Is arming Ukraine akin to waging war with Russia?

[fskimospy]

Had to chuckle about that. Russia has invaded 2 countries since 1980 while America has invaded 6. See list of invasions below.

Haha, nice selective date range there. I guess you aren't counting the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that lasted for a decade because they started the invasion one year prior? It's a particularly notable omission considering that more people died in that invasion than all the US ones combined. Do you really think people won't notice when you do things like that?

The invasion of Georgia was caused by (and let me quote Wikipedia here):

Did you catch that? If we had just let them the fuck alone and stopped trying to attach Georgia to an anti-Russia cabal, that invasion would never have occurred. CAUSE and EFFECT, pretty simple really. What did America do when Russia put missiles on Cuba? CAUSE and EFFECT.

This is hilarious for its (willful?) blindness. Ukraine and Georgia are sovereign countries. If Russia had just let them the fuck alone and stopped trying to attach Ukraine and Georgia to a Russian cabal, we wouldn't be here.

See how that works? Have you ever read much history? Russia has been fucking with its neighbors for centuries. They hate it and they are tired of it. It is only natural for them to want to escape Russian oppression. When Russia continues to try and oppress them that's one country and one country's fault alone: Russia.

History and logic. Learn them!

 

[fskimospy]

You still don't get it. Eurasia, simply by the fact that every nation is packed so closely together without huge bodies of water to separate them, has been in constant state of warfare for the past 1000 years. No one is innocent, there are guilty parties everywhere. Every single country at some point has invaded someone else. The fall of the Soviet Union was a chance to cut that warfare cycle and to start over. Instead west continued NATO expansion out east. What you're arguing for is to never forgive and to never give another chance to actually mend the relationships because you "just can't trust them". Well, fine, don't trust, but then do not act surprised when they do not trust you back. You're arguing for perpetuating the warfare state. Well, that's what you got.

Again, you still aren't getting it. What you're talking about is irrelevant.

Wiping the slate clean and starting over means that Russia needs to stop invading other countries, not that other countries need to stop preparing for (yet another) Russian invasion that history tells them is surely to come.

 

[norseamd]

American invasions since 1900: 20+

Russian invasions since 1900: 20+

 

[Jhhnn]

Now I finally understand your position... thinking that it's Russia's own territory that we're discussing.

Now understand my position. Russia has seized land and invaded a neighbor. This is a hostile advancement towards Europe - where does it end? The only reason we shouldn't already be militarily ATTACKING Russian forces is because the Crimean takeover was largely peaceful.

Congratulations to Russia for a successful maneuver. HOWEVER, the Russian backed "rebels" in eastern Ukraine risk escalation beyond a point that should be tolerated.

I can excuse ethnic Russian people returning to Russia, but a full on invasion and assault on Europe must be paid for in blood. Kiev must not fall. Further aggression must be countered and made costly. We must prepare to make it so.

Oh, please. If Russia intended a full scale invasion of Ukraine, it would already be over.

And the only reason we're not already attacking Russian forces is that it would be a fool's move. What's the exit strategy?

Oh, wait, Neocons never cared about that before, so why should they care now?

Perpetual War, a la 1984, seems to be the goal.

 

[Pocatello]

Ukraine should give Russian what it wants. Then maybe Putin will be satisfied, right?

 

[CZroe]

As part of our nuclear arms non-proliferation treaty with Ukraine, we are supposed to be protecting them more directly in the first place and not just providing arms. Exactly how are they supposed to fight off a nuclear armed Russia without nukes of their own?!

 

[norseamd]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...raine-russia-kiev/+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[CZroe]

Dp

 

[werepossum]

American invasions since 1900: 20+

Russian invasions since 1900: 20+

One major point of difference here. When America invades a country, we invest tons of money and then turn it over to its citizens, for better or worse. When Russia invades a country, Russia does its best to make it part of the Russian Empire.

 

[norseamd]

One major point of difference here. When America invades a country, we invest tons of money and then turn it over to its citizens, for better or worse. When Russia invades a country, Russia does its best to make it part of the Russian Empire.

Umm .....

Not sure I would say that about America but you are right about the Russians. We tend to go the Neocolonialism route instead of the outright annexation route that the Russians tend to consider. Keep in mind the total invasions of America are more than the Russian because of the numerous Banana Wars but besides those wars the total of both the Americans and Russians is about the same.

 

[bshole]

One major point of difference here. When America invades a country, we invest tons of money and then turn it over to its citizens, for better or worse. When Russia invades a country, Russia does its best to make it part of the Russian Empire.

