• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Trump Tariffs thread

Page 148 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
K1052 said:
Yea, I really am not buying it. Putin has shrugged at Finland joining NATO. The Baltics and Poland have been in for decades now.

Russian imperial expansion never really dies. It just goes into hibernation periodically.
Click to expand...

I've seen detailed analysis from a military historians about how critically Russia views Georgia and Ukraine. Some of it was before Russia went anywhere near Ukraine.

IMO, this is by far the leading contender for a precipitating event.

While it might have been unpalatable to many, it seems it would have been wiser to maintain Georgia and Ukraine as some kind of neutral zone.

Or if they took Russia seriously when they asked to join NATO:

www.theguardian.com

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
Heartbreaker said:
I've seen detailed analysis from a military historians about how critically Russia views Georgia and Ukraine. Some of it was before Russia went anywhere near Ukraine.

IMO, this is by far the leading contender for a precipitating event.

While it might have been unpalatable to many, it seems it would have been wiser to maintain Georgia and Ukraine as some kind of neutral zone.

Or if they took Russia seriously when they asked to join NATO:

www.theguardian.com

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

NATO is a problem to him insofar as his territorial ambitions are concerned. Nothing more.
 
Heartbreaker said:
I've seen detailed analysis from a military historians about how critically Russia views Georgia and Ukraine. Some of it was before Russia went anywhere near Ukraine.

IMO, this is by far the leading contender for a precipitating event.

While it might have been unpalatable to many, it seems it would have been wiser to maintain Georgia and Ukraine as some kind of neutral zone.

Or if they took Russia seriously when they asked to join NATO:

Click to expand...


"Great power spheres of influence" can get fucked. You're either for countries determining their futures and who they ally with or you're not.[/url]
 
brycejones said:
"Great power spheres of influence" can get fucked. You're either for countries determining their futures and who they ally with or you're not.[/url]
Click to expand...

You can live that idealistic fantasy, which we did, and have Ukraine now largely destroyed (with hundreds of thousands of casualties), or you live in the real world which is much less black and white, where Ukraine was some kind of neutral territory, and not destroyed, and no casualties. I think the latter would have been much more preferable.
 
Heartbreaker said:
You can live that idealistic fantasy, which we did, and have Ukraine now utterly obliterated, or you live in the real world which is much less black and white, where Ukraine was some kind of neutral territory, and not destroyed. I think the latter would have been much more preferable.
Click to expand...
The Ukrainian people made their choice for freedom we should support that instead of arguing they would be better off as serfs in a kleptocracy beholden to Russia which is the path they rejected.

I find your willingness to entertain appeasement gross. It never ends well.
 
Heartbreaker said:
You can live that idealistic fantasy, which we did, and have Ukraine now largely destroyed (with hundreds of thousands of casualties), or you live in the real world which is much less black and white, where Ukraine was some kind of neutral territory, and not destroyed, and no casualties. I think the latter would have been much more preferable.
Click to expand...

Do you think Russia would honor any agreements??

Especially given their past track record??

FFS we can't even honor our agreements.. do you think the US will defend Taiwan?? If so I have a bridge to Hawaii I want to sell you!
 
Indus said:
@K1052

So this is how you get Trump to STFU and leave..

Yesterday:

www.yahoo.com

Mark Carney Brutally Shuts Trump Down for Whining on Russia’s Behalf

Donald Trump kicked off the G7 meeting by shilling for Russia.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com


Today:

www.yahoo.com

Trump abruptly leaves G7 summit after signaling deepening Iran-Israel conflict

The change of plans added to the sense of uncertainty around the military operation in Iran.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Basically you have to push the press away since he loves press attention and he turns into "I'm taking my ball and going home"

Well done PM Carney.. I think it'll be copied by others sure enough!
Click to expand...


Mark deserves the noble peace prize
 
brycejones said:
The Ukrainian people made their choice for freedom we should support that instead of arguing they would be better off as serfs in a kleptocracy beholden to Russia which is the path they rejected.

I find your willingness to entertain appeasement gross. It never ends well.
Click to expand...

If appeasement simply means not offering NATO membership to Ukraine, that's a far better outcome than what is happening.

But what's hundred of thousands of dead people if you get to keep your idealism intact, from your comfy chair thousands of miles away?

Do you really think the war will lead to a better outcome?
 
Heartbreaker said:
If appeasement simply means not offering NATO membership to Ukraine, that's a far better outcome than what is happening.

But what's hundred of thousands of dead people if you get to keep your idealism intact, from your comfy chair thousands of miles away?

Do you really think the war will lead to a better outcome?
Click to expand...

The Ukrainian people clearly think it will. Weird how you keep ignoring what the fuck they want.
 
