|
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. |
On March 03 2022 23:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 23:37 Legan wrote:
The whole invasion looks so weird, when there are so many pictures that outside expert can analyze. For example, Russian army may not have done proper maintenance on their vehicles, especially their tires in this case, for long time.
If this analysis correct, it is hard to see things changing fast in Russian army. They are not going to suddenly start having great maintenance on their equipment while stuck on muddy road. Even though this makes things look promising for Ukrainian army, it also feels that it could increase forcefulness of Russian army leadership even more. Indeed, if true, it would appear that Putin-led Russia became so practiced in manipulating or obscuring information about its military that it began to believe its own lies, leading it to overestimate its military's readiness and ability to conduct an invasion. A combination of corruption, supply sub-standard parts while skimming money off the top from the savings, and not wanting to fail the glorious leader so you lie instead of risk 'falling out of a window'.
|
This only affects one US company, nothing else.
MOSCOW, March 3 (Reuters) - Russia has decided to stop supplying rocket engines to the United States in retaliation for its sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, Dmitry Rogozin, head of the state space agency Roscosmos, said on Thursday.
"In a situation like this we can't supply the United States with our world's best rocket engines. Let them fly on something else, their broomsticks, I don't know what," Rogozin said on state Russian television.
According to Rogozin, Russia has delivered a total of 122 RD-180 engines to the U.S. since 1990s, of which 98 have been used to power Atlas launch vehicles.
Roscosmos will also stop servicing rocket engines it had previously delivered to the U.S., Rogozin said, adding that the U.S. still had 24 engines that would now be left without Russian technical assistance.
Russia has earlier said it was suspending cooperation with Europe on space launches from the Kourou spaceport in French Guiana in response to Western sanctions over Ukraine.
Moscow has also demanded guarantees from British satellite company OneWeb that its satellites would not be used for military purposes. OneWeb, in which the British government has a stake, said on Thursday it was suspending all launches from Russia's Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. read more
Rogozin said Russia would now focus on creating dual-purpose spacecraft in line with the needs of Roscosmos and the Defence Ministry.
Source
|
|
|
So wait, we're listening to someone like Kissinger despite the innumerable ways that he orchestrated massive foreign policy failures, and quoting from a Kennan screed that assumed Yeltsin's Russia was some sort of stable democracy? The idea that Putin and his style of politics would not have taken hold in Russia but for the acts of the West is pants on head stupid in much the same way that blaming victims of assault is. The afterglow of the collapse of the USSR has proven to have been some absolutely delusion-making shit, and that tweet thread and the rantings of Mearsheimer is proof of it.
|
On March 04 2022 00:38 farvacola wrote:So wait, we're listening to someone like Kissinger despite the innumerable ways that he orchestrated massive foreign policy failures, and quoting from a Kennan screed that assumed Yeltsin's Russia was some sort of stable democracy? The idea that Putin and his style of politics would not have taken hold in Russia but for the acts of the West is pants on head stupid in much the same way that blaming victims of assault is. The afterglow of the collapse of the USSR has proven to have been some absolutely delusion-making shit, and that tweet thread and the rantings of Mearsheimer is proof of it.
Tell me you only read who wrote the first two posts without telling me you did just that 
|
On March 04 2022 00:46 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 00:38 farvacola wrote:So wait, we're listening to someone like Kissinger despite the innumerable ways that he orchestrated massive foreign policy failures, and quoting from a Kennan screed that assumed Yeltsin's Russia was some sort of stable democracy? The idea that Putin and his style of politics would not have taken hold in Russia but for the acts of the West is pants on head stupid in much the same way that blaming victims of assault is. The afterglow of the collapse of the USSR has proven to have been some absolutely delusion-making shit, and that tweet thread and the rantings of Mearsheimer is proof of it. Tell me you only read who wrote the first two posts without telling me you did just that
Tell me you found a lengthy tweet chain that you claim supports a viewpoint that you are unable to defend without saying so explicitly!
