|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 25 2022 05:42 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2022 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:27 Sadist wrote:On January 25 2022 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 25 2022 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Are people actually advocating that the US/NATO should go to war with Russia if they invade Ukraine? Putting the whole Western countries training Nazis aside, it seems clear that Russia wants to undo the geopolitical swing of the leadership Western countries helped remove and replace in Ukraine. That said, I don't think annexing Ukraine would justify or make reasonable US/NATO troops and war with Russia either. In what theoretical taking of land would war with Russia be justified to you? Poland? Where do you draw the line and say "If Russia did (blank), that would fulfill my minimum requirement"? Is it that you think this is the extent of Russia's hopes for the region and they'll just play nice once they have Ukraine? Surely a war between superpowers would be far more damaging than Russia taking Ukraine. People said the same about Nazi Germany. The basic assumption I am making is that we have no reason to see Ukraine as the end of Russia's desires. We have every reason to think Ukraine will just make it easier for Russia to take even more. Placating Russia is a fantasy that I don't think has any merit. Nuclear Weapons exist. If you go to war with a nuclear super power you better be sure they wont use them or there will be MAD and we end the planet as we know it. This is nothing like Germany. So then what is the conclusion to this logic? What if Russia tried to take Germany? What do we do then? France? Where exactly is this worth violence? Or is what you are saying that Russia should be permitted to occupy any country so long as that country does not have nukes? What is your conclusion? Let's launch some missiles after arguing over two enclaves where Russians and Ukrainians fight over their passports and play fallout irl if we don't get vaporized? In the 70s the average person was more conscious about this, houses built in Austria during that time had mandatory bunkers that nowadays wouldn't even save you. The only way to win is not to play. Speaking of which. NORAD had a malfunction back then which made it look like Russian missiles were inbound and the guys in the US army (who are heroes) who decided not to instantly retaliate might think differently. So, we shouldn't deter Russia from annexing Ukraine, And then Poland? Romania? When Russian troops are at the border of Austria we should not provoke them right?
That's the problem with MAD. it only works as a deterrent if you accept that your willing to pull the trigger. So where is the line? Where do we go to war with Russia over them annexing country after country (humour me, lets for the sake of this question assume Russia is not satisfied with just annexing Ukraine)
Where do we draw the line?
|
On January 25 2022 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2022 05:42 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:27 Sadist wrote:On January 25 2022 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 25 2022 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Are people actually advocating that the US/NATO should go to war with Russia if they invade Ukraine? Putting the whole Western countries training Nazis aside, it seems clear that Russia wants to undo the geopolitical swing of the leadership Western countries helped remove and replace in Ukraine. That said, I don't think annexing Ukraine would justify or make reasonable US/NATO troops and war with Russia either. In what theoretical taking of land would war with Russia be justified to you? Poland? Where do you draw the line and say "If Russia did (blank), that would fulfill my minimum requirement"? Is it that you think this is the extent of Russia's hopes for the region and they'll just play nice once they have Ukraine? Surely a war between superpowers would be far more damaging than Russia taking Ukraine. People said the same about Nazi Germany. The basic assumption I am making is that we have no reason to see Ukraine as the end of Russia's desires. We have every reason to think Ukraine will just make it easier for Russia to take even more. Placating Russia is a fantasy that I don't think has any merit. Nuclear Weapons exist. If you go to war with a nuclear super power you better be sure they wont use them or there will be MAD and we end the planet as we know it. This is nothing like Germany. So then what is the conclusion to this logic? What if Russia tried to take Germany? What do we do then? France? Where exactly is this worth violence? Or is what you are saying that Russia should be permitted to occupy any country so long as that country does not have nukes? What is your conclusion? Let's launch some missiles after arguing over two enclaves where Russians and Ukrainians fight over their passports and play fallout irl if we don't get vaporized? In the 70s the average person was more conscious about this, houses built in Austria during that time had mandatory bunkers that nowadays wouldn't even save you. The only way to win is not to play. Speaking of which. NORAD had a malfunction back then which made it look like Russian missiles were inbound and the guys in the US army (who are heroes) who decided not to instantly retaliate might think differently. So, we shouldn't deter Russia from annexing Ukraine, And then Poland? Romania? When Russian troops are at the border of Austria we should not provoke them right? That's the problem with MAD. it only works as a deterrent if you accept that your willing to pull the trigger. So where is the line? Where do we go to war with Russia over them annexing country after country (humour me, lets for the sake of this question assume Russia is not satisfied with just annexing Ukraine) Where do we draw the line?
