|
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 May 25 2025 03:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2025 20:30 ZeroByte13 wrote:On May 24 2025 16:46 Simberto wrote:
If the US hadn't guaranteed Taiwans security, PRC would have invaded Taiwan long ago. But this is easier to do if there is not currently an active war going on. Isn't this actually easier to do WITH an active war going on somewhere else? Attention would be divided, support would be divided - any country that supports Ukraine would probabaly have not that much left to support Taiwan. l.e. less pressure on you if you're not the only invading country in the world at the moment, but one out of several. Or maybe I misunderstood what you said? I think he meant that it is easier to give guarantees to a country that is not currently in a war. Aka it was 'easy' for the US to give Taiwan guarantees because no one was attacking Taiwan and now with the US defending them no one will. Ukraine on the other hand is already in a war, a defensive pact wouldn't be a deterrent, we're past that and instead it would mean the signee would instantly be at war with Russia. Which no one wants
That's not entirely accurate. Taiwan was regularly shelled from mainland China and there was also direct fighting on some smaller Islands in the strait when US issued its "guarantees". I put the word "guarantees" in quote because there are not formal security guarantees made to ROC by US. Anyway at the time when US issued its "soft, or not formal guarantees" PRC and ROC were both formally and practically at war, although geography and other factors made the fighting limited. I am talking about First Taiwan Strait Crisis.
Anyway PRC has since tested US resolve several times and the fighting during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis some 20 years later was much more intensive. US had to actually send troops (mainly ships) into the area. It's not guarantees that deterred PRC from invading, it's the use of force by ROC and actual troops movement and military support from US that achieved that.
|
Now the best security guarantee is to have 90% of worlds semiconductors manufactured there. But we should move back to Ukraine.
|
The truth is that no country that really prepares ever gets invaded.
1. Have allies but don't trust they will act if something happens.
2. Fortifiy. Everything. You are not running out of minerals.
3. Drones, drones, drones. Everywhere.
|
On May 25 2025 17:52 0x64 wrote:
The truth is that no country that really prepares ever gets invaded.
1. Have allies but don't trust they will act if something happens.
2. Fortifiy. Everything. You are not running out of minerals.
3. Drones, drones, drones. Everywhere.
I doubt that "truth" is actually true. Ukraine has been preparing since 2014.
This is a bit too much victim-blaming for me. "If you got invaded, you didn't really prepare." Kinda like "If you get raped, you were not careful enough/were wearing the wrong clothes/..."
Sure, you can prepare for an invasion. And that preparation makes it less likely that you will get invaded. But in history, a lot of countries who did prepare still got invaded. If your neighbour is bigger, richer and stronger, then even investing all your effort into preparing, you might still not be strong enough.
|
United States42317 Posts
On May 25 2025 17:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2025 17:52 0x64 wrote:
The truth is that no country that really prepares ever gets invaded.
1. Have allies but don't trust they will act if something happens.
2. Fortifiy. Everything. You are not running out of minerals.
3. Drones, drones, drones. Everywhere. I doubt that "truth" is actually true. Ukraine has been preparing since 2014. This is a bit too much victim-blaming for me. "If you got invaded, you didn't really prepare." Kinda like "If you get raped, you were not careful enough/were wearing the wrong clothes/..." Sure, you can prepare for an invasion. And that preparation makes it less likely that you will get invaded. But in history, a lot of countries who did prepare still got invaded. If your neighbour is bigger, richer and stronger, then even investing all your effort into preparing, you might still not be strong enough.
Eh, Ukraine could have gone nuclear by 2022 if they'd started in 2014.
|
On May 25 2025 18:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2025 17:57 Simberto wrote:On May 25 2025 17:52 0x64 wrote:
The truth is that no country that really prepares ever gets invaded.