See how easy that kind of stupid snark is? That ridiculous mearsheimer speech has been posted here already, and versions of the criticism I set forth readily apply to nearly every single component of that tweet chain. So go ahead and explain why the parts I didn’t explicitly address support the view that the West is to blame for Putin’s invasion of a sovereign country not a part of NATO. I’d be happy to discuss further.
|
On March 04 2022 00:16 KwarK wrote:
I mean I’m sure Ukraine had a plan for defence against a Russian invasion. Did they specify whose plan it was going according to?
Hmm. Im not sure they really prepared for this man.I remember watching the news 1 week before all this and How US warned about the invasion etc.And atleast what i saw in the news ukraniens were doing a normal life.I remember the President of Ukraine was traveling too and even joking about the subject.Oh and before this war i didnt really know how bad Russia/Soviets relation was with Ukraine.
Sure they took Crimea but i was told that region was from Russia and that mostly russian were residents in such place.
But recently i also learn that Crimea is really important to Russia cuz is the only port that doesnt freeze and is a key location for them to have.
Recently i learn that Soviets took all food supplies from ukraniens and let millions die from hungry.
So it seems Ukraine is very important but instead of working in some alliance i guess Russia doesnt respect or give a fck.
|
Second largest company in Russia apparently.
|
Won’t Putin throw Lukoil execs out the window? They better be careful with what they say.
Funny enough, Ukraine civilians targeted by the Russian military wasnt enough for them to ask to stop the war—but their stock tanking 90% is. Nice to see where the line is drawn.
Edit: it’s prolly premature of me to assume that Russia has news outlets that reports actual news to its citizens. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt
|
On March 04 2022 00:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 00:46 Vivax wrote:On March 04 2022 00:38 farvacola wrote:So wait, we're listening to someone like Kissinger despite the innumerable ways that he orchestrated massive foreign policy failures, and quoting from a Kennan screed that assumed Yeltsin's Russia was some sort of stable democracy? The idea that Putin and his style of politics would not have taken hold in Russia but for the acts of the West is pants on head stupid in much the same way that blaming victims of assault is. The afterglow of the collapse of the USSR has proven to have been some absolutely delusion-making shit, and that tweet thread and the rantings of Mearsheimer is proof of it. Tell me you only read who wrote the first two posts without telling me you did just that Tell me you found a lengthy tweet chain that you claim supports a viewpoint that you are unable to defend without saying so explicitly! See how easy that kind of stupid snark is? That ridiculous mearsheimer speech has been posted here already, and versions of the criticism I set forth readily apply to nearly every single component of that tweet chain. So go ahead and explain why the parts I didn’t explicitly address support the view that the West is to blame for Putin’s invasion of a sovereign country not a part of NATO. I’d be happy to discuss further.
The point I was rather trying to make is that this conflict was predictable even since 2008 from one of the sources and as such it was preventable.
I didn't expect Russia to invade at all and can't call it a good thing, but there are no innocent parties here.
|
On March 04 2022 01:35 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 00:51 farvacola wrote:On March 04 2022 00:46 Vivax wrote:On March 04 2022 00:38 farvacola wrote:So wait, we're listening to someone like Kissinger despite the innumerable ways that he orchestrated massive foreign policy failures, and quoting from a Kennan screed that assumed Yeltsin's Russia was some sort of stable democracy? The idea that Putin and his style of politics would not have taken hold in Russia but for the acts of the West is pants on head stupid in much the same way that blaming victims of assault is. The afterglow of the collapse of the USSR has proven to have been some absolutely delusion-making shit, and that tweet thread and the rantings of Mearsheimer is proof of it. Tell me you only read who wrote the first two posts without telling me you did just that Tell me you found a lengthy tweet chain that you claim supports a viewpoint that you are unable to defend without saying so explicitly! See how easy that kind of stupid snark is? That ridiculous mearsheimer speech has been posted here already, and versions of the criticism I set forth readily apply to nearly every single component of that tweet chain. So go ahead and explain why the parts I didn’t explicitly address support the view that the West is to blame for Putin’s invasion of a sovereign country not a part of NATO. I’d be happy to discuss further. The point I was rather trying to make is that this conflict was predictable even since 2008 from one of the sources and as such it was preventable. I didn't expect Russia to invade at all and can't call it a good thing, but there are no innocent parties here.
