Russia could use chemical weapons in Ukraine

Post Reply New Topic

So why do you think Latvia and Estonia chose to join NATO but Austria and Sweden did not? Did the weapons manufacturers decide that small, poor countries were more valuable targets than the larger, richer countries? Why have many countries joined NATO (not an economic alliance) before joining the EU?

We know what the answer is: countries that have been victims of Russian aggression in the past don't want to be victims again. If Russia doesn't want countries joining NATO, it shouldn't give them reason to want to join. Russia could even consider joining NATO itself.


When you go around starting violent conflicts in your neighbours then you don't get to claim "legitimate interest" in ending those conflicts... by invading and occupying your neighbours.

Let's imagine a resumption of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. No suggestion that Ireland is to blame. In that situation, would Ireland be justified in invading?

Interference in foreign elections is wrong. It was wrong when the US was doing it in central America, and it is wrong now that Russia is doing it in the West. But the last time I think there's a credible case for the US interfering in a foreign election is Nicaragua up until 1990. Not only is the US not me, I wasn't even born at the time.

Could you elaborate on 1) how the US was responsible for Russia becoming an oligarchy, and 2) how Putin has differed from Yeltsin in this regard?



Georgia and Ukraine are not part of Russia.

If, to use a variation upon my earlier example, Sinn Fein announced that they supported Ireland joining CSTO, and then won a majority in the Irish Parliament... are you saying that is something we shouldn't tolerate? In my view, Ireland is an independent country and should choose its own alliances.

I don't think Putin is doing things "for no reason at all". I think he views "buffer states" as the best defence against a land invasion from Europe. Russia doesn't possess difficult terrain, so sheer distance is the best defence, and this is why it has expanded so much over the years.

That said, invading other countries because you want to dictate their foreign policy is not a legitimate use of military force. If a NATO member invaded Ukraine to force them to join NATO, that would be just as wrong as what Russia is doing. But saying "your life will be good if you join us" is diplomacy, not imperialism, while invading militarily for the purpose of conquest is imperialism.

NATO and EU never threatned anyone the way Russia does. One wants to join, they may apply, one doesn't want, it's their choice. They attract, not conquer.
And they don't try to keep you by force - see Brexit. Any war about it?

As I said - it's colonialist to disregard local culture, interests and elections results and make it all about aspirations of some big fish aboard.

Russia's desire to maintain a sphere of influence at any cost is the main factor driving former Warsaw Pact nations and SSRs to seek protection from the west.

Indeed.
We joined NATO in the 1990s exactly to get some protection from being where Ukraine is now. We knew some day it may happen... and it did. This time not to us but my faith in art 5 is only moderate.

Agreed. A part of me feels like the West isn't anymore committed to Poland than it was the last time that got tested. I'm cynical, I hope it isn't tested and that if it is I hope I'm wrong, but... I'm not very hopeful either.

I don't know the particulars of Austria and Sweden in this case. No doubt weapons manufacturers would have been happier with richer customers, but you can't always control the flow of the river when you lobby for something.



It's a first step towards integration in the Empire, often offered as a consolation prize while their economies "Europeanize" to please the EU.



You'd think Finland would have been eager in that case, but the population is not keen, ironically because they fear harming relations with Russia more than they trust the flimsy frayed safety net of NATO. If only Ukraine had been similarly sensible.



I don't see much moral difference between overthrowing the government of another territory by force or by CIA gay ops.



Yes, in many scenarios, e.g. if the violence reached absurd levels and threatened to spill over, or perhaps even to protect their fellow Catholics. These are far worse reasons to go to war than that.



They did it even more recently - in Ukraine! See Nuland's leaked phone calls.



Briefly the Russians naively hoped for a sort of Marshall Plan for Russia after the SU collapsed into pile of rust and bones, where Russia could rebuilt its economy with Western guidance, enjoy some level of prosperity and peace. Instead of being careful and cautious the West advised the Russians to just "privatise and sell f*****g everything to anyone". The result was a sort of Wild West economy where ordinary Russians were plunged into poverty, creating a very rich oligarchy and many already wealthy Westerners got even richer from their plunder.



