|
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 September 04 2023 03:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2023 03:39 Magic Powers wrote:On September 04 2023 02:33 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 04 2023 02:27 Acrofales wrote: pretty sure that if Russia is lobbing missiles into Ukraine with the sole purpose of keeping them from joining NATO and that is literally the only thing that is stopping them, NATO will write a specific clause to make the occasional missile acceptable. or maybe they'll allow Ukraine to join without any exceptional clauses and dare Russia to keep lobbing missiles... Any new member will require a unanimous consent of all of the members. Do you really think if Turkey and Hungary were able to just make up reasons for Sweden to not join NATO that they'll accept Ukraine as a member while they are in an active state of war with Russia? It won't happen. I'm sorry but it just won't. You guys need to be realistic about this. If the Kyiv administration says there is no war, then there is no war. Russia can keep firing missiles all they want, that doesn't constitute war. It constitutes state terrorism. Thats not how things work. especially not in relation to NATO and the alliance being pulled into fights, especially when that fight is with Russia.
Either way we're debating something that to me seems kinda meaningless. If Ukraine can effectively halt Russia's war efforts after reclaiming its borders, then NATO accession isn't necessary anyway. Allied countries will keep sending aid, Ukraine will keep building up its military, it'll effectively become Finland 2.0. NATO accession is inevitable in such a scenario either way, it could just be delayed by years or generations. Russia will not get a second chance to invade Ukraine, this is their last shot.
|
On September 04 2023 03:39 Magic Powers wrote: If the Kyiv administration says there is no war, then there is no war. Russia can keep firing missiles all they want, that doesn't constitute war. It constitutes state terrorism. I feel this is a clear example of wishful thinking, I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. My guess is that Ukraine won't be able to join NATO in the next five years. I might be wrong but this my feeling now.
|
|
I mean in a couple years if russia totaly loses against ukraine, why would the leader after putin be so interested in keeping up the war effort with a crashing economy anyway? Missiles are expensive and surely by then russian people would be tired of war?
|
On September 04 2023 04:20 JimmiC wrote: These rules are not hard and fast. Isn’t Japan a NATO partner and not on the North Atlantic and also still at war with Russia. If Ukraine kicks em up it’s a whole new ball game. Sadly we are super far from that.
Japan isn't a member of NATO and isn't protected by Article 5.
Japan is a NATO partner, and the only security guarantee it has if attacked is a unilateral commitment from the United States. Which explains why we've had major military bases there since 1945.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50336.htm
Basically Japan has a very similar status as Taiwan does.
|
|
I think what Western leaders need to understand two things: (a) Russia is way more afraid of a direct confrontation with NATO than NATO is, and (b) Russia understands only strength. Once Ukraine kicks Russia out, I think that if key NATO members clearly communicate to Russia that they have no intentions of starting a nuclear war but will beat the shit out of them with conventional means if Russia starts shit again, the Kremlin will back off.
|
On September 04 2023 05:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2023 04:32 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 04 2023 04:20 JimmiC wrote: These rules are not hard and fast. Isn’t Japan a NATO partner and not on the North Atlantic and also still at war with Russia. If Ukraine kicks em up it’s a whole new ball game. Sadly we are super far from that. Japan isn't a member of NATO and isn't protected by Article 5. Japan is a NATO partner, and the only security guarantee it has if attacked is a unilateral commitment from the United States. Which explains why we've had major military bases there since 1945. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50336.htmBasically Japan has a very similar status as Taiwan does. That’s my point. So Ukraine could become a “partner” or whatever they come up with and be protected. Just as Japan would be.
Ok and let me tell you why that won't happen. The American Republican party.
There is no way a treaty like the one we have with Japan ever gets approved by Congress if it is only US providing the security guarantee, and even if it did, the next Republican President that takes the White House will just immediately void it.
If Ukraine becomes a NATO member then that's a whole different story since that goes through separate channels and not even the Republicans would ever suggest that we wouldn't honor our commitments to NATO. Trump tried that and even hardliners in his party bashed him for it.