1. Have allies but don't trust they will act if something happens.
2. Fortifiy. Everything. You are not running out of minerals.
3. Drones, drones, drones. Everywhere. I doubt that "truth" is actually true. Ukraine has been preparing since 2014. This is a bit too much victim-blaming for me. "If you got invaded, you didn't really prepare." Kinda like "If you get raped, you were not careful enough/were wearing the wrong clothes/..." Sure, you can prepare for an invasion. And that preparation makes it less likely that you will get invaded. But in history, a lot of countries who did prepare still got invaded. If your neighbour is bigger, richer and stronger, then even investing all your effort into preparing, you might still not be strong enough. Eh, Ukraine could have gone nuclear by 2022 if they'd started in 2014. And Russia would have invaded them for it
|
On May 25 2025 17:52 0x64 wrote:
The truth is that no country that really prepares ever gets invaded.
1. Have allies but don't trust they will act if something happens.
2. Fortifiy. Everything. You are not running out of minerals.
3. Drones, drones, drones. Everywhere.
That is either unfalsifiable, or false.
The former is because you would simply point to all those countries that *were* invaded and say "you see, they didn't properly prepare". The latter is simply because I can point to Finland in the winter war as a country that was clearly prepared and got invaded anyway. Also, most of the countries that got invaded by Germany prepared as best they could. Or Iraq during either Gulf war.
|
On May 25 2025 18:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2025 18:00 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2025 17:57 Simberto wrote:On May 25 2025 17:52 0x64 wrote:
The truth is that no country that really prepares ever gets invaded.
1. Have allies but don't trust they will act if something happens.
2. Fortifiy. Everything. You are not running out of minerals.
3. Drones, drones, drones. Everywhere. I doubt that "truth" is actually true. Ukraine has been preparing since 2014. This is a bit too much victim-blaming for me. "If you got invaded, you didn't really prepare." Kinda like "If you get raped, you were not careful enough/were wearing the wrong clothes/..." Sure, you can prepare for an invasion. And that preparation makes it less likely that you will get invaded. But in history, a lot of countries who did prepare still got invaded. If your neighbour is bigger, richer and stronger, then even investing all your effort into preparing, you might still not be strong enough. Eh, Ukraine could have gone nuclear by 2022 if they'd started in 2014. And Russia would have invaded them for it
Mearsheimer, who the mainstream calls a Russian stooge/shill/x was pretty much the only one who called it in 1993 already. More than a year before the Budapest memorandum was signed, when he suggested that Ukraine keep its nukes even though they might not have strict control of them; because if they don't, they'll get invaded down the line by Russia.
+ Show Spoiler +
There's a lot of reasons this wasn't pursued at the time, including Ukraine having decent relations with Russia. Ukraine being heavily impacted by collapse of USSR, even more so than Russia; and obviously no other great power actually wanting Ukraine to have nukes. It should've been obvious to more people back then what would eventually happen, there were plenty of warnings given by notable policymakers.
That said, even if Ukraine were made safe I think another hotspot would then emerge. Perhaps Belarus, or even the Caucasus. The issue goes beyond Ukraine, it is ultimately about West-Russia relations. The only options to prevent a future war were to invade Russia, destroy it, and re-construct it SK/Japan/Germany style with western-backed leadership in charge. Expand NATO immediately to its borders while it was weak(for about 10 years after USSR collapse), OR disband NATO altogether and create a completely new security infrastructure with Russia having a seat at the table. What the West did was instead both expand towards Russia, while at the same time offering various guarantees and concessions. A milquetoast stick&carrot approach that neither took Russia's concerns seriously, nor was it punishing enough to prevent Russia from falling back on its nascent imperialism.
|
On May 26 2025 00:02 Andre wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2025 18:27 Gorsameth wrote:On May 25 2025 18:00 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2025 17:57 Simberto wrote:On May 25 2025 17:52 0x64 wrote:
The truth is that no country that really prepares ever gets invaded.