Yeltsin was a Washington whore, Putin is a nationalist. Both are corrupt yes, but it's a matter of degree and in what ways they are corrupt, Putin put a stop to the plunder and stood up for his country's interests. Yeltsin just sold Russia and let the West do whatever they wanted, which is why the West liked him

To paraphrase Stanislav Govorukhin when he endorsed Putin. Under Yeltsin we had disgusting hopeless corruption, misery and debauchery. Under Vladimir Putin we have normal corruption."



No I think we should and would intervene in such a scenario. But in this unlikely scenario I don't think we'd have to do much at all - I don't think the US would tolerate it. There would no doubt be a sudden and mysterious "colour revolution" on the streets of Ireland, where the brave and heroic democracy loving freedom fighters ousted the horrible cruel Irish dictator.



Yeah. I think that is completely reasonable, giving Russia's geography and history of being invaded themselves.



Says you.

You disagree?

Yes, if it gets to a certain, hard to define point. If a country's foreign policy is on a course to seriously hurt your country there are many things you can rightly do in your defense, up to and including a pre-emptive invasion.

So you agree, Ukraine is fully justified in taking whatever steps are required to defend themselves from Russian aggression.

Yes. They made a stupid choice in this case, but the principle I have no problem with.

The problem is that Russia still viewing things and behaving like it's the 1800s is what forces Ukraine's hand, which fuels Russia's paranoia. Ultimately it's Russia who's actions and attitudes drive this conflict.

Joining NATO wouldn't have the same appeal if there wasn't a reasonable fear of Russia aggression. Russia behaves like an abusive person that constantly drives people away but refuses to acknowledge their own responsibility for that consistent outcome.

It’s like a bully wondering why the person they’ve harassed and menaced for years hires a body guard.

Imagine your bully getting offended that you now roll 10 deep anywhere you go.

That's not fair, you're not supposed to have friends. You're supposed to be my punching bag. You're not even a real person. Stop fighting back Ukraine.

[quote=“Mikah”]

Yes, in many scenarios, e.g. if the violence reached absurd levels and threatened to spill over, or perhaps even to protect their fellow Catholics. These are far worse reasons to go to war than that.[/quote]
Defending Ireland’s territory - fine.
A legitimate peacekeeping force approved by the UN - fine
Protecting civilians from government persecution - generally fine
“Protecting fellow Catholics” - sectarian nationalism, particularly as Ireland is constitutionally secular

Those phone calls where she said she wanted someone to be President, and then they didn’t become President?

In that case, I interferes with the 2020 US Presidential election on behalf of John Delaney


Could you give an example of a Westerner who got rich under Yeltsin? Or a specific Russian asset that was plundered? For example, Gazprom.



It’s a reasonable thing to desire. It’s not a reasonable thing to seek to acquire via force. It’s OK to want a billion pounds, it’s not OK to stage a series of bank robberies.

Other have addressed and progressed this point. I suppose the distinction is that force has to be proportionate. It’s OK to declare total war on Germany because they’ve invaded Poland. It’s not OK to declare war on Germany because they refuse to form an alliance with you.

Protecting people like you, with whom you feel a bond. How awful that would be. A crime beyond the pale.



I'm not sure who you are thinking of. As I recall, weeks before it all kicked off Nuland declared "Yats is the guy" this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk to be the favoured replacement. He was in office for over two years.



The somewhat odious, now borderline deified Bill Browder comes to mind. His hedge fund snapped up a great many former state assets for pennies in the late 90s, though I admit I cannot name any from memory.



Well that's a different conversation, and probably moot. As long as we are no longer pretending that Russia has no legitimate concerns about what happens in neighbouring countries, I think I can live with that.

I think the question is of boundaries of "legitimate concerns" and adequate reactions to them.
These have been definitely crossed by Russia.
Invasion is not a legitimate reaction to a neighbour choosing other ally than you.