Why simply Vladimir Putin has any justification to say how sovereign states manage their alliances? — ssu

This is again the trap of thinking rules-based. While I agree that this is and should be what we should aspire to, the reality is sovereignty means fuck all. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, rendition etc. That's the same stuff. That doesn't absolve Putin but knowing geopolitics isn't rule based clarifies that responsibility lies with NATO just as much. It's not a pretext, it's how every country, including our own operates. The Cuban crisis was averted because the Russians pulled back. NATO decided to play chicken with Ukrainian lives on the line.

I don't think anyone has taken for granted what the Russians said, except for one thing: they have repeatedly pointed out they do not want NATO to expand eastward. That doing so nonetheless would lead to war has been repeatedly stated since the 90s even by our own advisors and think tanks. It's only through the lens of "rights" that we can pretend this is solely Russia and Russian imperialism. But it's naive and it's not even the paradigm on which Western countries operate.

Speaking of that imperialism, Russia simply doesn't have the economic basis or military capacity to project an empire so I find such claims divorced from reality. Talk of Russian empire is a form of nationalism, just how the Dutch look favourably on our east India company and Italians talk about the Roman empire and Greeks about the cradle of civilisation.

What's worse is, I think, that the US and NATO were fully aware of provoking the Russians in which Ukraine was nothing more but a pawn. There was never an intent to defend Ukraine against any form of Russian aggression so creating a situation where this became Russia's only viable (in their view) action to take, means US and NATO are complicit in the deaths of innocent Ukrainians.

So what was the end game here? Could've been a couple of things in my view. Either a wish to further intensify sanctions to weaken Russia. Make it spend a lot of money on a, possibly protracted, war. I don't really know and I Wonder if they actually thought that far. I find it more likely that hubris and incompetence have led to this.

I didn't realise incels now classify a rejection as a reverse rape. Makes me really glad these people get rejected and fail to procreate.

For me war totally obvious with the television speech that Putin made on the 22nd of February, two days before the invasion. This was never a dress rehearsal, a training exercise to get the US to talk. And I had agreed with the historian Nial Ferguson's comment from January that the probability of war was 50/50, which is a really high probability. For example Amity understood well the reality before the attack commenced. Others too.

Some insisted that everything was an American propaganda scare tactic, that all this has happened because of the US, well, they are still quite active. Just to refer one who before the invasion was launched, wrote about his intentions: "Just disrupting the rosy media-friendly picture of the poor underdog Ukrainians being set upon by nasty thugish Russia." — ssu

These two do not preclude each other.

What's tiresome on this thread, which is why I'm not really participating anymore, is the inability of some posters to accept any form of criticism of the US and NATO policy for decades contributing to the current situation, which appears to be a consequence of the naive mistake of applying ethics to geopolitical politics. While I agree that preferably every country adheres to international law, and I'm the first to argue they should, the fact of the matter is that it's a mistake to represent international relations as governed by those rules, eg. there's a clear difference between what is done and what ought to be done. Let's not forget renditions, torture, illegal wars etc. that "our" side committed, we don't have a moral high ground.

I don't trust the Western narrative and won't unless it's corroborated by different sources and that generally takes a few months to clear up, considering how often we've been lied to. If I see Russians firing at a flat, then I'm wondering whether they were fired upon from that position and we've just not been shown that. I have no way of knowing but I do know we get maybe 5% of what's actually going on.

Still not out of 'odd' territory though. You're saying as long as the election was good, you don't question the decisions of elected leaders. That's a highly unusual position. — Isaac

And here is the reason never to vote for another president because all their decisions are always right as long as the right process was followed.

Sigh. @Tobias this thread is a prime example. :roll:

I don't think we should be wasting our time on such a reductionist view on gender relations.

Sen. Marco Rubio: Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?

Victoria Nuland: Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we’re now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how we can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.

Sen. Marco Rubio: I’m sure you’re aware that the Russian propaganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of information about how they have uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to unleash biological weapons in the country, and with NATO’s coordination.