Getting a NEW security guarantee through Congress though, won't happen.
|
Since we are deep into theorycrafting already. If Ukraine somehow manage to retake all their territory, Russia refuses to stop the war and their allies won't give security guarantees they could just build some nukes.
It's not exactly magic. Sweden had a program in the 1950s and i is way easier today. Ukraine runs several powerplants which is arguably a lot harder.
Which is probably the most important reason to support Ukraine because we do not want countries to feel like getting nukes is necessary for their security.
|
|
On September 04 2023 05:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2023 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 04 2023 05:08 JimmiC wrote:On September 04 2023 04:32 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 04 2023 04:20 JimmiC wrote: These rules are not hard and fast. Isn’t Japan a NATO partner and not on the North Atlantic and also still at war with Russia. If Ukraine kicks em up it’s a whole new ball game. Sadly we are super far from that. Japan isn't a member of NATO and isn't protected by Article 5. Japan is a NATO partner, and the only security guarantee it has if attacked is a unilateral commitment from the United States. Which explains why we've had major military bases there since 1945. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50336.htmBasically Japan has a very similar status as Taiwan does. That’s my point. So Ukraine could become a “partner” or whatever they come up with and be protected. Just as Japan would be. Ok and let me tell you why that won't happen. The American Republican party. There is no way a treaty like the one we have with Japan ever gets approved by Congress if it is only US providing the security guarantee, and even if it did, the next Republican President that takes the White House will just immediately void it. If Ukraine becomes a NATO member then that's a whole different story since that goes through separate channels and not even the Republicans would ever suggest that we wouldn't honor our commitments to NATO. Trump tried that and even hardliners in his party bashed him for it. Getting a NEW security guarantee through Congress though, won't happen. 6 years ago you would be more worried about a dem than a rep, that can change fast again. Trump moves his thoug HR s pending the blowing wind, he loves to back a winner. Who knows what they will do hardly a sure thing.
The point is that there is a world of difference between the military aid packages we are sending to Ukraine now, and the kind of Security Pact we have with Japan.
No American politician is going to suggest creating a Mutual Defense pact on Russia's doorstep without the support of most or all of our allies.
As it is, and you can check the US Politics thread for this, the Republicans are already taking pot shots at Biden for how much we're sending to Ukraine in military aid and that's strictly from a spending perspective (save it, I already know this argument is full of shit because it's weapons and not money we're sending them but they are still doing it), to suggest sending actual SOLDIERS to fight over there would be political suicide right now. We just got out of Iraq and Afghanistan and neither party has any interest in sending our soldiers to go fight in Europe if Europe doesn't want to participate.
So no. I don't see any special arrangement being made for Ukraine. Not as long as you're relying on the United States to do the security guarantee on its own. EU has to lead on this subject or it isn't going to go anywhere.
|
You guys are focused way too much on NATO, as if that's the only defence alliance out there. Finland and Sweden hadn't been members up until recently, but they enjoyed all the same freedoms as actual members, by having defence alliances with tons of members of NATO.
Joining NATO sure would be nice, but it's going to be a chore to get it through Turkey. Meanwhile, a defence alliance with US, Scandinavia, Germany or France will yield them the same results in terms of Russia no longer being able to just waltz on in without bringing the majority of NATO nations down upon them. Sure, it won't be art 5, and Turkey might sit it out, but it won't really matter when you have the worlds biggest forces barrelling down upon you.
|
|
On September 04 2023 05:51 Excludos wrote: You guys are focused way too much on NATO, as if that's the only defence alliance out there. Finland and Sweden hadn't been members up until recently, but they enjoyed all the same freedoms as actual members, by having defence alliances with tons of members of NATO.