One of my friends keeps making this point. While I agree the west is a bully here, killing the little kid because he plays with with the other neighbour isn't on the same level. Even when you used to be friends.
|
Northern Ireland23717 Posts
On March 04 2022 00:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 00:46 Vivax wrote:On March 04 2022 00:38 farvacola wrote:So wait, we're listening to someone like Kissinger despite the innumerable ways that he orchestrated massive foreign policy failures, and quoting from a Kennan screed that assumed Yeltsin's Russia was some sort of stable democracy? The idea that Putin and his style of politics would not have taken hold in Russia but for the acts of the West is pants on head stupid in much the same way that blaming victims of assault is. The afterglow of the collapse of the USSR has proven to have been some absolutely delusion-making shit, and that tweet thread and the rantings of Mearsheimer is proof of it. Tell me you only read who wrote the first two posts without telling me you did just that Tell me you found a lengthy tweet chain that you claim supports a viewpoint that you are unable to defend without saying so explicitly! See how easy that kind of stupid snark is? That ridiculous mearsheimer speech has been posted here already, and versions of the criticism I set forth readily apply to nearly every single component of that tweet chain. So go ahead and explain why the parts I didn’t explicitly address support the view that the West is to blame for Putin’s invasion of a sovereign country not a part of NATO. I’d be happy to discuss further.
It smacks of ‘if she didn’t want to be hit she shouldn’t have burned dinner’
It’s also very asymmetric in what’s considered fair game in terms of credible threat. So Ukraine hypothetically being in NATO (it also isn’t actually IN NATO) is provocation that will lead to disaster. Russia doing its thing in Georgia and subsequently Eastern Ukraine, is not threatening nor perhaps makes the idea of joining NATO more attractive?
It also basically says Ukraine doesn’t get to make its own destiny. So there’s that.
Where I think there is some validity is the idea that if you’re going to embrace Ukraine more readily and subsequently not go to bat for it, then you are inviting some disaster to occur, which we’re obviously seeing now.
In the crudest possible sense, if Russia being next door isn’t a threat then, NATO being next door also isn’t a threat.
|
On March 03 2022 11:12 Sermokala wrote:
Kharkiv is a hero city that I won't forget. No matter what Putin does now he will never destroy the Ukrainian people and will never be able to have his sins forgotten. People will never be able to deny that Ukraine exists and is worthy of being free and independent. For what little it will do I will pray for your family and your safety.
After 2014 there was a serious question about the legitimity of an ukrainian state. No more.
|
On March 04 2022 01:35 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 00:51 farvacola wrote:On March 04 2022 00:46 Vivax wrote:On March 04 2022 00:38 farvacola wrote:So wait, we're listening to someone like Kissinger despite the innumerable ways that he orchestrated massive foreign policy failures, and quoting from a Kennan screed that assumed Yeltsin's Russia was some sort of stable democracy? The idea that Putin and his style of politics would not have taken hold in Russia but for the acts of the West is pants on head stupid in much the same way that blaming victims of assault is. The afterglow of the collapse of the USSR has proven to have been some absolutely delusion-making shit, and that tweet thread and the rantings of Mearsheimer is proof of it. Tell me you only read who wrote the first two posts without telling me you did just that Tell me you found a lengthy tweet chain that you claim supports a viewpoint that you are unable to defend without saying so explicitly! See how easy that kind of stupid snark is? That ridiculous mearsheimer speech has been posted here already, and versions of the criticism I set forth readily apply to nearly every single component of that tweet chain. So go ahead and explain why the parts I didn’t explicitly address support the view that the West is to blame for Putin’s invasion of a sovereign country not a part of NATO. I’d be happy to discuss further. The point I was rather trying to make is that this conflict was predictable even since 2008 from one of the sources and as such it was preventable. I didn't expect Russia to invade at all and can't call it a good thing, but there are no innocent parties here.