I think arming ukraine is fine. Sending troops or ships is a big mistake. Using sanctions on Russia is fine. Having Ukraine join NATO is not. If Ukraine joined NATO, NATO would be forced to intervene which is bad. If NATO doesnt intervene it emboldens russia and shows countries NATO doesnt mean much. If they do intervene it could lead to ridiculous escalation.
Its a lose/lose
|
On January 25 2022 04:06 Sadist wrote:
I think NATO should stay out of Ukraine.
I feel like its antagonistic to Russia to talk about adding Ukraine/Georgia.
Do we think Russia would actually invade Ukraine without NATO hanging over its head? I think its wrong for them to try to destabilize Ukraine but I dont think theyd invade.
I think our country would be pissed if China or Russia had troops or missles in Latin America.
NATO hanging over its head? WTF are you talking about? You really fell for the Russian propaganda, I'm sorry to say. There are estimated 100-200k Russian troops in Kaliningrad, right next to Poland. Meanwhile, before Ukraine was invaded in 2014, there were a few thousand allied NATO troops in Poland, stationed predominantly in western Poland. That's some 1500 km from Moscow. Russia felt threatened by that? Then how should we feel about their troops next to our country? Or their repeated violations of neutral countries' airspace? Or nuclear threats? Military exercises practising an invasion of Poland?
This is NATO "surrounding" poor Russia:
![[image loading]](http://carnegieendowment.org/images/article_images//der-spiegel-new-fronts-map_2017_May_24_605.jpg)
|
On January 25 2022 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2022 05:42 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:27 Sadist wrote:On January 25 2022 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 25 2022 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Are people actually advocating that the US/NATO should go to war with Russia if they invade Ukraine? Putting the whole Western countries training Nazis aside, it seems clear that Russia wants to undo the geopolitical swing of the leadership Western countries helped remove and replace in Ukraine. That said, I don't think annexing Ukraine would justify or make reasonable US/NATO troops and war with Russia either. In what theoretical taking of land would war with Russia be justified to you? Poland? Where do you draw the line and say "If Russia did (blank), that would fulfill my minimum requirement"? Is it that you think this is the extent of Russia's hopes for the region and they'll just play nice once they have Ukraine? Surely a war between superpowers would be far more damaging than Russia taking Ukraine. People said the same about Nazi Germany. The basic assumption I am making is that we have no reason to see Ukraine as the end of Russia's desires. We have every reason to think Ukraine will just make it easier for Russia to take even more. Placating Russia is a fantasy that I don't think has any merit. Nuclear Weapons exist. If you go to war with a nuclear super power you better be sure they wont use them or there will be MAD and we end the planet as we know it. This is nothing like Germany. So then what is the conclusion to this logic? What if Russia tried to take Germany? What do we do then? France? Where exactly is this worth violence? Or is what you are saying that Russia should be permitted to occupy any country so long as that country does not have nukes? What is your conclusion? Let's launch some missiles after arguing over two enclaves where Russians and Ukrainians fight over their passports and play fallout irl if we don't get vaporized? In the 70s the average person was more conscious about this, houses built in Austria during that time had mandatory bunkers that nowadays wouldn't even save you. The only way to win is not to play. Speaking of which. NORAD had a malfunction back then which made it look like Russian missiles were inbound and the guys in the US army (who are heroes) who decided not to instantly retaliate might think differently. So, we shouldn't deter Russia from annexing Ukraine, And then Poland? Romania? When Russian troops are at the border of Austria we should not provoke them right? That's the problem with MAD. it only works as a deterrent if you accept that your willing to pull the trigger. So where is the line? Where do we go to war with Russia over them annexing country after country (humour me, lets for the sake of this question assume Russia is not satisfied with just annexing Ukraine) Where do we draw the line?
Same as always. Don't take them into nato and demand a guarantee that they stop trying to expand their influence there. If you want a Russian passport in Ukraine, then you have to get out afterwards might work. The militarized Russians in the territories in question obviously refuse to be displaced, that's the nut to crack.