Joining NATO sure would be nice, but it's going to be a chore to get it through Turkey. Meanwhile, a defence alliance with US, Scandinavia, Germany or France will yield them the same results in terms of Russia no longer being able to just waltz on in without bringing the majority of NATO nations down upon them. Sure, it won't be art 5, and Turkey might sit it out, but it won't really matter when you have the worlds biggest forces barrelling down upon you. The problem isn't that nations can't do it. Its that they don't want to.
There is no reason for anyone at all, alone or as any form of collective, to sign a defence treaty with a country currently, or a hypothetical future, effectively at war with Russia because the threat of being drawn into said war, even if we can easily beat Russia, is way to great.
|
On September 04 2023 06:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2023 05:51 Excludos wrote: You guys are focused way too much on NATO, as if that's the only defence alliance out there. Finland and Sweden hadn't been members up until recently, but they enjoyed all the same freedoms as actual members, by having defence alliances with tons of members of NATO.
Joining NATO sure would be nice, but it's going to be a chore to get it through Turkey. Meanwhile, a defence alliance with US, Scandinavia, Germany or France will yield them the same results in terms of Russia no longer being able to just waltz on in without bringing the majority of NATO nations down upon them. Sure, it won't be art 5, and Turkey might sit it out, but it won't really matter when you have the worlds biggest forces barrelling down upon you. The problem isn't that nations can't do it. Its that they don't want to. There is no reason for anyone at all, alone or as any form of collective, to sign a defence treaty with a country currently, or a hypothetical future, effectively at war with Russia because the threat of being drawn into said war, even if we can easily beat Russia, is way to great.
Yes, this goes without saying. The war has to end in some way or another first, or at the very least pause in a semi-stable manner ala Korea. But just focusing solely on NATO in all of this, citing rules and regulations that only pertains to NATO, is a red herring. It doesn't matter what Turkey might or might not want for instance, every other NATO member is completely free to make independent alliances with Ukraine, pending an end of the conflict
|
United States41991 Posts
On September 04 2023 03:08 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2023 02:31 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 04 2023 01:31 JimmiC wrote: Why would Russia keep firing missiles if they are pushed back to their borders? That is such an odd hypothetical. Because as far as Russia is concerned, Ukraine is invading THEIR sovereign territory. I know it's a bunch of bullshit, I know none of us recognize their claims to the Donbas, Luhansk and Crimea as legitimate but that's not relevant. As far as Russia is concerned, they have every legal justification they need to keep this war going until Ukraine gives up. It doesn't have to make sense to us. I don't even think it makes sense to the Kremlin. But it's what they are telling their people and as long as their people continue to allow and support what they are doing they are going to keep doing it. Their people know perfectly well it's all bullshit. Did you see how they reacted to losing Kherson? Missile striking the Christmas market as I recall. In a “Russian” city filled with “Russians”. Then they wonder why people don’t want to be Russian.
|
Now the question is will Europe/West be able to get the message across that Russia is pushing for a famine rather than them. Not to mention be able to deliver enough Grain to ports.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that the grain deal that allowed Ukraine to export grain safely through the Black Sea won’t be restored until the West meets its obligations to facilitate Russian agricultural exports.
Putin made the statement after talks with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who along with the U.N. brokered the deal seen as vital for global food supplies, especially in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Ukraine and Russia are major suppliers of wheat, barley, sunflower oil and other goods that developing nations rely on.
But Russia refused to extend the deal in July, complaining that an agreement promising to remove obstacles to Russian exports of food and fertilizer hadn’t been honored. It said restrictions on shipping and insurance hampered its agricultural trade even though it has shipped record amounts of wheat since last year.
Putin said that if those commitments were honored, Russia could return to the deal “within the nearest days.”
He also said that Russia is close to finalizing an agreement to provide free grain to six African countries. The Russian leader added that Russia will ship 1 million metric tons (1.1 million tons) of cheap grain to Turkey for processing and delivery to poor countries.
