[QatzelOk]

Intervention by US only legitimate if invited by Mexico...

What if the USA kills the most popular candidate for president with... heart attack drugs?

And then the USA creates a sex scandal that destroys the second-place candidate.

And what if the USA creates - through illegal election interference and foreign funding of a candidate - a spectacular third-place candidate who inherits the role of president when the first two are eliminated.

If this vassal wins and invites the USA to bomb Mexico... would you consider this a legitimate state of affairs?

[Rancid]

USA sucks! DOwn with the USA!..

Die americans... die die die...

- Qatz

[QatzelOk]

USA sucks! DOwn with the USA!..

Die americans... die die die...

You seem to be channeling litwin here.

[litwin]

You seem to be channeling litwin here.

[skinster]

This doesn't make sense. Russia is doing the killing.... :?:

Americans and their arrogance never fails to amuse. The vast, vast majority of the world is incorrect and the U.S. and a few other Western nations it keeps under its boot are correct.

It doesn't make sense to you because you can't see beyond yourself and/or the propaganda you consume.

[noemon]

Putin didn't invade Ukraine to "defend ethnic Russians from Nazis". Ukraine having ethnic Russians doesn't give Russia any authority to attack and invade them or annex their territory at gunpoint. Ukraine's domestic politics is frankly none of Russia's business.

When more than 1/3 of the country is Russian, its entire territory has been gifted to it by Russia, serves as Russia's only warm water port for 300-400 years, and the vast majority of its duly elected governments have been Russian then your argument does not stand, especially when a new guy breaks all these relationships and joins an anti-Russian military alliance.

but it's been illegal post-WWII.

Kewl, when the US arrests and puts almost all its past presidents in prison in the Hague, then it could potentially make a case for the arrest of others and "international law".

[Unthinking Majority]

When more than 1/3 of the country is Russian, its entire territory has been gifted to it by Russia, serves as Russia's only warm water port for 300-400 years, and the vast majority of its duly elected governments have been Russian then your argument does not stand, especially when a new guy breaks all these relationships and joins an anti-Russian military alliance.



Kewl, when the US arrests and puts almost all its past presidents in prison in the Hague, then it could potentially make a case for the arrest of others and "international law".

Nice, so now you've completely changed your position 180 degrees and are now pro-Russia on the invasion? Why?

The ethnicity of the people living in a territory does not give you the right to invade a sovereign country and annex parts of it. If Russia "gifted" the territory to Ukraine it is now Ukraine's sovereign territory, they don't get to ungift it. They have no rights over any of the territory in any way whatsoever. That's literally the craziest idea i've ever heard and would lead to endless wars across the world if that behaviour is normalized. That's literally why Hitler invaded Austria.

[noemon]

That's not the craziest but the most rational you 've heard for a while as you are used to far less & fairytales, WMD's, Osama's, etcetera.

Hence the shock in the system.

[Unthinking Majority]

That's not the craziest but the most rational you 've heard for a while as you are used to far less & fairytales, WMD's, Osama's, etcetera.

Hence the shock in the system.

I know why Putin invaded Ukraine. There's more to it than just ethnic Russians. Do you believe the invasion was justified?

Do you think any country is justified in invading another to regain historic territory? If yes, do you realize this would cause literally endless wars throughout the world?

[noemon]

I know why Putin invaded Ukraine. There's more to it than just ethnic Russians. Do you believe the invasion was justified?

No and hence my behaviour during it, now we are at a different phase and Russia's concerns should be heard just like they should had been earlier. It is time for this to end and not with a perma ceasefire.

Regardless on what I think, US policymakers definitely understand this invasion as 'justified' by their own terms.

[Unthinking Majority]

No and hence my behaviour during it, now we are at a different phase and Russia's concerns should be heard just like they should had been earlier. It is time for this to end and not with a perma ceasefire.

Regardless on what I think, US policymakers definitely understand this invasion as 'justified' by their own terms.

What do you think now of the video I posted in the OP of my thread for which you edited and rewrote the thread title of because you thought the video was Russian propaganda? You seem to now echo the professor's main points:

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=181721&hilit=ukraine+west%27s&start=40

[noemon]

What do you think now of the video I posted in the OP of my thread for which you edited and rewrote the thread title of because you thought the video was Russian propaganda? You seem to now echo the professor's main points:

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=181721&hilit=ukraine+west%27s&start=40

Fair enough.

Everything has its moment. I wrote about Mearsheimer and my more specific disagreement with him recently in the Russia-Ukraine thread.

[Unthinking Majority]

:lol:

Fair enough.

Everything has its moment. I wrote about Mearsheimer and my more specific disagreement with him recently in the Russia-Ukraine thread.

