Russia could use chemical weapons in Ukraine

Page 10 of 13 [ 208 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

11 Mar 2022, 11:34 am

Mikah wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Why has NATO been expanding eastwards? Has it forced countries to join, or have they chosen to join? If they have chosen, why?


It's a complex web of motivations. No single component. You have the hawks wanting to neutralise or conquer Russia. You have U.S. weapons manufacturers spending zillions on lobbying for NATO expansion and anti-Russia fear propaganda so they can sell more weapons. You've got the businessmen who understand politics seeing that NATO expansion is often followed by economic expansion, which means bigger markets and more centralisation etc.

About being forced or having chosen. It is neither yes or no. We all like to pretend that democracy is the will of the rational thinking people, but in reality it is heavily corrupted by money and soft power everywhere. If your politicians are surrounded by money and organisations promoting NATO membership, promising a glinting gilded future if only you sign up to the American Empire and doom, gloom and isolation if you refuse - it somewhat distorts the idea of choice or forced submission.

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.

Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
There was no "legitimate" interest. I mean, unless you inherently view all interests as legitimate. And no, the war was started by Russian-backed separatists. The first international engagement was Russia invading Georgia - the Georgians didn't invade Russia.


I think the alliances of your neighbours and violent conflict erupting inside them are legitimate concerns for any country. We pretend that Russia's aren't legitimate because we don't like Russia and Putin.

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?
Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Irrelevant whataboutism.


You can't condemn them for something we are doing. Remove the log from your own eye first.

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.
Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
There's no credible case that the Yeltsin era represents "economic rape".


Disagree. It was disgusting and basically created Putin. We had a chance to help Russia rebuild along the same lines Germany and Japan were rebuilt after the second world war. Instead we sent mentally ret*d and greedy Chicago boys to plunder, privatise everything and extract as much as they could from Russia, turning it into, to use the infamous description in Washington "a gas station with nukes".

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?


Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
And when Putin "said no", he did so by:

1) invading Georgia (Bush)
2) annexing Crimea (Obama)
3) attempting to poison Skirpal, resulting in (Trump)

He didn't just refuse some unreasonable demand. In fact, throughout those eras Putin continued the Yeltsin-era tendency towards signing new agreements with the US on issues like security, non-proliferation, and space. No, the things that caused US-Russian relations to deteriorate were Putin's attacks on two foreign nations, and a murder committed using a chemical weapon on British soil. Full-scale invasions of other nations and chemical weapons attacks are exactly the sort of thing it is reasonable for world governments to condemn.


1. and 2. were responses to Americans dicking about in their back yard. Things going on while Bush and Obama were shaking hands and smiling in front of cameras with Putin. You can't keep pretending that didn't happen and there was no provocation at all; that Putin is some insane mental patient who does these things for no reason at all.

You ask Russia to tolerate things we wouldn't tolerate ourselves.

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.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

11 Mar 2022, 11:38 am

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.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,547
Location: Right over your left shoulder

11 Mar 2022, 11:39 am

Mikah wrote:
magz wrote:
^ In other words, they would definitely stop being an empire and become just an ordinary contry.
You see what a tragedy it would be?
Starting a world war is obviously less of a tragedy. /s


I would say exactly the same thing to America/NATO/The EU. Russia was content with a non-aligned Ukraine, but the imperialist ambitions of the aforementioned helped push events to where we are now.


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.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

11 Mar 2022, 11:43 am

funeralxempire wrote:
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.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,547
Location: Right over your left shoulder

11 Mar 2022, 12:01 pm

magz wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
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.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 Mar 2022, 12:11 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
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?


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.

The_Walrus wrote:
Why have many countries joined NATO (not an economic alliance) before joining the EU?


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

The_Walrus wrote:
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.


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.

The_Walrus wrote:
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.


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

The_Walrus wrote:
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?


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.

The_Walrus wrote:
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.


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

The_Walrus wrote:
Could you elaborate on 1) how the US was responsible for Russia becoming an oligarchy


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.

The_Walrus wrote:
and 2) how Putin has differed from Yeltsin in this regard?


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."

The_Walrus wrote:
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.


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.

The_Walrus wrote:
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.


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

The_Walrus wrote:
That said, invading other countries because you want to dictate their foreign policy is not a legitimate use of military force.


Says you.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

11 Mar 2022, 12:13 pm

Mikah wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
That said, invading other countries because you want to dictate their foreign policy is not a legitimate use of military force.
Says you.
8O You disagree?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 Mar 2022, 12:21 pm

magz wrote:
8O 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.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,547
Location: Right over your left shoulder

11 Mar 2022, 12:23 pm

Mikah wrote:
magz wrote:
8O 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 yours 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.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 Mar 2022, 12:30 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
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.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,547
Location: Right over your left shoulder

11 Mar 2022, 12:41 pm

Mikah wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
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.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,484
Location: Aux Arcs

11 Mar 2022, 12:44 pm

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


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,547
Location: Right over your left shoulder

11 Mar 2022, 12:57 pm

Misslizard wrote:
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. :cry: :cry:


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

11 Mar 2022, 2:10 pm

[quote=“Mikah”]

The_Walrus wrote:
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?


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
Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
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.


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

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 8O

Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Could you elaborate on 1) how the US was responsible for Russia becoming an oligarchy


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.

The_Walrus wrote:
and 2) how Putin has differed from Yeltsin in this regard?


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."

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


Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
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.


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

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.
Quote:
The_Walrus wrote:
That said, invading other countries because you want to dictate their foreign policy is not a legitimate use of military force.


Says you.

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.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

11 Mar 2022, 2:51 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
“Protecting fellow Catholics” - sectarian nationalism, particularly as Ireland is constitutionally secular


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

The_Walrus wrote:
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 8O


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


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.

The_Walrus wrote:
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.


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.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

11 Mar 2022, 3:53 pm

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.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>