I don't know where this notion that they want Poland or other nations comes from.
|
United States43633 Posts
On January 25 2022 06:04 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2022 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On January 25 2022 05:42 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:27 Sadist wrote:On January 25 2022 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 25 2022 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Are people actually advocating that the US/NATO should go to war with Russia if they invade Ukraine? Putting the whole Western countries training Nazis aside, it seems clear that Russia wants to undo the geopolitical swing of the leadership Western countries helped remove and replace in Ukraine. That said, I don't think annexing Ukraine would justify or make reasonable US/NATO troops and war with Russia either. In what theoretical taking of land would war with Russia be justified to you? Poland? Where do you draw the line and say "If Russia did (blank), that would fulfill my minimum requirement"? Is it that you think this is the extent of Russia's hopes for the region and they'll just play nice once they have Ukraine? Surely a war between superpowers would be far more damaging than Russia taking Ukraine. People said the same about Nazi Germany. The basic assumption I am making is that we have no reason to see Ukraine as the end of Russia's desires. We have every reason to think Ukraine will just make it easier for Russia to take even more. Placating Russia is a fantasy that I don't think has any merit. Nuclear Weapons exist. If you go to war with a nuclear super power you better be sure they wont use them or there will be MAD and we end the planet as we know it. This is nothing like Germany. So then what is the conclusion to this logic? What if Russia tried to take Germany? What do we do then? France? Where exactly is this worth violence? Or is what you are saying that Russia should be permitted to occupy any country so long as that country does not have nukes? What is your conclusion? Let's launch some missiles after arguing over two enclaves where Russians and Ukrainians fight over their passports and play fallout irl if we don't get vaporized? In the 70s the average person was more conscious about this, houses built in Austria during that time had mandatory bunkers that nowadays wouldn't even save you. The only way to win is not to play. Speaking of which. NORAD had a malfunction back then which made it look like Russian missiles were inbound and the guys in the US army (who are heroes) who decided not to instantly retaliate might think differently. So, we shouldn't deter Russia from annexing Ukraine, And then Poland? Romania? When Russian troops are at the border of Austria we should not provoke them right? That's the problem with MAD. it only works as a deterrent if you accept that your willing to pull the trigger. So where is the line? Where do we go to war with Russia over them annexing country after country (humour me, lets for the sake of this question assume Russia is not satisfied with just annexing Ukraine) Where do we draw the line? Same as always. Don't take them into nato and demand a guarantee that they stop trying to expand their influence there. If you want a Russian passport in Ukraine, then you have to get out afterwards might work. The militarized Russians in the territories in question obviously refuse to be displaced, that's the nut to crack. I don't know where this notion that they want Poland or other nations comes from.
The western half of Ukraine used to be Poland. Russia occupied it in living memory.
We had a guarantee on Ukraine. When they gave up their nukes Russia agreed to the post USSR borders and Britain and America pledged to protect those borders.
They already made and broke a guarantee but I’m sure they’ll make another if it’ll let them get what they want.
|
On January 25 2022 06:04 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2022 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On January 25 2022 05:42 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:27 Sadist wrote:On January 25 2022 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 25 2022 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Are people actually advocating that the US/NATO should go to war with Russia if they invade Ukraine? Putting the whole Western countries training Nazis aside, it seems clear that Russia wants to undo the geopolitical swing of the leadership Western countries helped remove and replace in Ukraine. That said, I don't think annexing Ukraine would justify or make reasonable US/NATO troops and war with Russia either. In what theoretical taking of land would war with Russia be justified to you? Poland? Where do you draw the line and say "If Russia did (blank), that would fulfill my minimum requirement"? Is it that you think this is the extent of Russia's hopes for the region and they'll just play nice once they have Ukraine? Surely a war between superpowers would be far more damaging than Russia taking Ukraine. People said the same about Nazi Germany. The basic assumption I am making is that we have no reason to see Ukraine as the end of Russia's desires. We have every reason to think Ukraine will just make it easier for Russia to take even more. Placating Russia is a fantasy that I don't think has any merit. Nuclear Weapons exist. If you go to war with a nuclear super power you better be sure they wont use them or there will be MAD and we end the planet as we know it. This is nothing like Germany. So then what is the conclusion to this logic? What if Russia tried to take Germany? What do we do then? France? Where exactly is this worth violence? Or is what you are saying that Russia should be permitted to occupy any country so long as that country does not have nukes? What is your conclusion? Let's launch some missiles after arguing over two enclaves where Russians and Ukrainians fight over their passports and play fallout irl if we don't get vaporized? In the 70s the average person was more conscious about this, houses built in Austria during that time had mandatory bunkers that nowadays wouldn't even save you. The only way to win is not to play. Speaking of which. NORAD had a malfunction back then which made it look like Russian missiles were inbound and the guys in the US army (who are heroes) who decided not to instantly retaliate might think differently. So, we shouldn't deter Russia from annexing Ukraine, And then Poland? Romania? When Russian troops are at the border of Austria we should not provoke them right? That's the problem with MAD. it only works as a deterrent if you accept that your willing to pull the trigger. So where is the line? Where do we go to war with Russia over them annexing country after country (humour me, lets for the sake of this question assume Russia is not satisfied with just annexing Ukraine) Where do we draw the line? Same as always. Don't take them into nato and demand a guarantee that they stop trying to expand their influence there. If you want a Russian passport in Ukraine, then you have to get out afterwards might work. The militarized Russians in the territories in question obviously refuse to be displaced, that's the nut to crack. I don't know where this notion that they want Poland or other nations comes from. There was already a guarantee, it was called the Budapest Memorandum, promising the UK, US and Russia would not interfere with the territorial integrity of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in return for them giving up their nuclear arsenal, signed in 1994.