I disagree that "everything has its moments", something is either right or its not.

[noemon]

I disagree that "everything has its moments", something is either right or its not.

It is interesting, this question. But fundamentally I disagree with you.

1) Aggressors get a warmonger penalty when it comes to sympathising with their cause.
2) War has various phases, in the next phase for example during the peace talks phase, I may switch yet again depending on who is being maximalist and who is being more moderate. I may switch even before that phase depending on the conduct on the battle-field.
3) The sympathy line is quite narrow in this case because both countries can formulate a convincing argument so more factors have to be priced in, such as the situation in the ground and the prevailing attitudes which are normally very simplistic and need to be moderated for nuance. The anti-Russian brigade that is prevalent in PoFo needs to be moderated in this key moment so that these attitudes do not impose Crimea returning as a condition for peace in popular discourse, that would be totally catastrophic and is of far greater importance than petty moralistic justifications so the priority changes. Similarly when discussing with pro-Russians, their attitudes also need to be moderated for nuance so that they do not impose Kiev as a condition for peace for example.

In my 12-15 years of participating in political discourse, I say different things to different people because of wildly diverging attitudes requiring nuance. I do not see this as wrong. During the Greek crisis, for example I defended the Greeks among foreigners and trashed the Greek government among the Greeks. I understand the same goes for Jewish people and Israel, they get defensive among strangers but far more honest about their issues among themselves. I find this as totally regular, normal and productive because it is the extreme attitudes of both sides that require moderation. Foreigners should not be engaging in anti-Greek or anti-Semitic stereotypes and Greeks and Israelis cannot keep fooling themselves internally about their economic or foreign policy issues.

Politics is about balance [of power in reality and narrative] more than anything else.

[wat0n]

It is interesting, this question. But fundamentally I disagree with you.

1) Aggressors get a warmonger penalty when it comes to sympathising with their cause.
2) War has various phases, in the next phase for example during the peace talks phase, I may switch yet again depending on who is being maximalist and who is being more moderate. I may switch even before that phase depending on the conduct on the battle-field.
3) The sympathy line is quite narrow in this case because both countries can formulate a convincing argument so more factors have to be priced in, such as the situation in the ground and the prevailing attitudes which are normally very simplistic and need to be moderated for nuance. The anti-Russian brigade that is prevalent in PoFo needs to be moderated in this key moment so that these attitudes do not impose Crimea returning as a condition for peace in popular discourse, that would be totally catastrophic and is of far greater importance than petty moralistic justifications so the priority changes. Similarly when discussing with pro-Russians, their attitudes also need to be moderated for nuance so that they do not impose Kiev as a condition for peace for example.

In my 12-15 years of participating in political discourse, I say different things to different people because of wildly diverging attitudes requiring nuance. I do not see this as wrong. During the Greek crisis, for example I defended the Greeks among foreigners and trashed the Greek government among the Greeks. I understand the same goes for Jewish people and Israel, they get defensive among strangers but far more honest about their issues among themselves. I find this as totally regular, normal and productive because it is the extreme attitudes of both sides that require moderation. Foreigners should not be engaging in anti-Greek or anti-Semitic stereotypes and Greeks and Israelis cannot keep fooling themselves internally about their economic or foreign policy issues.

Politics is about balance [of power in reality and narrative] more than anything else.

Reasonable position. However, I think we first need to wait to see what happens with the Ukrainian attempt to go on the offensive.

It seems it won't be all too successful, once that's made clear then maybe both sides will feel like talking.

[Unthinking Majority]

It is interesting, this question. But fundamentally I disagree with you.

1) Aggressors get a warmonger penalty when it comes to sympathising with their cause.
2) War has various phases, in the next phase for example during the peace talks phase, I may switch yet again depending on who is being maximalist and who is being more moderate. I may switch even before that phase depending on the conduct on the battle-field.
3) The sympathy line is quite narrow in this case because both countries can formulate a convincing argument so more factors have to be priced in, such as the situation in the ground and the prevailing attitudes which are normally very simplistic and need to be moderated for nuance. The anti-Russian brigade that is prevalent in PoFo needs to be moderated in this key moment so that these attitudes do not impose Crimea returning as a condition for peace in popular discourse, that would be totally catastrophic and is of far greater importance than petty moralistic justifications so the priority changes. Similarly when discussing with pro-Russians, their attitudes also need to be moderated for nuance so that they do not impose Kiev as a condition for peace for example.