Sure we do AFTER we TOPPLE the government we don't like and install the one that is tolerable to us. If Russia topples Ukraine's government and replaces it with a PRO Russian one, we should be A-Ok with it I suppose.

Should never have tried to get Ukraine into NATO just like we should never have tried to get Georgia into NATO. Those are the only two Russian invasions in the few decades and both of them came AFTER US/European meddling. Why in the heck would we even want those countries in NATO. What need are they providing? Good grief, you have at least 70% of the world's military power without them... is that extra 1% really going to make a difference?

One could say that Russia played the role of Chamberlain for decades. They tried to appease the West by allowing them to nibble and nibble around their borders. Finally they realized that appeasement would result in nothing other than complete and utter isolation amid a sea of enemies.

 

[CZroe]

Sure we do AFTER we TOPPLE the government we don't like and install the one that is tolerable to us. If Russia topples Ukraine's government and replaces it with a PRO Russian one, we should be A-Ok with it I suppose.

Should never have tried to get Ukraine into NATO just like we should never have tried to get Georgia into NATO. Those are the only two Russian invasions in the few decades and both of them came AFTER US/European meddling. Why in the heck would we even want those countries in NATO. What need are they providing? Good grief, you have at least 70% of the world's military power without them... is that extra 1% really going to make a difference?

One could say that Russia played the role of Chamberlain for decades. They tried to appease the West by allowing them to nibble and nibble around their borders. Finally they realized that appeasement would result in nothing other than complete and utter isolation amid a sea of enemies.

If you can't see why we'd want Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, you are blind. Look at it this way: we promise to "defend" them from Russia, we get to set up our missile defense shield right at Russia's front door. If you can't see the strategic advantage of that... well, I already said it: you're blind.

It's the keep your enemies closer strategy.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you can't see why we'd want Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, you are blind. Look at it this way: we promise to "defend" them from Russia, we get to set up our missile defense shield right at Russia's front door. If you can't see the strategic advantage of that... well, I already said it: you're blind.

It's the keep your enemies closer strategy.

First, adopt an aggressive NATO expansionist role directed towards Russia. Next, act all huffy when they finally react to that in an entirely predictable way.

Further expansion of NATO is obviously not in their interests. Just as obviously, they can't militarily engage any existing NATO member w/o engaging all of them. They're not that stupid.

Who's provoking who?

We didn't promise to defend Ukraine under any and all circumstances, either. We didn't actually promise to defend them at all but rather take it to the UN. Read the six points of the budapest memorandum, carefully, so as not to infer meaning where none exists-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Still having trouble? Look at it this way- Ukraine is our patsy, set up to take a beating. The sooner they figure that out, the better off they'll be.

 

[Jaskalas]

Perpetual War, a la 1984, seems to be the goal.

Your speech is the epitome of propaganda.

First, by taking the side of the Russian aggressors.
Second, by blaming the victims.
Third, by opposing our measures to settle this and restore peace.

 

[lucia]

Short answer to the question in the title:

No

ditto here, heaven knows:sneaky:

 

[norseamd]

If you can't see why we'd want Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, you are blind. Look at it this way: we promise to "defend" them from Russia, we get to set up our missile defense shield right at Russia's front door. If you can't see the strategic advantage of that... well, I already said it: you're blind.

Quite frankly I do not think we need to think of expanding NATO just to fuck with the Russians. Brzezinski is in favor of supplying weapons and equipment to the Ukrainians and not admitting the Ukrainians to the NATO alliance. We can give them assistance in their fight against the Russians. They want stronger economic and cultural relations with the Europeans so we can give them that. Considering all the problems with the EU and the Germans exploiting the economies of the other EU countries I am not sure why the Ukrainians would even want to join the EU although given how bad their economy and society is maybe they might actually benefit.

 

[CZroe]

First, adopt an aggressive NATO expansionist role directed towards Russia. Next, act all huffy when they finally react to that in an entirely predictable way.

Further expansion of NATO is obviously not in their interests. Just as obviously, they can't militarily engage any existing NATO member w/o engaging all of them. They're not that stupid.

Who's provoking who?

We didn't promise to defend Ukraine under any and all circumstances, either. We didn't actually promise to defend them at all but rather take it to the UN. Read the six points of the budapest memorandum, carefully, so as not to infer meaning where none exists-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Still having trouble? Look at it this way- Ukraine is our patsy, set up to take a beating. The sooner they figure that out, the better off they'll be.