Russia broke it when they invaded and annexed Crimea.
|
On January 25 2022 06:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2022 06:04 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On January 25 2022 05:42 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:27 Sadist wrote:On January 25 2022 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 25 2022 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Are people actually advocating that the US/NATO should go to war with Russia if they invade Ukraine? Putting the whole Western countries training Nazis aside, it seems clear that Russia wants to undo the geopolitical swing of the leadership Western countries helped remove and replace in Ukraine. That said, I don't think annexing Ukraine would justify or make reasonable US/NATO troops and war with Russia either. In what theoretical taking of land would war with Russia be justified to you? Poland? Where do you draw the line and say "If Russia did (blank), that would fulfill my minimum requirement"? Is it that you think this is the extent of Russia's hopes for the region and they'll just play nice once they have Ukraine? Surely a war between superpowers would be far more damaging than Russia taking Ukraine. People said the same about Nazi Germany. The basic assumption I am making is that we have no reason to see Ukraine as the end of Russia's desires. We have every reason to think Ukraine will just make it easier for Russia to take even more. Placating Russia is a fantasy that I don't think has any merit. Nuclear Weapons exist. If you go to war with a nuclear super power you better be sure they wont use them or there will be MAD and we end the planet as we know it. This is nothing like Germany. So then what is the conclusion to this logic? What if Russia tried to take Germany? What do we do then? France? Where exactly is this worth violence? Or is what you are saying that Russia should be permitted to occupy any country so long as that country does not have nukes? What is your conclusion? Let's launch some missiles after arguing over two enclaves where Russians and Ukrainians fight over their passports and play fallout irl if we don't get vaporized? In the 70s the average person was more conscious about this, houses built in Austria during that time had mandatory bunkers that nowadays wouldn't even save you. The only way to win is not to play. Speaking of which. NORAD had a malfunction back then which made it look like Russian missiles were inbound and the guys in the US army (who are heroes) who decided not to instantly retaliate might think differently. So, we shouldn't deter Russia from annexing Ukraine, And then Poland? Romania? When Russian troops are at the border of Austria we should not provoke them right? That's the problem with MAD. it only works as a deterrent if you accept that your willing to pull the trigger. So where is the line? Where do we go to war with Russia over them annexing country after country (humour me, lets for the sake of this question assume Russia is not satisfied with just annexing Ukraine) Where do we draw the line? Same as always. Don't take them into nato and demand a guarantee that they stop trying to expand their influence there. If you want a Russian passport in Ukraine, then you have to get out afterwards might work. The militarized Russians in the territories in question obviously refuse to be displaced, that's the nut to crack. I don't know where this notion that they want Poland or other nations comes from. The western half of Ukraine used to be Poland. Russia occupied it in living memory. We had a guarantee on Ukraine. When they gave up their nukes Russia agreed to the post USSR borders and Britain and America pledged to protect those borders. They already made and broke a guarantee but I’m sure they’ll make another if it’ll let them get what they want.
Which is the least damaging outcome. I don't know about the western half of Ukraine, but that sounds like something Poland should take to Ukraine.
|
|
|
A more practical question: What does the US gain from a war over Ukraine? What does the US lose if they don't intervene?