1. Have allies but don't trust they will act if something happens.
2. Fortifiy. Everything. You are not running out of minerals.
3. Drones, drones, drones. Everywhere. I doubt that "truth" is actually true. Ukraine has been preparing since 2014. This is a bit too much victim-blaming for me. "If you got invaded, you didn't really prepare." Kinda like "If you get raped, you were not careful enough/were wearing the wrong clothes/..." Sure, you can prepare for an invasion. And that preparation makes it less likely that you will get invaded. But in history, a lot of countries who did prepare still got invaded. If your neighbour is bigger, richer and stronger, then even investing all your effort into preparing, you might still not be strong enough. Eh, Ukraine could have gone nuclear by 2022 if they'd started in 2014. And Russia would have invaded them for it Mearsheimer, who the mainstream calls a Russian stooge/shill/x was pretty much the only one who called it in 1993 already. More than a year before the Budapest memorandum was signed, when he suggested that Ukraine keep its nukes even though they might not have strict control of them; because if they don't, they'll get invaded down the line by Russia. + Show Spoiler +There's a lot of reasons this wasn't pursued at the time, including Ukraine having decent relations with Russia. Ukraine being heavily impacted by collapse of USSR, even more so than Russia; and obviously no other great power actually wanting Ukraine to have nukes. It should've been obvious to more people back then what would eventually happen, there were plenty of warnings given by notable policymakers. That said, even if Ukraine were made safe I think another hotspot would then emerge. Perhaps Belarus, or even the Caucasus. The issue goes beyond Ukraine, it is ultimately about West-Russia relations. The only options to prevent a future war were to invade Russia, destroy it, and re-construct it SK/Japan/Germany style with western-backed leadership in charge. Expand NATO immediately to its borders while it was weak(for about 10 years after USSR collapse), OR disband NATO altogether and create a completely new security infrastructure with Russia having a seat at the table. What the West did was instead both expand towards Russia, while at the same time offering various guarantees and concessions. A milquetoast stick&carrot approach that neither took Russia's concerns seriously, nor was it punishing enough to prevent Russia from falling back on its nascent imperialism. Putin wants to reconstruct the USSR. Russia having a seat in NATO would not have changed anything.
And NATO didn't expand towards Russia so much as countries around Russia ran to NATO because, as is once again proven, Russia will invade you if you don't.
If Russia was a good neighbour working to strengthen its satellite states for mutual prosperity they wouldn't have to run to NATO for protection and the EU for prosperity.
Europe tried to tie itself economically to Russia to form a bond that would lead to mutual prosperity, see the reliance on Russian gas, Russia instead decided they would rather be constantly antagonistic and then invade people.
Russia was not pushed into the situation it is in, it chose to be there because its rulers cannot let go of the past.
|
On May 26 2025 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:
And NATO didn't expand towards Russia so much as countries around Russia ran to NATO because, as is once again proven, Russia will invade you if you don't.
If Russia was a good neighbour working to strengthen its satellite states for mutual prosperity they wouldn't have to run to NATO for protection and the EU for prosperity.
This bears repeating again and again and again. The narrative that Nato expanded eastwards plays into the Russian propaganda in multiple ways.
There is the obvious way, but there is also the secondary point that it denies any agenda from the eastern european states, basically treating them as subject nations who don't really get to choose what to do, who are pushed around by the real relevant powers.
But that is incorrect. Many eastern european states basically went "So, i heard you have an alliance that you protect each other from Russia? Where do i sign?" the moment Russia was not able to prevent that from happening for five seconds. And those who didn't regret that mistake now.
|
On May 26 2025 00:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2025 00:02 Andre wrote:On May 25 2025 18:27 Gorsameth wrote:On May 25 2025 18:00 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2025 17:57 Simberto wrote:On May 25 2025 17:52 0x64 wrote:
The truth is that no country that really prepares ever gets invaded.
