|
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 |
Why would Russia invade Ukraine? They did it before not long ago...
So if Russia has a big 'training' at the border one of two things will happen.
Either nothing, great.
Or Russia goes and invades AGAIN. And if they do and the West is not right there ready to stop them Putin gets to annex another part/the entirety of Ukraine.
I hope we can agree on countries annexing other countries is a bad thing right?
As for the, again, complaints about NATO. That is entirety Russia's own fault. If Russia wasn't being threatening (and outright invading and annexing) its neighbours their neighbours would not be flocking to NATO in an attempt to defend themselves from Russia aggression.
|
Russian Federation370 Posts
On February 19 2022 22:11 Gorsameth wrote:
Why would Russia invade Ukraine? They did it before not long ago...
So if Russia has a big 'training' at the border one of two things will happen.
Either nothing, great.
Or Russia goes and invades AGAIN. And if they do and the West is not right there ready to stop them Putin gets to annex another part/the entirety of Ukraine.
I hope we can agree on countries annexing other countries is a bad thing right?
As for the, again, complaints about NATO. That is entirety Russia's own fault. If Russia wasn't being threatening (and outright invading and annexing) its neighbours their neighbours would not be flocking to NATO in an attempt to defend themselves from Russia aggression.
Uhm. Got your point, thanks.
"I hope we can agree on countries annexing other countries is a bad thing right?"
You can't describe annexation or other political terms in "good or bad" paradigm. Because there are always multiple sides that understand one event as good and bad simultaneously. The only thing i know is bad, it is when people suffer.
So i can sum it up like this:
1. If its violent - its bad.
2. If region decided to disconnect from current country and connect itself to another country through referendum - good for people
3. If another country organizing the process (2) - its good for people if its non-violent
4. If a region decides to separate itself from newly elected gov - its good if its non-violent
5. If a country getting back separated region - its good if its non-violent
6. If another country helps separated region to hold its independency - its good if its non-violent
7. If a country getting back separated region with force (aka violence) - is it good or bad thing for other country to help this separated region?
With stating those points i am not justificating any of the sides, but on the contrary - blame all involved responsible governements for decisions that led us into situation where we are now.
|
Russian Federation370 Posts
|
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? A country and its people can be so woefully outmatched against a larger threat, that they might decide against physically fighting (suiciding) and ratcheting up their own body count, which technically means that the takeover is peaceful, but obviously still bad.
|
Trying to both sides this seems bizarre when everyone is just waiting for the one side to invade the other.
If the supposed us escalation causes Russia to invade without any troops or threat of military intervention that's entirely on Russia deciding to do what the rest of the world doesn't want it to do. If the us escalation of stateing the consequences stops Russian from invading or committing to not invade then its a good thing for everyone and Russia.
You can't both sides telling a child to not touch the stove when he keeps threatening to touch the stove. Russia can at any time just not touch the stove.
|
Russian Federation370 Posts
On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence?
Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country?
Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do?
|
You don't disconnect, that seems fairly obvious, 1% of your population dictating your country's borders seems like an exceptionally idiotic way to do things.
|
On February 19 2022 23:55 Zambrah wrote:
You don't disconnect, that seems fairly obvious, 1% of your population dictating your country's borders seems like an exceptionally idiotic way to do things.
That kind of is the situation with Taiwan though. Taiwan has around 2% the population of China and has separated from China.
So you see, the main point is not the percentage of people.
|
United States42760 Posts
On February 19 2022 17:00 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2022 16:31 Acrofales wrote:
While I think the US's stance in general is too aggressive and is just adding oil to the fire, naming the when and how it Russia's most likely tactic does immediately make it so that Russia can no longer do that. Sure, Russia spins it to make it look like they never intended that in the first place and the US intelligence is incompetent, and that may be true. But even if the intelligence was right, that door is effectively closed to Russia by announcing it. I am exceedingly skeptical of this. Especially after a couple of weeks of things being called out and then not happening, it seems borderline irrelevant to me whether the US `called it' correctly or not. And if Putin does genuinely intend to invade I doubt he's going to let the potential whens and hows being known completely stop him, that seems wishful at best.
I disagree. If the news says that they’re mobilized and deployed to invade and then a crisis “suddenly appears” in Ukraine that demands Russian intervention then that’s not going to smell legit, even to the state media fed Russians. The pretext doesn’t work when everyone said you were going to do it before the pretext happened. If it subsequently goes bad then you’ll not be able to justify it by pointing at the pretext.
|
Taiwan is a little more complicated than that, if Im not mistaken they were under Japanese colonial rule til like the early 1900s and havent really been under any sort of actual stable Chinese ownership since.
They didnt up and decide one day to give away part of the Chinese mainland to a foreign country against the wishes of the majority of China while the foreign country had some suspicious military involvement that looked an awful lot like an annexation.
|
On February 20 2022 00:02 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2022 23:55 Zambrah wrote:
You don't disconnect, that seems fairly obvious, 1% of your population dictating your country's borders seems like an exceptionally idiotic way to do things. That kind of is the situation with Taiwan though. Taiwan has around 2% the population of China and has separated from China. So you see, the main point is not the percentage of people.
Except that Taiwan was never a part of PRC, afaik.
|
What a coincidence, that Ukraine is trying to attack separated republics now, when Russia have 120-190k soldiers on UKR borders. Lmao.
|
|
|
On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do?
In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede?
If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede?
Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking.
|
Curious to hear what the guy in this thread who actually lives in Eastern Ukraine has to say about the situation. Reports are that shelling and evacuations are occurring.
|
Russian Federation370 Posts
On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it.
US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question.
But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that?
On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking.
Thanks for elucidation!
---
btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation
|
On February 20 2022 05:28 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it. US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question. But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that? Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking. Thanks for elucidation! --- btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation (Almost) every country in existence was formed by wars at one point or another. Doesn't mean we should still be doing that today.
|
On February 20 2022 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 05:28 iFU.spx wrote:On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it. US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question. But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that? On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking. Thanks for elucidation! --- btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation (Almost) every country in existence was formed by wars at one point or another. Doesn't mean we should still be doing that today.
Yet Israel continues to annex Palestinian land in what is globally recognized as a criminal occupation with indispensable and unrelenting US support.
EDIT: Like democracies vs dictatorships the US interest isn't in upholding lofty ideals, it's about hegemonic power and exploitation.
|
On February 20 2022 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:28 iFU.spx wrote:On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it. US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question. But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that? On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking. Thanks for elucidation! --- btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation (Almost) every country in existence was formed by wars at one point or another. Doesn't mean we should still be doing that today. Yet Israel continues to annex Palestinian land in what is globally recognized as a criminal occupation with indispensable and unrelenting US support. EDIT: Like democracies vs dictatorships the US interest isn't in upholding lofty ideals, it's about hegemonic power and exploitation. And they have been condemned for it by people in this thread on multiple occasions. But the TL.net US politics Megathread does not dictate US policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