Thanks for clarifying, you've identified the core of the disagreement here. I would maintain that the predictability of Russian aggression in Ukraine doesn't emanate from choices that NATO made, rather it emanates from the centuries old conflict between a Ukraine that at times wants to be free of Russian influence, and a Russia that perpetually believes its geographic neighbors belong to it and it alone. Thus, predictable or not, I think its untenable to suggest that this invasion was preventable in any way other than for Ukraine to have entirely capitulated to Russian rule, the problems of which should be obvious to anyone who considers a nation's self-determination important as an item of international relations. Sure, maybe the invasion could have been stalled by Ukrainian concessions, but the attitudes towards former Soviet states embodied in Putin were going to reveal themselves at one point or another. In that way, I think the viewpoints contained in that tweet chain show off another long-standing flaw in mainstream US foreign policy, which is the belief that the occurrence of world events somehow always turn primarily on US and Western European choices. This invasion, and the relative success of the US playing more of a side-role in the international response, expose the flaws in that belief for what they are.
That said, it is entirely accurate to state that there are no innocent nations here, save for maybe Ukraine itself given the respect we should want the world to give its choices as a sovereign nation looking to get out from under a long history of Russian aggression and cooption.
On March 04 2022 01:51 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 00:51 farvacola wrote:On March 04 2022 00:46 Vivax wrote:On March 04 2022 00:38 farvacola wrote:So wait, we're listening to someone like Kissinger despite the innumerable ways that he orchestrated massive foreign policy failures, and quoting from a Kennan screed that assumed Yeltsin's Russia was some sort of stable democracy? The idea that Putin and his style of politics would not have taken hold in Russia but for the acts of the West is pants on head stupid in much the same way that blaming victims of assault is. The afterglow of the collapse of the USSR has proven to have been some absolutely delusion-making shit, and that tweet thread and the rantings of Mearsheimer is proof of it. Tell me you only read who wrote the first two posts without telling me you did just that Tell me you found a lengthy tweet chain that you claim supports a viewpoint that you are unable to defend without saying so explicitly! See how easy that kind of stupid snark is? That ridiculous mearsheimer speech has been posted here already, and versions of the criticism I set forth readily apply to nearly every single component of that tweet chain. So go ahead and explain why the parts I didn’t explicitly address support the view that the West is to blame for Putin’s invasion of a sovereign country not a part of NATO. I’d be happy to discuss further. It smacks of ‘if she didn’t want to be hit she shouldn’t have burned dinner’ It’s also very asymmetric in what’s considered fair game in terms of credible threat. So Ukraine hypothetically being in NATO (it also isn’t actually IN NATO) is provocation that will lead to disaster. Russia doing its thing in Georgia and subsequently Eastern Ukraine, is not threatening nor perhaps makes the idea of joining NATO more attractive? It also basically says Ukraine doesn’t get to make its own destiny. So there’s that. Where I think there is some validity is the idea that if you’re going to embrace Ukraine more readily and subsequently not go to bat for it, then you are inviting some disaster to occur, which we’re obviously seeing now. In the crudest possible sense, if Russia being next door isn’t a threat then, NATO being next door also isn’t a threat.
Agreed, the concept of asymmetry is useful here because it reveals the error in overdetermining the impact of Western presence and choices.
|
What’s always missing with all those nato expansion talks is why almost everyone surrounding Russia has been absolutely begging to get in since 1991. And the reason is that they are terrified of Russia and know full well that they won’t be free nations without the west protection. Russia hasn’t changed. It knows only vassals and ennemies and if you are in its sphere of influence, you stay in line or get the tanks rolling in your streets. It was like that in the 50’s, it still is.
None of the guys quoted there seem to give two shits about the facts that maybe those people in the baltic countries don’t want to live in satellite countries and that the only reason they don’t is because of nato’s protection.
|
It's so weird to me how this escalated to a war of destruction. Putin did have some seriously deranged speeches about Ukraine not being worth to be a country because of glorious russian history, I feel like there lacks a buildup of longstanding ideological hatred that would fuel a war of destruction.
He didn't call it it a 'special military operation' for nothing, he thought he could just steal Kyiv fast like Crimea, not much resistance, not much casualties. Europe would be like, well fuck, ok, again and things would normalize after a year with him being in control of Ukraine's policy.
But now that all failed. Ukraine has shown incredible resistance and willpower, and European nations turned around from being passive/pacifist/indifferent and are supplying insane amounts of anti-tank and anti-helicopter weapons. Russian soldiers are dying in very serious numbers. A fast painless victory is out of reach.