In my 12-15 years of participating in political discourse, I say different things to different people because of wildly diverging attitudes requiring nuance. I do not see this as wrong. During the Greek crisis, for example I defended the Greeks among foreigners and trashed the Greek government among the Greeks. I understand the same goes for Jewish people and Israel, they get defensive among strangers but far more honest about their issues among themselves. I find this as totally regular, normal and productive because it is the extreme attitudes of both sides that require moderation. Foreigners should not be engaging in anti-Greek or anti-Semitic stereotypes and Greeks and Israelis cannot keep fooling themselves internally about their economic or foreign policy issues.

Politics is about balance [of power in reality and narrative] more than anything else.

Well thank you for the thoughtful post.

I think the mainstream western reaction was "Putin bad, Russia was the aggressor, screw you Russia I support Ukraine". 98% of people have no idea what is actually going on with the politics between US/NATO/EU, Ukraine, and Russia. People on this board i'm sure know more than most people do, but I'm in no way any kind of expert and very far from it.

However, I don't think the facts have changed at all. Only our knowledge and the narratives we're exposed to.

I think it can be both true that the Russian government operates like a mafia and Putin is thug and also that the foreign policy of Obama and Biden admins dealing with Ukraine has been total crap.

Meirsheimer argued the best solution is for the US and Russia to declare Ukraine neutral. Might not always work if one of them starts cheating but sounds like the best solution to me.

[Potemkin]

Well thank you for the thoughtful post.

I think the mainstream western reaction was "Putin bad, Russia was the aggressor, screw you Russia I support Ukraine". 98% of people have no idea what is actually going on with the politics between US/NATO/EU, Ukraine, and Russia. People on this board i'm sure know more than most people do, but I'm in no way any kind of expert and very far from it.

However, I don't think the facts have changed at all. Only our knowledge and the narratives we're exposed to.

I think it can be both true that the Russian government operates like a mafia and Putin is thug and also that the foreign policy of Obama and Biden admins dealing with Ukraine has been total crap.

Meirsheimer argued the best solution is for the US and Russia to declare Ukraine neutral. Might not always work if one of them starts cheating but sounds like the best solution to me.

This would probably have been the best option, but Putin’s own actions have taken it off the table. After all, Finland and Sweden were also officially neutral (understandably so, as they are effectively in the border area with Russia), but Putin’s invasion of Ukraine forced them to pick a side. Putin made even the Swedes give up their neutrality for once. Lol. No, NATO is now on Russia’s doorstep, and there’s no fixing it. Ukraine is going to be neutral, and Finland isn’t? That makes no sense. No, the most likely outcome now will be something like the relationship between the two Koreas - an armed truce for the foreseeable future. I can’t see Russia just writing off the Ukraine forever, nor do I see the Ukraine agreeing to give up its eastern provinces. But neither side seems capable of winning a decisive victory, either now or in the foreseeable future.

[Unthinking Majority]

This would probably have been the best option, but Putin’s own actions have taken it off the table. After all, Finland and Sweden were also officially neutral (understandably so, as they are effectively in the border area with Russia), but Putin’s invasion of Ukraine forced them to pick a side. Putin made even the Swedes give up their neutrality for once. Lol. No, NATO is now on Russia’s doorstep, and there’s no fixing it. Ukraine is going to be neutral, and Finland isn’t? That makes no sense. No, the most likely outcome now will be something like the relationship between the two Koreas - an armed truce for the foreseeable future. I can’t see Russia just writing off the Ukraine forever, nor do I see the Ukraine agreeing to give up its eastern provinces. But neither side seems capable of winning a decisive victory, either now or in the foreseeable future.

Difference with Finland is Ukraine has a bunch of ethnic Russians and territory that was Russian until Gorbachev let them leave and Putin wants at least some of the territory back. Ukraine joining NATO makes that much harder.

[Potemkin]

Difference with Finland is Ukraine has a bunch of ethnic Russians and territory that was Russian until Gorbachev let them leave and Putin wants at least some of the territory back. Ukraine joining NATO makes that much harder.

Indeed. But what’s he gonna do about it? Invade Ukraine? Lol.

[noemon]

Meirsheimer argued the best solution is for the US and Russia to declare Ukraine neutral. Might not always work if one of them starts cheating but sounds like the best solution to me.

Ukraine had declared it's neutrality at least about 20 times up until around 2012 when Ukrainian opposition started stirring shit by talking about NATO.

The US should have declared Ukraine neutral in a treaty with Russia so that the Ukrainians could not fuck around anymore. This would have been the ideal and best solution but this was no longer possible when Russia invaded.

The possibilities are:

1) Frozen conflict, worst case scenario, eternal ceasefire, all issues open forever. Ukraine gets integrated into NATO permanently most likely unofficially but with no material difference.
2) Peace treaty, Donbass becomes Russian officially, special status for Odessa.