If your answer is "where do we draw the line" then the answer is you need to conduct this cost benefit analysis for each instance. Ukraine is not the same as Poland for example. It is perfectly legitimate to think that it is worth defending one but not the other.
|
United States43633 Posts
On January 25 2022 06:41 gobbledydook wrote:
A more practical question: What does the US gain from a war over Ukraine? What does the US lose if they don't intervene?
If your answer is "where do we draw the line" then the answer is you need to conduct this cost benefit analysis for each instance. Ukraine is not the same as Poland for example. It is perfectly legitimate to think that it is worth defending one but not the other.
It is reasonable to assume that a firm stance on one will avoid any need to defend either. If you sacrifice the Sudenland nobody takes you seriously re: Poland.
|
On January 25 2022 06:41 gobbledydook wrote:
A more practical question: What does the US gain from a war over Ukraine? What does the US lose if they don't intervene?
If your answer is "where do we draw the line" then the answer is you need to conduct this cost benefit analysis for each instance. Ukraine is not the same as Poland for example. It is perfectly legitimate to think that it is worth defending one but not the other. The hope is to not have a war, that you get ready for one and show strength to make Russia reconsider.
Its easier to stop a ball before it gets rolling. The loss is that it just emboldens Russia to keep going, just like how the weak Crimea response lead to the current situation. What reason does Russia have to believe the US will protect X, when it didn't bother to protect Y?
And why is Poland worth defending but not Ukraine?
Is there a material loss to handing Ukraine over to Russia? No not really. but then by that logic you could probably turn the entirety of Europe over to Russia and the US would barely notice.
The world is a better place when we don't have countries annexing their neighbours. A show of force now can prevent a war tomorrow, and I hope no one is looking forward to an end to peace in Europe.
|
On January 25 2022 06:04 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2022 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On January 25 2022 05:42 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:27 Sadist wrote:On January 25 2022 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 25 2022 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Are people actually advocating that the US/NATO should go to war with Russia if they invade Ukraine? Putting the whole Western countries training Nazis aside, it seems clear that Russia wants to undo the geopolitical swing of the leadership Western countries helped remove and replace in Ukraine. That said, I don't think annexing Ukraine would justify or make reasonable US/NATO troops and war with Russia either. In what theoretical taking of land would war with Russia be justified to you? Poland? Where do you draw the line and say "If Russia did (blank), that would fulfill my minimum requirement"? Is it that you think this is the extent of Russia's hopes for the region and they'll just play nice once they have Ukraine? Surely a war between superpowers would be far more damaging than Russia taking Ukraine. People said the same about Nazi Germany. The basic assumption I am making is that we have no reason to see Ukraine as the end of Russia's desires. We have every reason to think Ukraine will just make it easier for Russia to take even more. Placating Russia is a fantasy that I don't think has any merit. Nuclear Weapons exist. If you go to war with a nuclear super power you better be sure they wont use them or there will be MAD and we end the planet as we know it. This is nothing like Germany. So then what is the conclusion to this logic? What if Russia tried to take Germany? What do we do then? France? Where exactly is this worth violence? Or is what you are saying that Russia should be permitted to occupy any country so long as that country does not have nukes? What is your conclusion? Let's launch some missiles after arguing over two enclaves where Russians and Ukrainians fight over their passports and play fallout irl if we don't get vaporized? In the 70s the average person was more conscious about this, houses built in Austria during that time had mandatory bunkers that nowadays wouldn't even save you. The only way to win is not to play. Speaking of which. NORAD had a malfunction back then which made it look like Russian missiles were inbound and the guys in the US army (who are heroes) who decided not to instantly retaliate might think differently. So, we shouldn't deter Russia from annexing Ukraine, And then Poland? Romania? When Russian troops are at the border of Austria we should not provoke them right? That's the problem with MAD. it only works as a deterrent if you accept that your willing to pull the trigger. So where is the line? Where do we go to war with Russia over them annexing country after country (humour me, lets for the sake of this question assume Russia is not satisfied with just annexing Ukraine) Where do we draw the line? Same as always. Don't take them into nato and demand a guarantee that they stop trying to expand their influence there. If you want a Russian passport in Ukraine, then you have to get out afterwards might work. The militarized Russians in the territories in question obviously refuse to be displaced, that's the nut to crack. I don't know where this notion that they want Poland or other nations comes from.