I know all about it. Once again, exactly how are they, or anyone we similarly influence to give up their right to fight fire with fire, supposed to fight off a nuclear armed Russia without nukes of their own?! If we fail here, how are we ever going to convince any other country that their nuclear ambitions aren't needed? This isn't them going off and doing something we disapprove of because they think we will be forced to back them, this is a clear-cut case of their sovereignty being violated by a nuclear-armed neighbor who wants their resources. It's the exact scenario we implied to them and numerous others that they didn't need nukes because we would step in.

It doesn't matter how binding the wording is: if we do nothing, we lose trust and we'll never convince another nation ever again to abandon nuclear ambitions for our best interests. Get it? Unless we want all the former Soviet states starting up nuclear programs, we had better do more than talk about arming them regardless of whether the wording of the agreement forces us to or not.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure we do AFTER we TOPPLE the government we don't like and install the one that is tolerable to us. If Russia topples Ukraine's government and replaces it with a PRO Russian one, we should be A-Ok with it I suppose.

Should never have tried to get Ukraine into NATO just like we should never have tried to get Georgia into NATO. Those are the only two Russian invasions in the few decades and both of them came AFTER US/European meddling. Why in the heck would we even want those countries in NATO. What need are they providing? Good grief, you have at least 70% of the world's military power without them... is that extra 1% really going to make a difference?

One could say that Russia played the role of Chamberlain for decades. They tried to appease the West by allowing them to nibble and nibble around their borders. Finally they realized that appeasement would result in nothing other than complete and utter isolation amid a sea of enemies.

Yes. Clearly in any World War 2 analogy the party repeatedly invading neighboring countries is Chamberlain.

Do you even read what you type?

 

[Jhhnn]

I know all about it. Once again, exactly how are they, or anyone we similarly influence to give up their right to fight fire with fire, supposed to fight off a nuclear armed Russia without nukes of their own?! If we fail here, how are we ever going to convince any other country that their nuclear ambitions aren't needed? This isn't them going off and doing something we disapprove of because they think we will be forced to back them, this is a clear-cut case of their sovereignty being violated by a nuclear-armed neighbor who wants their resources. It's the exact scenario we implied to them and numerous others that they didn't need nukes because we would step in.

It doesn't matter how binding the wording is: if we do nothing, we lose trust and we'll never convince another nation ever again to abandon nuclear ambitions for out best interests. Get it? Unless we want all the former Soviet states starting up nuclear programs, we had better do more than talk about arming them regardless of whether the wording of the agreement forces us to or not.

Amusing. Ukraine never had operational control of Russian nuclear weapons based in Ukraine at the time of independence. Those weapons never were a military asset for Ukraine but rather a huge military liability. Or do you think that Russia should have gifted them to Ukraine, thus proliferating nuclear weapons?

The whole nuclear arms angle is a red herring. WTF do you think that Ukraine would do with nuclear arms in the current scenario, anyway? Nuke Moscow? Commit Seppuku to show their loyalty to the West?

Your whole argument is circular. If conventional arms are no deterrent to nuclear armed states, there's no point in arming Ukraine. As Merkel pointed out, we can't escalate to win w/o committing ourselves to WW3.

The whole "trust" argument is circular, as well. If Ukraine ever imagined we'd defend their borders w/o NATO membership it's because we played them for fools. We still are. They're the sacrificial pawn in our game to weaken Russia. We waltzed them right into it, eyes wide shut. Our sponsorship of the right wing coup in 2014 plunged Ukraine into what really is civil war. Putin seized the opportunity to advance Russian interests. Anybody who thinks that we'd have acted differently in his place is delusional.

If Ukraine can't establish a govt acting in the interests of all Ukrainians, not just the radicalized western ethnic majority, they'll continue the slide into anarchy & paramilitary rule, further alienate Eastern Ukrainians & strengthen Russian ambitions.

More guns just means more blood, apparently what our own right wing wants entirely.

 

[maddogchen]

Well a cease fire has been announced. We will see what happens in this make or break moment. The last ceasefire was a joke

 

[CZroe]

Amusing. Ukraine never had operational control of Russian nuclear weapons based in Ukraine at the time of independence. Those weapons never were a military asset for Ukraine but rather a huge military liability. Or do you think that Russia should have gifted them to Ukraine, thus proliferating nuclear weapons?

What does that matter? Russia staging nukes there in the past and making them a target for Russia's enemies at the time has no bearing on any of this. Why even bring that up?

The whole nuclear arms angle is a red herring. WTF do you think that Ukraine would do with nuclear arms in the current scenario, anyway? Nuke Moscow? Commit Seppuku to show their loyalty to the West?