If there is a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians behind it?

Victoria Nuland: There is no doubt in my mind, senator. And in fact, it is a classic Russian technique to blame the other guy for what they are planning to do themselves.

Your inferences do not make any sense based on what was said.

@ssu Considering the demands Putin had on the table before the war, none of which Ukraine was in a position to meet, what strategic objectives do you think he wants to reach before willing to enter peace talks for real?

I also had an interesting talk with my six year old daughter who we watch the Dutch children's news with. She came home from school saying it was good the Netherlands gave weapons, so the Ukrainians could defend themselves. I asked here what would happen if two sides would be more or less equally strong. She realised they would keep fighting and more people would die. So now she wasn't sure what was better but she "felt" it was wrong to do nothing.

So I said that in the end this war only exists because grown men are too weak to accept they cannot have everything they want and resort to violence as a result to get it. We're left with making decisions we don't know whether they are right or wrong so all we can do is have the right intention. I told her to think about what she thinks is best and that maybe we could help in different ways.

So she woke up today and she doesn't want to send guns anymore but we decided together to make a room available in our home for fugitives instead. I asked her why? She said that she's not sure whether sending guns is better, even if it could be, but she knows for sure giving people a roof is always good. Can't believe she's only six at times!

Europe gains nothing, loses a lot, and it's failure to do anything meaningful to have peace, is because European elites do not care much about European interest, neither Ukrainians nor their own populations; they care about US interests, for reason I honestly don't get (I talked years ago with bureaucrats in Brussels about there being no purpose or benefit to antagonizing Russia for no discernible reason; they honestly didn't get my point of view, would just repeat USA talking points about the issue).

When I pushed for some sort of justification, "like why? why though?" they would just get angry with me. — boethius

A continued role for NATO benefitting the US' influence in it as the most powerful military country. It's ability to project that power across the world through local bases. An increase in countries wanting to join NATO.

The cost? Mostly a loss of soft power (weakened trust in Western countries), which weakens European countries more than it does the US. Again a relative gain for the US, although they never cared much about soft power to begin with.

Gergiev was fired from the Rotterdam philharmonic orchestra as well.

I'd say it's unlikely.

Think about it. Let's assume Biden would have gone to lower (meaning higher) defcon level. If Putin would notice that, you think he wouldn't say it? Nuclear weapons are basically used for communication. — ssu

And we need to have lower defcons to push buttons to launch nukes? I don't think so. I think they're prepared for any and all contingencies including nuking Russia in retaliation.

The point being, of course, that as usual the official communication isn't the actual communication. Russia threatened and the US shrugged. It's a diplomatic "fuck you" to the Russians.

I'm talking about a probability factor for the world as it is today. If you mix history in a blender you can get whatever result you want, or that supports your thesis. — Christoffer

Cue him stacking the premises in such a way until you agree that the only correct answer can be the US. Never mind history and facts! — Benkei

@ssu

I just want to highlight that this is the third time I correctly predicted the future.

:100:

Cue him stacking the premises in such a way until you agree that the only correct answer can be the US. Never mind history and facts!

:yawn:

Christoffer likes to pretend he's a grown up. I'm sure he doesn't need another idiot defending him.

The problem here is the infantile "Putin bad" "NATO good" narrative or worse, the idea we can somehow "trust" the US to do better than the Russians, when the whole point of my comments on this thread has been that NATO and the US are not trustworthy at all and knowingly escalated tensions right up to war. But you, and others, apparently think it's fine to play chicken with human lives at stake, because, hey, they're just Ukrainians! To then shed fucking crocodile tears for Ukrainians without looking our own complicity straight in the eye is a fine example of self-delusion. The inability by posters like Christoffer to even slightly start to display some understanding of this after over 50 pages, deserves scorn for either the wilful idiocy it reflects or malice otherwise.