This all essentially relies on Russia not being willing to just keep going. If we were talking about Austria, would you simply say "well I guess this is Russia now"? I feel like the logic you are outlining means you should always roll over, no matter what.
The reason other nations enter the conversation is that we have no reason to view Russia as content with just Ukraine. It is needlessly short-sighted.
|
It does seem possible to defend other countries but not Ukraine. If Russia invades Ukraine, then station troops in those other countries. It's an option anyway, and one that potentially avoids war between the US and Russia.
|
On January 25 2022 08:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2022 06:04 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On January 25 2022 05:42 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:27 Sadist wrote:On January 25 2022 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 25 2022 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Are people actually advocating that the US/NATO should go to war with Russia if they invade Ukraine? Putting the whole Western countries training Nazis aside, it seems clear that Russia wants to undo the geopolitical swing of the leadership Western countries helped remove and replace in Ukraine. That said, I don't think annexing Ukraine would justify or make reasonable US/NATO troops and war with Russia either. In what theoretical taking of land would war with Russia be justified to you? Poland? Where do you draw the line and say "If Russia did (blank), that would fulfill my minimum requirement"? Is it that you think this is the extent of Russia's hopes for the region and they'll just play nice once they have Ukraine? Surely a war between superpowers would be far more damaging than Russia taking Ukraine. People said the same about Nazi Germany. The basic assumption I am making is that we have no reason to see Ukraine as the end of Russia's desires. We have every reason to think Ukraine will just make it easier for Russia to take even more. Placating Russia is a fantasy that I don't think has any merit. Nuclear Weapons exist. If you go to war with a nuclear super power you better be sure they wont use them or there will be MAD and we end the planet as we know it. This is nothing like Germany. So then what is the conclusion to this logic? What if Russia tried to take Germany? What do we do then? France? Where exactly is this worth violence? Or is what you are saying that Russia should be permitted to occupy any country so long as that country does not have nukes? What is your conclusion? Let's launch some missiles after arguing over two enclaves where Russians and Ukrainians fight over their passports and play fallout irl if we don't get vaporized? In the 70s the average person was more conscious about this, houses built in Austria during that time had mandatory bunkers that nowadays wouldn't even save you. The only way to win is not to play. Speaking of which. NORAD had a malfunction back then which made it look like Russian missiles were inbound and the guys in the US army (who are heroes) who decided not to instantly retaliate might think differently. So, we shouldn't deter Russia from annexing Ukraine, And then Poland? Romania? When Russian troops are at the border of Austria we should not provoke them right? That's the problem with MAD. it only works as a deterrent if you accept that your willing to pull the trigger. So where is the line? Where do we go to war with Russia over them annexing country after country (humour me, lets for the sake of this question assume Russia is not satisfied with just annexing Ukraine) Where do we draw the line? Same as always. Don't take them into nato and demand a guarantee that they stop trying to expand their influence there. If you want a Russian passport in Ukraine, then you have to get out afterwards might work. The militarized Russians in the territories in question obviously refuse to be displaced, that's the nut to crack. I don't know where this notion that they want Poland or other nations comes from. This all essentially relies on Russia not being willing to just keep going. If we were talking about Austria, would you simply say "well I guess this is Russia now"? I feel like the logic you are outlining means you should always roll over, no matter what. The reason other nations enter the conversation is that we have no reason to view Russia as content with just Ukraine. It is needlessly short-sighted.
In an Austrian analogy, if I lived in a place in the east that has been filled with nationalistic armed Russians over the years, I'd probably try to get away. And of course I wouldn't agree to having a part of my country snatched away, but I wouldn't want to go to war over it either, or reciprocate with more aggression.