Are you seriously asking this? It doesn't matter that they wouldn't ultimately win, it matters that the cost of invasion for Russia would simply be too high. It's a deterrent. Russia isn't nuking Ukraine because they don't have to. If Ukraine was armed with nukes and their sovereignty and very existence were at stake, Russia would expect them to use it before conceding defeat. That cost factors in to their decision to invade. This is basic, basic, stuff. MAD is not the only nuclear deterrent and it's laughable that anyone would ignore it. It's the same reason we invaded Iraq instead of Iran/NK after naming all three in the "Axis of Evil." We knew that two of the three would soon have the capability and incentive to strike back with a nuclear weapon and that the other was bluffing to intimidate its neighbor while planting plenty of "evidence" to justify an invasion. We chose to attack the one without a real nuclear program since we did not fear the consequences of their non-nuclear retaliation.

Your whole argument is circular. If conventional arms are no deterrent to nuclear armed states, there's no point in arming Ukraine. As Merkel pointed out, we can't escalate to win w/o committing ourselves to WW3.

Go back and read what I said. I said that we already needed to be doing A LOT MORE than arming them. I was implying DIRECT interventions. Airstrikes and US troops on the ground, for a start. I am comforted that we are doing more than it seems with the whole behind-the-scenes oil price manipulation designed to cripple the Russian economy, but we need a show of force that will embolden the other nations we might have treaties with in the future and satisfy those we already have treaties with. I never said "we should arm them with non-nuclear arms," so I am certainly NOT "talking in circles." I said we need to show up with our nuclear-armed might as they and others were led to expect.

The whole "trust" argument is circular, as well. If Ukraine ever imagined we'd defend their borders w/o NATO membership it's because we played them for fools. We still are. They're the sacrificial pawn in our game to weaken Russia. We waltzed them right into it, eyes wide shut. Our sponsorship of the right wing coup in 2014 plunged Ukraine into what really is civil war. Putin seized the opportunity to advance Russian interests. Anybody who thinks that we'd have acted differently in his place is delusional.

Why do you act like the trust issues with Ukraine are in a vacuum? The trust issues this creates are trust issues for every other nation we ever seek an agreement or treaty with while simultaneously weakening trust with those we already have agreements with. How can you possibly ignore that?

If Ukraine can't establish a govt acting in the interests of all Ukrainians, not just the radicalized western ethnic majority, they'll continue the slide into anarchy & paramilitary rule, further alienate Eastern Ukrainians & strengthen Russian ambitions.

So, all an enemy has to do is take advantage of lax border and immigration policy to move people with their interest into a desired region in another sovereign country to dissolve the sovereignty with a sham election and YOU will stupidly see it as a government not acting in the interest of all in the country. If you expect zero ramifications, then you are setting up a blueprint for simple invasion and annexation of any country where mass illegal immigration is possible. It sounds like you bought Russia's strategy hook, line, and sinker, because that's exactly what they did. Parallel: Israeli settlements in Palestine helped annexation of large portions.

More guns just means more blood, apparently what our own right wing wants entirely.

And you think sitting back and letting the Soviet empire form again by force will be bloodless?

 

[bshole]

Go back and read what I said. I said that we already needed to be doing A LOT MORE than arming them. I was implying DIRECT interventions. Airstrikes and US troops on the ground, for a start. I am comforted that we are doing more than it seems with the whole behind-the-scenes oil price manipulation designed to cripple the Russian economy, but we need a show of force that will embolden the other nations we might have treaties with in the future and satisfy those we already have treaties with. I never said "we should arm them with non-nuclear arms," so I am certainly NOT "talking in circles." I said we need to show up with our nuclear-armed might as they and others were led to expect.

Good christ. US Troops on the ground. Nothing could go wrong......

 

[CZroe]

Good christ. US Troops on the ground. Nothing could go wrong......

Plenty is already going wrong. Fear of MAD has a chance to set things back on track.

 

[Jhhnn]

Umm .....

Not sure I would say that about America but you are right about the Russians. We tend to go the Neocolonialism route instead of the outright annexation route that the Russians tend to consider. Keep in mind the total invasions of America are more than the Russian because of the numerous Banana Wars but besides those wars the total of both the Americans and Russians is about the same.

Banana wars... that's the Monroe doctrine equivalent of what the Russians are doing, isn't it?

 

[norseamd]

Banana wars... that's the Monroe doctrine equivalent of what the Russians are doing, isn't it?

Yes. One thing to note however despite the quantity of American intervention in the Americas the scale and duration of those wars was not that much.