Fucking children think this is a Idols contest where we are to choose who we trust more. As if trust has any fucking relevance in an arena with real politik players. It's irrelevant as much as it is stupid but entirely in accordance with his predisposition that obviously makes him entirely incapable of being critical.

I can have perfectly civil disagreements but not with ideologues.

So yes, Frank, ragging is entirely appropriate when posts are simply that shit.

another cartoon! What a surprise.

:yawn:

Look at Cuthbert here, he actually engages with the question in a way I find more civil. You know, it is possible to do that. — Christoffer

I have neither the time nor inclination to take your apparent fragile ego into consideration when clarifying the kindergarten level of your thinking.

:yawn:

America would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. — Cuthbert

That's entirely ahistorical. And it was also on the table in 1962 during the Cuba crisis. So no. There's really no reason to "trust" either country to handle nukes responsibly.

Let go of your childish outbursts and either engage in the discussion or ignore what I write. Getting really fed up with everyone, even the mods, acting like this forum is fucking reddit. — Christoffer

Either write better posts or stick to reddit. Bye.

Do you trust Biden or Putin more with nuclear weapons? Do you trust the chain of command in the US more than Putin's? Everyone can argue that the US also has nukes and they're the only nation who actually used them, but all of that just smells over-simplification from the regular "the US is to blame for everything"-people. It can also be that because they are the only ones who used nukes, they know the consequences, the national guilt, the terror that it implies. There are reasons for the miles-long red tape before even touching the keys of the "football", it's because it should be extremely problematic to fire a nuke.

The question is really: do you trust Putin more than the US when it comes to who would initiate total annihilation? — Christoffer

Again, what's up with the fucking childish questions? I question the US narrative and your reply is, who do you trust more? Seriously?I don't trust either, especially considering the US is the only country that ever used nukes. Twice.

The only relevant difference here is, it is unlikely that the US will attack the Netherlands.

the Biden administration did the right thing: It didn't do anything with it's nuclear forces. — ssu

Publicly. We have no clue really.

So if it's the harsh terms Treaty of Versailles, the internal problems of Weimar Germany, and other historical reason for fascism and national socialism to emerge, just what all of that has it to do with your country, which had been neutral during WW1? What have the Dutch to do with the rise of Hitler? — ssu

The point of my post was not to apply a saying as the end of truth in the matter. It's supposed to give pause and think before choosing sides. I'm still in favour of NATO and Ukraine at this point but not because I agree with what NATO, and particularly the US, has done but because the alternative is even worse. But that the US and NATO have acted callous with no respect for the dignity or sovereignty of Ukraine is for me entirely clear.

All I've tried to say, that it wasn't the only reason for this war. You cannot explain it just by that. If you get that, fine, let's move on. — ssu

So we're not actually in disagreement then.

:100:

And how much do you blame the Dutch of the fighting that they took part from May 10th to May 14th 1940? — ssu

You should take a more holistic approach. What circumstances gave rise to someone like Hitler getting into power? Let's stop with the single cause fallacies.

I'm not here to give you a history lesson on what is entirely well-documented and regularly warned about since I was in university (1996).

Your demand for explicit threats is inane. Why did NATO expand towards Russia, as opposed to say, Iran or China? There's your answer and the implicit threat it included. For anyone with a modicum of knowledge about international relations this is obvious, which is why every expansion by NATO has been critised every step of the way in every Western country with independent policy institutes. During my studies I wrote an essay on how to create an economic interdependence between Russia and Europe ensuring lasting peace and true independence from US, creating a much safer European space than we have now. The US and NATO decided precisely otherwise even though there were plenty of political scientists arguing for what I did. So we should ask, what benefit is there to the US having an insecure Europe? An excuse for military bases? A continued use for NATO?

This is not about law, it's about strategy spanning decades.

Yup. It was a self fulfilling prophecy. Treat Russia as the enemy for decades and surprise surprise, we get war. I'm putting as much blame on the US and NATO as on Putin.

