he had a rationale, too.

As far as the Ukraine, it's a tough nut to crack. They want to join the international community, and that makes Russia feel awfully alone.

And we're agreeing. It's WRONG for Russia to invade a sovereign country. So throwing out excuses and saying "well, it's understandable, though" isn't all that helpful.

It's wrong, no BUTS about it. If Russia invades people are going to die because Russia is choosing invasion over diplomacy.

We agree its wrong. So what are we going to do about it? Just fume and scold while Russia invades? What's your plan?

Russia has no diplomatic choice, because WE have taken a categorical position on a matter which is a red line for Russia. Allowing us to continue meddling in Ukraine and eventually putting our military forces there is not acceptable to them. And means enough to them that they are willing to go through war, sanctions, whatever, to prevent it. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's WE who have made the choice to make a diplomatic resolution impossible.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We agree its wrong. So what are we going to do about it? Just fume and scold while Russia invades? What's your plan?

Russia has no diplomatic choice, because WE have taken a categorical position on a matter which is a red line for Russia. Allowing us to continue meddling in Ukraine and eventually putting our military forces there is not acceptable to them. And means enough to them that they are willing to go through war, sanctions, whatever, to prevent it. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's WE who have made the choice to make a diplomatic resolution impossible.

We agree that Russia is wrong to invade the Ukraine.

The only reason we're still having the discussion is because you agree with that, and then throw in excuses to justify Russia's actions, or saying it's the fault of the U.S.

Your argument is saying "Yes, Hitler was wrong in WWII, but seriously, it's really the allies fault because they were too hard on Germany after WWI." Sure, you can make that argument. But Hitler was responsible for WWII. There were other options.

Russia has the ability to make it's own decisions. A decision to do a military invasion while there are still diplomatic channels for it's grievances is on Russia exclusively.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

. . . I suppose it's fair to say that some Rus lands and traditions were preserved by Nevsky's thinking, since the payment of tribute was more important to the Mongols than a city's beliefs or religion.. .

To be fair, the Mongols didn't infringe on the culture or religion also in the cities they destroyed and sacked. They were famously tolerant, and Russia didn't actually do all that badly under the so-called "yoke". The Church actually flourished -- the Mongols exempted the Church from both Mongol AND RUSSIAN taxes. As you said, it was all about the tribute for them. The Novgorodians didn't even supply troops (most of the time). The Mongols were happy with the money and left them alone.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

We agree that Russia is wrong to invade the Ukraine.

The only reason we're still having the discussion is because you agree with that, and then throw in excuses to justify Russia's actions, or saying it's the fault of the U.S.

Your argument is saying "Yes, Hitler was wrong in WWII, but seriously, it's really the allies fault because they were too hard on Germany after WWI." Sure, you can make that argument. But Hitler was responsible for WWII. There were other options.

Russia has the ability to make it's own decisions. A decision to do a military invasion while there are still diplomatic channels for it's grievances is on Russia exclusively.

You didn't understand anything which was written. No one justifies an invasion, full stop. It's wrong. One more time: understanding and excusing are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. The Russians have their position. We might not like it, but it is their position. Deal with it!

The Russian invasion is wrong. But we are doing nothing to stop it. That's wrong too.

Russia has no "diplomatic channels for it's [sic] grievances" so long as we are not willing to negotiate that one thing which they are willing to go to war for.

Once more -- what is your plan? Stand by and let it happen? Scold them?

After spending $5 billion to subvert Ukraine and otherthrow their government, based on giving them an unrealistic hope that we would bring them into the EU and NATO -- don't you think we have some obligations to the Ukrainians?

There are only three ways this can go down:

1. Russia invades Ukraine and installs a puppet government which will give Russia control over Ukraine's foreign policy.

2. We commit military forces to stop the Russians, start a big European war, risking nuclear holocaust and indeed WWIII, and assuming we survive, spend the trillions of dollars it would require to bring Ukraine into NATO and Europe.

3. Make a deal which keeps Ukraine neutral, as proposed by Henry Kissinger, much in the same manner as was done with Austria and Finland after WWII.

That's all there is. Which do you prefer? If I were Ukrainian, I sure know which one I would prefer.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You didn't understand anything which was written. No one justifies an invasion, full stop. It's wrong. One more time: understanding and excusing are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. The Russians have their position. We might not like it, but it is their position. Deal with it!

The Russian invasion is wrong. But we are doing nothing to stop it. That's wrong too.

I understand everything you're saying. I just don't agree with all of it.

What you're saying (and what Russia wants) is for the West to turn it's back on the Ukraine. Then, the Ukraine, having been rejected by the West can go running back to mother Russia. I'm sure Putin would love that.

But we have a fundamental disagreement over the importance of self-determination. The West believes in this. Russia doesn't care about it. Putin understands all of this, which is why he loves putting the West into a "no win situation" over this. All you have to do is sign over your soul forever, and he's satisfied.

From Kissinger, in 2014:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

I agree with all of that. He's saying the Ukraine shouldn't join NATO. They have not. They will not. But that's different from having the U.S. publicly reject the possibility. It's a big nuance. He's also saying the Ukraine should be allowed to make their own choices.

Kissinger also says this:

The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction.

At least we agree on one thing. Russia is wrong to invade. And if Russia does invade, she will pay a heavy price.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

We shouldn't confuse NATO, which is a defensive treaty organization, with it's member states. NATO didn't participate in the conflicts you're talking about.

NATO member states have their own military forces. The UN also has peacekeeping troops.

That said, you're right. Nation-building doesn't work. But that's not what's happening in Ukraine.

Ahh.!!! the convenient 'Get out of Jail Free' card that NATO often plays..
https://unu.edu/publications/article...-in-libya.html

100'000, 120'000 and now 150'000 Russian troops on the border claim US Intelligence agencies.. "Look at the photographic images from space"
But then.. Iraq proved that PhotoShop is a wonderous tool.

[ausnp84]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

We aren't in a cold war. And we're not going to re-litigate it. Russia lost that one. They need to get over it and join the rest of the world.

“Join the rest of the world”... gee whiz that’s incredibly arrogant, and such a western view. The same view that’s so anti-China, anti-Middle East, and anti-anything good ol’ Uncle Sam hasn’t approved.

No-one’s saying a potential Russian invasion is a good thing (and it’s still a potential, unless you believe Fox News and the BBC), however it’s rather tiresome the US preaching one thing, and doing another.

N

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by ausnp84

No-one’s saying a potential Russian invasion is a good thing (and it’s still a potential, unless you believe Fox News and the BBC), however it’s rather tiresome the US preaching one thing, and doing another.

Glad you agree.

But the Russians have set up a very dangerous situation.

If they choose to invade, they will pay a heavy price.

The world is watching.