Heartbreaker said:
Or if they took Russia seriously when they asked to join NATO:
Click to expand...
If that !@#$er respected life, and had the intelligence to play the long game. He could have signaled for Ukraine to peacefully exit Russia's control. Ukraine could have joined EU and NATO. A decade or so later, Russia proper could have been next in line.

That is a timeline we will never see now. Not in a lifetime will there be peace and friendship with Russia. Not after Vlad the Butcher's campaign of Genocide across the continent.
 
Heartbreaker said:
The Ukrainian people were pawns in this situation. It was essentially power politics of the USA, playing chicken with Russia.
Click to expand...
It wasn't the USA but the West in general. The arrogance to even entertain the idea of allowing Ukraine to join Nato was wild.

Granted that bastard Putin had been grabbing land for at least a decade so the fear was real.

Russia has a thing for dictatorship so I doubt even the eventual death of Putin will change much.

Just like when we tried to establish democracy in Afghanistan when they preferred theocracy. Indeed, the cheap puppet state the West established fell quickly.
 
FelixDeCat said:
The arrogance to even entertain the idea of allowing Ukraine to join Nato was wild.
Click to expand...
Why? If Finland joining NATO didn't matter, why does Ukraine joining NATO matter?

In 2014, it became clear to Ukraine that a neutral status didn't matter to Russia. It would still take the parts that it wants;
In 2010, during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian parliament voted to abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm Ukraine's neutral status, while continuing its co-operation with NATO.[3] In the February 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, Ukraine's parliament voted to remove Yanukovych, but the new government did not seek to change its neutral status.[4][5][6] Russia then occupied and annexed Crimea, and in August 2014 Russia's military invaded eastern Ukraine to support its separatist proxies. Because of this, in December 2014 Ukraine's parliament voted to end its neutral status,[7] and in 2018 it voted to enshrine the goal of NATO membership in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Source
 
RnR_au said:
Why? If Finland joining NATO didn't matter, why does Ukraine joining NATO matter?

In 2014, it became clear to Ukraine that a neutral status didn't matter to Russia. It would still take the parts that it wants;


Source
Click to expand...
Ukraine was never allowed to join. That would make Russia vulnerable to invasion from their perspective. It would comparable to Russia putting nukes in Cuba.
 
FelixDeCat said:
Ukraine was never allowed to join. That would make Russia vulnerable to invasion from their perspective. It would comparable to Russia putting nukes in Cuba.
Click to expand...
Their 'perspective' is a load of bunk. Its just one more 'Russian narrative' used by Russian apologists that makes it sound like... 'oh please give us some more land on the European Plain so we can sleep better - you Europeans with your nice coffee and fancy croissants are so dangerous'.

The Russian establishment know full well that modern day Europe wants nothing in Russia. After all the Russian establishment educates their kids there and even live there more often than not.

Anyways offtopic 🙂
 
brycejones said:
You have made an assertion now back it up with evidence and not conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

I don't have a the link handy but a historian described the situation when Bush made his statement, that it was mainly the USA sticking it to Russia, as they viewed them as too weak to do anything about it, but he predicted it would lead to a disaster in Ukraine with Russia invading them. This was years before Russia's move on the Crimea.

We want to live in an ideal world, where everyone gets what they want, and no one uses force.

But we don't live in that world. We have to choose the lesser of evils.

IMO, the lesser evil would have been negotiating some kind of neutral status for Ukraine, before Russia invaded and inflicted extreme death, destruction, and misery on Ukraine, instead of after...
 
FelixDeCat said:
Ukraine was never allowed to join. That would make Russia vulnerable to invasion from their perspective. It would comparable to Russia putting nukes in Cuba.
Click to expand...

That is just so fucking stupid…

Oh we will take over Ukraine because we don’t want a nato nation next to us

If they took over Ukraine that would put a nato nation right on their border

Seriously get a fucking clue one of these days
 
Heartbreaker said:
IMO, the lesser evil would have been negotiating some kind of neutral status for Ukraine, before Russia invaded and inflicted extreme death, destruction, and misery on Ukraine, instead of after
Click to expand...
That was already negotiated. Russia broke it. Ukraine should never agree to neutrality again, defensive alliance with other world powers, until Russia doesn't exist as a country, at minimum.
 
Heartbreaker said:
IMO, the lesser evil would have been negotiating some kind of neutral status for Ukraine, before Russia invaded and inflicted extreme death, destruction, and misery on Ukraine, instead of after...
Click to expand...
That was the agreement that Russia broke in 2014. Would you care to try again? In fact Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and delivery systems to secure such an agreement.

Again though you also seem to completely ignore the desires of the Ukrainians people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top