That makes me think of an interesting question: Have Ukrainians systematically left Crimea before the invasion following a similar thinking? Most of this goes back to the idea or even law that part of a nation can secede if a majority perceives itself to be of a different cultural identity, and shooing people away from regions exploits that. For starters, both Russia and Ukraine should cooperate in disarming these guys (on both sides).
|
On January 25 2022 09:05 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2022 08:00 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 06:04 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On January 25 2022 05:42 Vivax wrote:On January 25 2022 05:37 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:27 Sadist wrote:On January 25 2022 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:On January 25 2022 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 25 2022 05:08 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
In what theoretical taking of land would war with Russia be justified to you? Poland? Where do you draw the line and say "If Russia did (blank), that would fulfill my minimum requirement"? Is it that you think this is the extent of Russia's hopes for the region and they'll just play nice once they have Ukraine? Surely a war between superpowers would be far more damaging than Russia taking Ukraine. People said the same about Nazi Germany. The basic assumption I am making is that we have no reason to see Ukraine as the end of Russia's desires. We have every reason to think Ukraine will just make it easier for Russia to take even more. Placating Russia is a fantasy that I don't think has any merit. Nuclear Weapons exist. If you go to war with a nuclear super power you better be sure they wont use them or there will be MAD and we end the planet as we know it. This is nothing like Germany. So then what is the conclusion to this logic? What if Russia tried to take Germany? What do we do then? France? Where exactly is this worth violence? Or is what you are saying that Russia should be permitted to occupy any country so long as that country does not have nukes? What is your conclusion? Let's launch some missiles after arguing over two enclaves where Russians and Ukrainians fight over their passports and play fallout irl if we don't get vaporized? In the 70s the average person was more conscious about this, houses built in Austria during that time had mandatory bunkers that nowadays wouldn't even save you. The only way to win is not to play. Speaking of which. NORAD had a malfunction back then which made it look like Russian missiles were inbound and the guys in the US army (who are heroes) who decided not to instantly retaliate might think differently. So, we shouldn't deter Russia from annexing Ukraine, And then Poland? Romania? When Russian troops are at the border of Austria we should not provoke them right? That's the problem with MAD. it only works as a deterrent if you accept that your willing to pull the trigger. So where is the line? Where do we go to war with Russia over them annexing country after country (humour me, lets for the sake of this question assume Russia is not satisfied with just annexing Ukraine) Where do we draw the line? Same as always. Don't take them into nato and demand a guarantee that they stop trying to expand their influence there. If you want a Russian passport in Ukraine, then you have to get out afterwards might work. The militarized Russians in the territories in question obviously refuse to be displaced, that's the nut to crack. I don't know where this notion that they want Poland or other nations comes from. This all essentially relies on Russia not being willing to just keep going. If we were talking about Austria, would you simply say "well I guess this is Russia now"? I feel like the logic you are outlining means you should always roll over, no matter what. The reason other nations enter the conversation is that we have no reason to view Russia as content with just Ukraine. It is needlessly short-sighted. In an Austrian analogy, if I lived in a place in the east that has been filled with nationalistic armed Russians over the years, I'd probably try to get away. And of course I wouldn't agree to having a part of my country snatched away, but I wouldn't want to go to war over it either, or reciprocate with more aggression. That makes me think of an interesting question: Have Ukrainians systematically left Crimea before the invasion following a similar thinking? Most of this goes back to the idea or even law that part of a nation can secede if a majority perceives itself to be of a different cultural identity, and shooing people away from regions exploits that. For starters, both Russia and Ukraine should cooperate in disarming these guys (on both sides).
Is your understanding that Russia is only interested in part of Ukraine?
|
Ukraine not being in nato and minimal nato troops in eastern Europe is the status quo putin is trying to change. The world is happy to continue that Russia is the one trying to spark a war to get them Ukraine as a vessel state.
|
I wonder, what would a full war between Western Europe and the US against Russia look like? Would it be massive conventional warfare first before nukes or straight to the latter? Would countries in the Middle East and Asia take part?
|
How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.
|
On January 25 2022 10:51 georgehabadasher wrote:
How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.
This isn't the 1300s. All major governments know everything about every country. We aren't communicating by sending lamb shanks at this point.
|
On January 25 2022 10:41 Starlightsun wrote:
I wonder, what would a full war between Western Europe and the US against Russia look like? Would it be massive conventional warfare first before nukes or straight to the latter? Would countries in the Middle East and Asia take part?
It would best case be a massive conventional one until it becomes clear that one side cannot win and they then threaten nuclear weapons if the status quo ante bellum isnt accepted.
The last projection of that happening was Russia storming the Baltics and getting into Poland before what few troops there are can draw up a line. Meanwhile Russian airpower is evaporated in a matter of days with their navy lasting a matter of hours.
China might use the opportunity to take Taiwan and the middle east might try to kick off a war while everyone is distracted but little if nothing will actually be resolved at the cost of millions if not billions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
