Now creating that deterrence will simply get some people to think that your war-hungry. Well, I'm not. — ssu
can all defense be narrated as offense, can all defensive measures be cast as threats? — Apr 8, 2024
A naïve attitude towards Putin's regressive Russia is, well, not particularly smart, or is a particularly kind of blindness, or whatever. Not going to repeat all evidence already posted. (Besides, you ignore requests to account for whatever observations with your theory.) — Jul 25, 2024
The only blind ones are you oompaloompas I keep wasting my time on. :lol: — Tzeentch
You have to have deterrence to keep the peace.
Now creating that deterrence will simply get some people to think that your war-hungry. Well, I'm not. — ssu
First of all, the globalized World won't profit from something far more devastating than a trade war. — ssu
And your forgetting that the US has nothing like NATO in Far East. Don't you remember how SEATO simply collapsed? What are the goddam allies of the US? How close are South Korea and Japan to make some joint effort here? What are US allies there in the Pacific? Australia, and the UK! Not much of an alliance that AUKUS.
This is the peril when you have only nation-to-nation defense agreements, but not a treaty organization with collective defense. What countries would (or could) assist the US, if China went for Taiwan? The Japanese? How much? The South Koreans? They have to deal with North Korea. Likely Japan could give a few destroyers and subs, but likely it would hold it's resources back. And in truth the US is lousy in creating new workable alliances, because it doesn't want to. — ssu
Look, Putin has all the time wanted to portray Western Europe as a threat Russia. — ssu
Actually it is guided. Biden was all in favour of the "pivot" to Asia and his administration full of the "pivot people", just like Obama's. But he cannot and couldn't. That's the power of Atlanticism.
For Superpower USA, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the jewel in it's crown. But if American want to let their hubris go rampant and think their stature in the World doesn't need NATO or any allies (except Israel), I think they are mistaken. If the US really leaves NATO, then Europe will have to reorganize itself. But it's not something where the US wins.
Believe it or not, but I don't think that especially those Americans wanting to "make America great again" don't want the country to be the bigger Canada. Yeah, isolationism sounds great at first, but then when other countries really don't give a fuck, then comes the anger back when people find that isolationism is not a cure-all, just as Brexit wasn't for the Brits.
The simple fact is that the West is stronger together. Something that some people hate. — ssu
In a nutshell, a nation building their military, even as deterrence, can be seen as a threat to neighboring nations. — Tzeentch
The solution is extremely simple: combine the creation of a deterrent with de-escalating rhetoric and with dialogue with Russia. — Tzeentch
Yet, we now know that the Europeans were acting in bad faith as far back as the Minsk Accords. — Tzeentch
These are geopolitical realities - forces of nature, almost - that they cannot ignore (though admittedly, Europe has been a king at ignoring geopolitical realities). — Tzeentch
So there's no way Russia would blow up the status quo by doing something as silly as launching a full ground invasion of it's neighbor. — Echarmion
Ukraine is more important to Russia than maintaining the status quo. That's exactly what they told us over the course of some fifteen years.
Striking such a sarcistic tone while losing sight of the most basic elements to this conflict is why I can't take you seriously. — Tzeentch
namely that the invasion of Ukraine defies traditional "geopolitical reason" — Echarmion
It doesn't. Ukraine and especially Crimea are of great geopolitical and historical importance to Russia and always has been. They've fought several wars over them. — Tzeentch
No realist should have been surprised that the Russians after over a decade of warnings chose to use force to secure what they believed to be their vital strategic interests. — Tzeentch
In fact, Mearsheimer predicted it almost ten years in advance — Tzeentch
Insisting that there was "no reason" and that Putin is some mad man is not a serious argument. — Tzeentch
[...] nothing had dramatically changed for Russia's position in Ukraine. — Echarmion
This is another version of the "no reason" comment. The Russians clearly believed and told us otherwise, and the idea that a great power goes to war for "no reason" is just not a serious argument. — Tzeentch
It's quite easy to see from the Russian point of view what was changing in Ukraine: Ukraine was in the process of being trained and armed by NATO to a point where Russia's standing army would no longer be able to intervene. During the initial invasion Ukrainian forces outnumbered the Russians (est. 200,000+ vs. 100,000 - 190,000 respectively).
Coupled with NATO rhetoric of incorporating Ukraine, it was clear from their point of view they were expecting NATO to create a fait accompli. — Tzeentch
[...] entertaining the possibility that the russian leadership made a stupid or incompetent decision is "not serious". Why not? — Echarmion
What kind of fait accompli could NATO create? — Echarmion
Russia of course also had the option to offer to abandon the Donbas separatists in exchange for a commitment to a neutral Ukraine with some kind of economic deal thrown in. — Echarmion
You're both mischaracterizing your own position (you're arguing there was "no reason" to invade Ukraine - obviously not a serious argument) and mine (I never argued the Russian leadership was unable to make mistakes).
