It's not black or white. We can say things clearly: Ukraine has a right to self-defense, Russia has a right to safe borders, what NATO is doing is extremely dangerous and leaves Russia with little option. — Manuel
Putin may be many things, but he isn't stupid, much less suicidal. If he invades Ukraine, it's game over. — Manuel
Nevertheless, if he doesn't put troops in the border, Ukraine may feel it could join NATO without consequence, seeing Russia doesn't seem to mind. — Manuel
Exactly. You said it even yourself. It isn't may be, it is no threat to Russia.Ukraine itself may be no threat to Russia. — Apollodorus
Don't forget Cuba or Venezuela. Or Nicaragua. You see, bullying and starting a "hybrid attack" (like we saw with the Bay of Pigs etc) simply puts these countries into a corner. And then they can have those Russian bombers visit them.If Russia was seriously considering joining a military alliance with say, Mexico, then they would be the aggressors and the US would have the right to place troops on its borders. — Manuel
I don't know, people differ a lot in politics. I tend to avoid thinking in terms of "good guys" or "our side" vs. "bad guys" or "them". It's just a different set of (very often) elite interests. — Manuel
This is where Putin utterly failed. If he would have just stood back and patiently waited just as it did in Central Asia, let the Americans do their thing, and then he would be out. But I guess the lure to re-establish a greater Russia, snatch Crimea, was too seductive for him. You fail to notice that the US had bases all around the Central Asian states...and no it has none. — ssu
Nothing to do with being "Anti America", that's an empty phrase, with virtually no meaning. — Manuel
However, I'm fully aware that I could be called a coward or lacking a spine or convictions. It's a matter of temperament. — Manuel
This I've read now from many various references. When Russia occupied the Crimea in 2014, the lack of a logistics tail fooled Western observers (and they were then focused hunting terrorists anyway). Now the arrival of that logistical tail, field hospitals, ammo depots etc. sends a message. — ssu
I also happen to think the Crimea annexation was a reaction to Western meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine when it refused to bend over and get anally shafted by the IMF. — Benkei
Almost nothing?I disagree this was a failure. It was strategically a brilliant move. He ensured access to the Black Sea and it cost him almost nothing. — Benkei
Western sanctions and Russian counter-sanctions reduced Russian real gross domestic product (GDP) initially by 1–1.5% and that prolonged sanctions would lead to an even larger cumulative output loss. In 2019, the IMF estimated that sanctions reduced Russia’s growth rate by 0.2 percentage points every year in 2014-2018.
While a number of academic studies give different estimates of the extent of the economic loss, most of them support the view that sanctions have clearly reduced Russia’s economic development. The prohibition of long-term financing for certain large state-owned companies, including the major banks Sberbank and VTB, has been particularly significant. Another notable measure has been the export ban on certain sensitive technologies that can be used for oil production, because it hinders the exploration of important future resources in deep water, Arctic, and shale deposits.
I disagree. Do note that that strategy really did work. The US withdrew all it's bases from Central Asia. Yet especially now it would want to have a base to check the Taliban, but Russia said no. Now I do think that Russia had to be active in this, so it surely wasn't passive on this. But Russia simply wasn't openly bellicose and hostile at the former Central Asian states. How can you say that a strategy that actually did work wouldn't have worked here? Russia could have done similar things as there as really there wasn't much enthusiasm for Ukraine in the West.Your idea of just "waiting patiently" leaves things to chance; it's not a real strategy. — Benkei
Talk of a true strategic surprise. That the VDV airborne troops had only to take off their Russian flags from their uniforms and instantly, they were "little Green men". That is still a total mystery for me: how could the reporters be so clueless? And the propaganda effort worked as a charm. But that kind of surprise works only once: when it comes out of the blue as it did back then.Crimea was (or, let's hope, would have been) a very different operation though. There wasn't a large-scale invasion and hardly any military confrontation. That "stealth invasion" was like nothing anyone had seen before, but then the circumstances were pretty unique. This time it looks like (or is made to look like) a classic land and sea invasion on a scale not seen since WWII. — SophistiCat
The EU could have it's own military alliance, not dependent on NATO. Yet they don't do it, I think they don't want to pay the bills when they have very strong military support. — Manuel
Actually, for over 77 years now. And Russia has had the ability to cause similar harm to New York and Washington DC since 1949. Yes, there was a missile gap in favor of the US for a long time, but the Soviet Union surpassed the number of nuclear weapons (and ICBMs) finally in the late 1970's I guess.The US military has had the ability to level Moscow for the last 50 years. They could do it any time day or night. They don't need access to Ukraine for that. Why is Putin suddenly feeling threatened? — frank
Do notice the importance of NATO articles 1 and 2, not only 5. Having the European militaries working together is important force peace. That was a reasonable thing to have as EU isn't a military pact. Don't forget that the US did have plans for a war with UK after WW1 (as it had with Japan), even if they just had been allies in the Great War.I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. — Manuel
Actually no. The ONLY thing they DID preserve was their nuclear deterrence. That was the last thing they let to crumble apart and they have, unlike the US, have had a persistent program to renew their nuclear deterrence. Having over 40 000 nuclear weapons was indeed a burden, but thankfully there were the huge reductions with the US and a lot of those Russian nukes ended up as fuel in US nuclear power plants giving energy to the cities they were intended to demolish. (A really happy true story, which are rare in this World)Russia's nuclear capability went into decline after the cold war. Whatever capability they have now is recently aquired. — frank
what NATO is doing is extremely dangerous and leaves Russia with little option. — Manuel
I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. The USSR no longer is a threat, not that was a big threat before - compared to US power anyway. — Manuel
In a phone conversation on February 20th, 2003 – a month before the invasion – Dr. Blix [who was in charge of UN inspections] expressed his doubts to Tony Blair. ‘I said explicitly to him that it would be paradoxical if we were to invade Iraq with 250,000 people and find very little. He said no, no, no they are all convinced it will be there.’ Precisely a month later American and British troops entered Iraq. They found nothing
What do you mean?Not after the collapse of the USSR. — frank
It's not at all so crazy in a couple of instances...It would be beyond crazy if Western Europe got itself in another war with itself. I don't think this would happen anymore. — Manuel
Soon after the demise of the Communist regimes in Hungary and Romania, in March 1990, violent ethnic clashes in Transylvania strained the relationship between both countries to the brink of war. As a result, the first Open Skies Treaty in the world to mutually assess the strength and disposition of opposing military forces was worked out and became effective in 1992. This is considered a direct precursor of the 2002 multilateral Treaty on Open Skies that once included Russia and the United States.
What do you mean?
The R-36 missile was deployed in 1988 and has continued up until now in service with Russia (to be replaced with the RS-26 Sarmat). — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.