1. Have allies but don't trust they will act if something happens.
2. Fortifiy. Everything. You are not running out of minerals.
3. Drones, drones, drones. Everywhere. I doubt that "truth" is actually true. Ukraine has been preparing since 2014. This is a bit too much victim-blaming for me. "If you got invaded, you didn't really prepare." Kinda like "If you get raped, you were not careful enough/were wearing the wrong clothes/..." Sure, you can prepare for an invasion. And that preparation makes it less likely that you will get invaded. But in history, a lot of countries who did prepare still got invaded. If your neighbour is bigger, richer and stronger, then even investing all your effort into preparing, you might still not be strong enough. Eh, Ukraine could have gone nuclear by 2022 if they'd started in 2014. And Russia would have invaded them for it Mearsheimer, who the mainstream calls a Russian stooge/shill/x was pretty much the only one who called it in 1993 already. More than a year before the Budapest memorandum was signed, when he suggested that Ukraine keep its nukes even though they might not have strict control of them; because if they don't, they'll get invaded down the line by Russia. + Show Spoiler +There's a lot of reasons this wasn't pursued at the time, including Ukraine having decent relations with Russia. Ukraine being heavily impacted by collapse of USSR, even more so than Russia; and obviously no other great power actually wanting Ukraine to have nukes. It should've been obvious to more people back then what would eventually happen, there were plenty of warnings given by notable policymakers. That said, even if Ukraine were made safe I think another hotspot would then emerge. Perhaps Belarus, or even the Caucasus. The issue goes beyond Ukraine, it is ultimately about West-Russia relations. The only options to prevent a future war were to invade Russia, destroy it, and re-construct it SK/Japan/Germany style with western-backed leadership in charge. Expand NATO immediately to its borders while it was weak(for about 10 years after USSR collapse), OR disband NATO altogether and create a completely new security infrastructure with Russia having a seat at the table. What the West did was instead both expand towards Russia, while at the same time offering various guarantees and concessions. A milquetoast stick&carrot approach that neither took Russia's concerns seriously, nor was it punishing enough to prevent Russia from falling back on its nascent imperialism. Putin wants to reconstruct the USSR. Russia having a seat in NATO would not have changed anything. And NATO didn't expand towards Russia so much as countries around Russia ran to NATO because, as is once again proven, Russia will invade you if you don't. If Russia was a good neighbour working to strengthen its satellite states for mutual prosperity they wouldn't have to run to NATO for protection and the EU for prosperity. Europe tried to tie itself economically to Russia to form a bond that would lead to mutual prosperity, see the reliance on Russian gas, Russia instead decided they would rather be constantly antagonistic and then invade people. Russia was not pushed into the situation it is in, it chose to be there because its rulers cannot let go of the past.
Your argument makes no sense, Russia's political and diplomatic situation would be completely different in any of the three scenarios I laid out. Maybe you can make an argument that a figure like Putin still arises in one of them, feel free to do that. Saying Putin would be trying to reconstruct USSR makes no sense, in a situation where Russia's ascension to NATO happens after USSR collapses though. Putin carved out his power base on the devastation of the Russian economy in the 90s, and on the reforms taken in the early 2000s; getting rid of IMF debt and so.
Imagine how different history is if Germany's reconstruction(or subjugation, or destruction) is pursued after WW1 instead of some half-way measure. You're basically saying a figure like Adolf arises no matter what happens after WW1, no matter what Germany does or any of the victor states that had great influence over it.
On expansion, the framing you put it is post-hoc justification that has no bearing in the historical accord. There's countless documents and high clearance individuals laying out that Russia will lash out if NATO *expands*, before it did. Read Brzezinski, Kissinger, Kennan, or any of the cables coming out in the early 90s. But as I've said, if NATO expanded more aggressively it would've been able to more effectively contain Russia as well.
Here is a good start:
+ Show Spoiler +
Saying stuff like "if Russia was a good neighbor" is absurd. I'm sure if China and USA play nice with each other we'll have eternal peace and prosperity for the planet as well, not how it works.
Russia was pushed into the situation it is, but obviously it is not there only because of the West or NATO; it has its own historical baggage that pushed it in that direction. Doesn't change anything, the situation is where it is because people who understood geopolitics were ignored and ideologues won the debates that made it so.
|
No, Russia was not pushed into this situation. Fuck off with that bullshit. That shithole is not entitled to a sphere of influence.
|
United States42317 Posts
If Russia wasn’t always going to invade Eastern Europe whenever it got the chance then explain the last 700 years of Russian history.
|
On May 25 2025 18:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2025 17:52 0x64 wrote:
The truth is that no country that really prepares ever gets invaded.