Cheap rhetorical tricks won't help you with being taken seriously here. — Tzeentch
First-hand accounts from Merkel and Hollande tell us that NATO entered the Minsk Accords in bad faith, and used it to buy time to arm Ukraine. NATO was fully committed to flipping Ukraine. — Tzeentch
The idea that if only the Russians stopped backing the separatists NATO would agree to Ukrainian neutrality is probably one of the most far-fetched things I've heard so far. I hesitate to say: not a serious argument. — Tzeentch
Assuming this is true, how is this "bad faith"? — Echarmion
Doesn't Mearsheimer argue that nations will not sit back and wait but instead aggressively seek advantages? — Echarmion
But also de-escalation is not even a serious argument because NATO will by default make unacceptable demands. — Echarmion
You're asking me how it is bad faith to enter a peace agreement in order to double down on what caused the war in the first place? — Tzeentch
There's nothing within the realist framework that says cooperation cannot happen when it is rational to cooperate. — Tzeentch
The agreements contain no clause to this effect, so you're asking NATO to unilaterally de-escalate. — Echarmion
Great, I agree. So why was it impossible for Russia and NATO to cooperate in February 2022, and why would it have then been possible in April 2022 or now?
Edit: Or, in case you reject my framing of the question, if it was possible to cooperate in February 2022, why didn't Russia choose this path given the many advantages of cooperation with Europe. — Echarmion
NATO leaders admitted to signing a peace agreement not with the intention of maintaing peace, but with the intention to arm for war. — Tzeentch
Your suggestion that Russia could withdraw support for the Donbas separatists and in turn NATO would agree to a neutral Ukraine is therefore laughable. — Tzeentch
This question has been answered a million times already. I'm not going to answer it again. — Tzeentch
You earlier stated you agree with the principle of deterrence. Why is this not covered by deterrence? — Echarmion
Because to me it reads like you saying that NATO was bent on war this entire time. — Echarmion
Ah yes, the classic kindergarten trick. — Echarmion
Because deterrence is supposed to make war less likely, instead of provoke it. — Tzeentch
Yep. That's something I've repeatedly argued in this thread: NATO, the US in particular, was purposefully seeking conflict in Ukraine from 2008 onward. — Tzeentch
If you think you're entitled to me regurgitating topics that have been covered here dozens of times, you are sadly mistaken. — Tzeentch
Which just seems to strengthen my argument that Russia made a bad move by choosing to continually escalate in Ukraine. — Echarmion
You're constantly accusing Europe of ignoring the obvious signs on the wall yet Russia plays exactly to the US playbook and you have nothing to say about that? — Echarmion
It's just interesting to see how you're strenuously avoiding to answer uncomfortable questions. — Echarmion
Of course not. The Russians believe NATO membership for Ukraine to be a threat to their vital strategic interests. They simply couldn't ignore it. That's what a red line means. They spent 15 years trying to avert this outcome. — Tzeentch
This ties into the fact that Ukraine represents Russian key strategic interests, and therefore NATO seeking to flip NATO couldn't be ignored. But it's widely accepted that Putin expected Europe to be more amendable to peace, and thus miscalculated in that regard. — Tzeentch
They spend 15 years trying to avoid it only to turn it into a virtual certainty by invading. — Echarmion
Why did Putin need Europe to be amenable to peace in the first place? — Echarmion
Even if NATO "flipped" Ukraine, what does this matter to Russia if the US is going to pivot to Asia and this kills NATO? — Echarmion
Because at that point they believed war to be unavoidable. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. — Tzeentch
NATO was clearly propping up Ukraine militarily with the intention of creating a fait accompli. Russia sought to stop them before that became a reality. — Tzeentch
Because there's no way the US would have provoked this conflict unless the Europeans were willing participants. Putin probably banked on the Europeans pursuing a sensible strategy. They didn't. — Tzeentch
As I said, the US is seeking to prepare its pivot to Asia by leaving long-lasting conflict as its parting gift to Europe. — Tzeentch
Why would war be unavoidable? — Echarmion
Just wait until the US is gone, where is the problem? — Echarmion
Because NATO insisted on threatening what the Russians believed were their vital strategic interests. — Tzeentch
Even when the US pivots, it doesn't mean the US 'is gone', and you're suggesting handing the US the biggest trump card it could hope for? Haha. — Tzeentch
Like handing the US a war that according to you they desperately wanted? — Echarmion
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.