But why is the followup then, to just change into a war of destruction? It almost feels like a punitive war now. We will destroy your country and bomb it until you give up. What possible hatred fuels such a thing? I feel like we've only seen this in great ideological or religious divides. But those are not really here.
You could say it's just a big power swinging it's military bullying powers around, but that would only be true if they themselves would be safe like US in the Iraq invasion. But Russia is getting eviscerated on a global scale with sanctions. They will never recover, just from the anti russian paradigm shift alone. What hatred leads them to want to destroy another country so much, that they are willing to implode their own country, just to get the 'win'. A win that will have not gained him any policy goals. It makes no fucking sense. And it's all horrible.
|
Yeah there is very little rational here. I guess Putin has miscalculated and knows that there is no way back. If he retreats, his days in power are numbered. And the day he is not in power anymore he is a dead man.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On March 04 2022 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:What’s always missing with all those nato expansion talks is why almost everyone surrounding Russia has been absolutely begging to get in since 1991. And the reason is that they are terrified of Russia and know full well that they won’t be free nations without the west protection. Russia hasn’t changed. It knows only vassals and ennemies and if you are in its sphere of influence, you stay in line or get the tanks rolling in your streets. It was like that in the 50’s, it still is. None of the guys quoted there seem to give two shits about the facts that maybe those people in the baltic countries don’t want to live in satellite countries and that the only reason they don’t is because of nato’s protection.
Fair to be told the other side, the last 2 decades Russia protested only against the military presence, I believe that some fair agreement about neutrality backed by the NATO 5 article would be sufficient to
1) keep them safe from Russia invasion
2) keep them neutral enough so Russia has to STFU
|
Apparently a tentative agreement has been reached for safe zones for civilians.
|
Northern Ireland23717 Posts
On March 04 2022 02:58 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 02:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:What’s always missing with all those nato expansion talks is why almost everyone surrounding Russia has been absolutely begging to get in since 1991. And the reason is that they are terrified of Russia and know full well that they won’t be free nations without the west protection. Russia hasn’t changed. It knows only vassals and ennemies and if you are in its sphere of influence, you stay in line or get the tanks rolling in your streets. It was like that in the 50’s, it still is. None of the guys quoted there seem to give two shits about the facts that maybe those people in the baltic countries don’t want to live in satellite countries and that the only reason they don’t is because of nato’s protection. Fair to be told the other side, the last 2 decades Russia protested only against the military presence, I believe that some fair agreement about neutrality backed by the NATO 5 article would be sufficient to 1) keep them safe from Russia invasion 2) keep them neutral enough so Russia has to STFU
Why?
In the medium term there were two, IMO reasonable courses of action.
1. Very much my preference, and I assume most people’s. That post-Soviet Russia was embraced by the West in its transition, and vice-versa , and brought into institutions. NATO ceases to exist, being in that scenario a vestigial Cold War institution that serves no purpose. Peace and happiness and rainbows all round.
2. A provably antagonistic Russia doesn’t get to do what it wants, with the justification that it feels the way it feels so, that’s legitimate.
Like, that’s it. Really.
It’s not especially complicated.
One neighbour says the neighbour next door is antagonising them by virtue of their proximity. They’re a little annoyed that they’re playing Limp Bizkit at all hours. The other neighbour makes the same claim.
There’s a brief standoff. Then one neighbour departs their homestead with a palpable sense of purpose and vigour, goes 3 doors up and kicks the door down and beats the shit out of that occupant. A few weeks later they go 2 doors up, luckily this time the door is left ajar so they don’t have to exert themselves super hard to enter the dwelling. They don’t want to be exerted as there’s a shit kicking to be dealt out, and it summarily is.
Time settles a little, and well it’s time to kick the shit out of next door for the crime of loving Limp Bizkit’s fine music and em, living next door.
In the interim the Fred Durst aficionado has cast a net out to the wider neighbourhood watch asking if anyone can help them out against this crazed assailant who has just kicked the fuck out of their well-liked neighbours.
Sadly for them the neighbourhood watch likes to stay out of such hot disputes, so they too get their shit kicked in by the neighbourhood lunatic, who, in between every kick to the ribs delights in telling them it’s actually their fault for feeling threatened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