1. Have allies but don't trust they will act if something happens.
2. Fortifiy. Everything. You are not running out of minerals.
3. Drones, drones, drones. Everywhere. That is either unfalsifiable, or false. The former is because you would simply point to all those countries that *were* invaded and say "you see, they didn't properly prepare". The latter is simply because I can point to Finland in the winter war as a country that was clearly prepared and got invaded anyway. Also, most of the countries that got invaded by Germany prepared as best they could. Or Iraq during either Gulf war.
1. Finland did not get invaded. They were not prepared. When the truce was signed, they did have barely any munition left
2.Germany. Let's talk about how well France was prepared. They were super prepared on the border with germany, a line of mountain forts with heavy artillery. However, Germany went around, through Belgium. The sad part, is that they did this twice. So how can you call it prepared. A simple little details, at beginning of WW2, a french conscript would have a riffle with 2 bullets, bullets were packed in a crazy rope packet you could not open without a knife.
3. Iraq is the one I can't talk about, I don't know how much they prepared for a war against USA. I feel like they must have suffered from the same issue that Ukraine has, that they don't have enough natural obstacles. A chain of mountain is always welcome in these situation.
Also someone else said I sounded like a victim blamer, and the Ukraine prepared since 2014.
1. They did prepare and it's because of this they are holding so technically, the invasion failed. They had to prepare while not seeming like they are preparing seriously, it was a balancing act.
2. It's hard to blame Ukraine for their situation. When I say prepare, I mean the level of Switzerland. Europe is not really prepared. Are we prepared to used nukes as deterrent? I feel like what Poland and Baltic Countries are starting to do is smart. Now is a very good time to build a big fortified line.
And lastly, what I wrote is partially wrong because it does not take into account hybrid warfare that Russia is openly practicing. Don't know if Russia caused the power outage in spain/portugal, but for sure they have been cutting communication cables underwater, starting fires here and there in Europe. Power disruption have happened now in south of France... There seems to be a pattern. This, we are very little ready. I personally am not ready and never have been pondering what my country should do to stop Russia doing random sabotage.
|
On May 26 2025 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
No, Russia was not pushed into this situation. Fuck off with that bullshit. That shithole is not entitled to a sphere of influence.
Russia could have easily decided to be a part of the global society after the fall of the soviet union. They could have made lots of cash from trading oil and gas to the west. And people in Russia and the surrounding countries would have been happier.
They just would have needed to stop invading their neighbours.
|
On May 26 2025 05:51 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2025 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
No, Russia was not pushed into this situation. Fuck off with that bullshit. That shithole is not entitled to a sphere of influence. Russia could have easily decided to be a part of the global society after the fall of the soviet union. They could have made lots of cash from trading oil and gas to the west. And people in Russia and the surrounding countries would have been happier. They just would have needed to stop invading their neighbours.
Exactly. They had the potential to become of the wealthiest countries in the world. An overabundance of natural resources, advanced science, educated population...
Let's not forget that NATO expansion was consulted with Russia and the timeline was changed. Russia was also invited into the Partnership for Peace and the NATO-Russia Council. Russia was also invited to a number of NATO summits. Their presidents bailed on most of them.
|
United States42317 Posts
On May 26 2025 05:51 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2025 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
No, Russia was not pushed into this situation. Fuck off with that bullshit. That shithole is not entitled to a sphere of influence. Russia could have easily decided to be a part of the global society after the fall of the soviet union. They could have made lots of cash from trading oil and gas to the west. And people in Russia and the surrounding countries would have been happier. They just would have needed to stop invading their neighbours.
Yep. Russians should be the richest most prosperous happiest citizens in the world. Wealthier than Saudi Arabia but with much older, stronger, richer cultural identity and foundation. The industry of Germany and resources of Norway.
But they were too fucking Russian to be happy. They gave their country away to oligarchs, created their own misery, and then decided to validate their misery by exporting it. If everywhere sucks then they can tell themselves that it’s fine and not their fault.