Attributing the blame that lies with the US and NATO does nothing to exculpate Putin.

There's a saying in Dutch : where two people are fighting, two are to blame.

Here's a tip : just read what jamalrob, Isaac, Baden, StreetlightX and Baker and for the historic perspective ssu (although I vehemently disagree with the conclusions he thinks he can draw from that) have to say on the thread and you're done.

I wish I had more time to engage on these forums but it's surprising how little people actually look at the strategic interests of the various players. This pretty much sums up my view: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine

Which is precisely why I argued to "sacrifice" Ukraine at an earlier stage, e.g. repeal earlier promises and overtures for it to join the EU and NATO. I also wondered why trustworthiness was so low on the list of priorities for NATO and particularly the US. I can only think of two answers, incompetence or another goal. If it's another goal, then finding grounds for more extreme sanctions seems the only reliable one. In which case the US provoked a war for entirely economic reasons.

That, or we are to accept that the Ukraine has a strategic military purpose but then I question why it's not actually defended. So I ain't buy that, particularly because Turkey, a NATO member, can close access to the Mediterranean.

Let's assume this is all true. Presumably it's still in our favour if our side "wins". Whatever the fuck that means in this conflict.

Sacrificed Ukraine? You think sacrificing Ukraine and Putin would be fine. And what is so wrong to respect the borders of sovereign states that earlier Russia has accepted? I can assure you, the next thing would be to demand NATO to basically end the agreement with a huge number of it's current members because Putin has already demanded it! — ssu

I don't know why you're pretending you cannot tell the difference to aspirant members bordering Russia and existing members.

Or the fact that over asking is a rather transparent negotiation tactic.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. What should they have done? — ssu

It's in the next paragraph. They should've sacrificed Ukraine and at a much earlier stage. It's no use to hold a position you're not planning on defending.

I still do not trust the line we're sold as to the cause of this war. Russia is clearly the aggressor but I'm left wondering what was said and refused by the US and NATO.

I'm also, as usual, flabbergasted how little value NATO and the US see in being considered trustworthy and dependable. And they got owned by Russia twice in basically the same theater.

The end result is a definitive shift in power for the foreseeable future with any dealings with all countries in the Russian sphere of influence because you can't depend on NATO. So they'll avoid conflict sooner in favour of appeasing Russians.

If they'd "sacrificed" Ukraine by repealing earlier promises, even if Putin had invaded in that event (which I find unlikely), then at least the presumed effectivity and trustworthiness of NATO would still exist. In other words, much less damage to our collective interests than now.

Edit: putting money where your mouth is, is essential for a threat to work.

Nice picture in a satirist Dutch newspaper today of a tank and captioned: "Russian tank drives straight through a really heavy sanction".

The elite won't be affected so it won't change Russian policy. It will indirectly kill a lot of Russians though, pace every sanction before.

meanwhile the EU issued a stern condemnation. New sanctions coming up for Russia!

Putin's also demonstrating promises from NATO are meaningless. Fantastic.

Edit: that was sarcasm.

Bluff called. Watch how sanctions are all that will happen and Putin having effectively made the point Russia won't back off where its sphere of influence is concerned with a "cheap" war.

Let's hope it doesn't further escalate because that will result in a lot of people dying for some shitty geopolitical wrangling as a result of the US trying to project power into areas it doesn't even have realistic interests, meanwhile fucking with energy stability in Europe.

As usual citizens either pay or die for politicians' egos.

Oh my, a court case you don't agree with. What are we ever to do? Don't give a shit about anecdotal stories when it's clear it's rather easy in most cases to deduce someone's motives from their actions. Your OP isn't about discovering which conclusions you think you can make from your erroneous framing but you trying to defend a pet theory that had no bearing on reality. But then, I already knew you were batshit insane from the changing sex thread, so I'm done. Bye!

always fun if people quote things without understanding that what I said already covered this objection. How do people prove mens rea today? We're not guessing or assuming anything about people's mental states, we prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.