Since Putin withdrew from the grain initiative, Erdogan has repeatedly pledged to renew arrangements that helped avoid a food crisis in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
A lot is riding on the talks for the world food supply, and beforehand analysts predicted Putin would drive a hard bargain.
“My gut feeling is that Putin recognizes the leverage he has by using food as an economic weapon, and thus will fight for all he can get in terms of concessions on his wish-list,” said Tim Benton, a food security expert at the Chatham House think tank.
Those may include Russia’s grains, or fertilizer exports, or wider issues, he said.
Data from the Joint Coordination Center in Istanbul, which organized the Ukraine shipments, shows that 57% of the grain from Ukraine went to developing nations, with the top destination being China, which received nearly a quarter of the food.
The meeting took place against a backdrop of Ukraine’s recent counteroffensive against the Kremlin’s invasion forces.
In the latest development, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Sunday that Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov would be replaced this week. The job requires “new approaches,” Zelenskyy said, without elaborating. Reznikov on Monday published a photo of his resignation letter.
In addition to pulling out of the grain deal, Russia has repeatedly attacked the Odesa region, where Ukraine’s main Black Sea port is. On Monday, the Ukrainian air force said it intercepted 23 of 32 drones that targeted the Odea and Dnipropetrovsk regions but did not specify damage caused by the drones that got through.
The Turkish president has maintained close ties with Putin during the 18-month war in Ukraine. Turkey hasn’t joined Western sanctions against Russia following its invasion, emerging as a main trading partner and logistical hub for Russia’s overseas trade.
Opening the talks, Putin mentioned various areas of bilateral cooperation, such as a proposed Russian gas hub in Turkey and the construction of the first nuclear power plant there, in which Moscow is actively involved.
NATO member Turkey, however, has also supported Ukraine, sending arms, meeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and backing Kyiv’s bid to join NATO.
Source
|
One would think Cuba would considered this to be a severe violation of not only its rights as a nation, but maybe even some treaties it has with Russia? Also will they arrest any ethnic Russians that were part of this that reside in Cuba, I'd imagine Cubans would demand answers as to why or why not...
HAVANA, Sept 4 (Reuters) - Cuba has uncovered a human trafficking ring that coerced its citizens to fight for Russia in the war in Ukraine, its foreign ministry said, adding that Cuban authorities were working to "neutralize and dismantle" the network.
The statement from Cuba's foreign ministry late on Monday gave few details, but noted the trafficking ring was operating both within the Caribbean island nation, thousands of miles from Moscow, and in Russia.
"The Ministry of the Interior... is working on the neutralization and dismantling of a human trafficking network that operates from Russia to incorporate Cuban citizens living there, and even some from Cuba, into the military forces participating in war operations in Ukraine," the Cuban government statement said.
Russia's defence ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
Russia last year announced a plan to boost the size of its armed forces by more than 30% to 1.5 million combat personnel, a lofty goal made harder by its heavy but undisclosed casualties in the war.
In late May, a Russia newspaper in Ryazan city reported that several Cuban citizens had signed contracts with Russia's armed forces and had been shipped to Ukraine in return for Russian citizenship.
It was not immediately clear if the Cuban foreign ministry statement was associated with the Ryazan report.
Russia, which has strong political ties with communist-run Cuba, has long been an important destination for Cuban migrants seeking to escape economic stagnation at home.
The defense ministers of Cuba and Russia earlier this year discussed the development of joint "technical military" projects at a meeting in Moscow. But the administration of Cuban president Miguel Diaz-Canel denies any involvement in the Ukraine conflict.
"Cuba is not part of the war in Ukraine," the foreign ministry said late on Monday. "(Cuba) is acting and will act energetically against anyone... who participates in any form of human trafficking for the purpose of recruitment of Cuban citizens as mercenaries to use arms against any country."
Cuba said it had already begun prosecuting cases in which its citizens had been coerced into fighting in Ukraine.
"Attempts of this nature have been neutralized and criminal proceedings have been initiated against people involved in these activities," the statement read.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|