The Russian tragedy isn’t just that they’re miserable, it’s that they choose it.
|
On May 26 2025 05:51 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2025 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:
No, Russia was not pushed into this situation. Fuck off with that bullshit. That shithole is not entitled to a sphere of influence. Russia could have easily decided to be a part of the global society after the fall of the soviet union. They could have made lots of cash from trading oil and gas to the west. And people in Russia and the surrounding countries would have been happier. They just would have needed to stop invading their neighbours.
They made that cash anyway, but had no interest in investing it into their people's quality of life. And in order to prevent the rabble from saying 'hold on a minute, this isn't fair' the kleptocrats needed a constant stream of enemies and threats to 'protect' the rabble from in order to justify the need for their power and privilege.
Of course it all falls apart at the slightest examination. You have all these vicious enemies ready to strike, you lose your men and equipment and the image of a competent military in Ukraine, and yet none of these enemies pounce on you at your weakest. There was never any threat. Even if we pretend that nukes don't exist, as their mythos requires, no one wants to administer a clusterfuck of a colony and extract resources at a premium under their own wages and regulations.
|
On May 24 2025 16:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2025 10:48 WombaT wrote:On May 24 2025 09:24 ETisME wrote:On May 23 2025 22:42 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote:
You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended. My position is that a lasting settlement is not possible because Russia will keep going until Ukrainian independence is destroyed. And your counter point is that in 2014 they achieved a deal that ensured lasting peace? Are you sure about that? That’s the line you want to take? That the 2014 deal is a model for ending invasions of Ukraine by Russia? That whatever they agreed in 2014 settled all issues and Russia had no further interest in invading Ukraine ever again? Also I’m pretty sure that there isn’t actually a 2014 deal. You imagined that. Ukraine never accepted the annexation of Crimea and fighting has been ongoing since then. But in any case, the fact is that they kept going. They annexed an oblast, regrouped, and annexed four more. 2014 supports my position, not yours. Nope, let's put it clear. All conflicts end one way or another. 2014 crimea was a seperate conflict. Just because one side sees another is an existential threat doesn't mean every conflict is end all be all, nor there can be no negotiation. You brought up China and Taiwan, they still made deals even when historically they are in direct hostile relationship for past decades, with Taiwan regime being denied as anything legitimate. They still coexist and made deals even if ultimately china will invade taiwan in 10-1000 years. So you yourself should know you have a pretty weird chain of thought. Not all war ends with complete destruction of the nation or regime. Even if there's a deal, there's no forever peace guarantee, or else the entire world would have long be at peace already. Whether a deal can be strike is just based on what's on the table. Longer the war drag on, the losing side will have to accept more losing position. This should be something even a 5 years old get. Somehow this is a pro Russia stance and difficult for you to get. If you do truly think this is the final existential war for Ukraine, and Russia will never let Ukraine be, then I guess you calling for the total destruction of Russia regime and revamp their education and media sector then? Obviously just defending ain't good enough, can't have guarantee they wouldn't invade again, am I right? No, you are not right. It’s called a security guarantee, something Ukraine are seeking, above most else. Sure, in an ideal world Ukraine would rather Russia weren’t cunts. But they’re not seeking some anti-cuntishness reprogramming, merely ‘if Russia are cunts, will other people protect us? That’s that, it’s not a negotiable. For obvious reasons. Your patter is nonsense. China hasn’t invaded Taiwan. If it did, I wouldn’t be in favour of a ‘peace’ that involved Taiwan just doing whatever China wanted either. And I’m a neutral observer, I’m not Ukrainian or Taiwanese. Also, the reason that PRC hasn't invaded Taiwan is due to credible security guarantees. If the US hadn't guaranteed Taiwans security, PRC would have invaded Taiwan long ago. But this is easier to do if there is not currently an active war going on.
I guess China is also a bit scared of the repercussions this would have with Western markets which are worth more to China than owning Taiwan.
Obviously this would be a incredible hard thing to do an, especially for Europe, but if China actually bombed and invaded Taiwan and Europe would start feezing Chinese assets and sanction Chines trade, economy of both China and EU would be in the gutter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/R2kNXzf.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8nC8JPY.png)
