Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/08/21 21:27:38
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Manchu wrote: Again, he's relying on a "natural dominance" appeal to geography. Nevermind the people who live on a certain piece of land, their history, their rights to self-determination, etc.
Since when has that ever stopped America when it came to America's own "natural geographical dominance"?
Lamest tu quoque I have read all week, not least because by making this "argument" you are effectively admitting the invasion of Ukraine is a matter of Russian imperialist aggression.
LordofHats wrote: While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.
Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".
After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.
Wtf is it with this personal vendetta you have against him?
secret internet troll spy? Seriously?
As for "Western Propaganda". BOTH sides have propaganda regarding Ukraine - we're just more sophisticated at it.
I think it is a case of Russian propaganda being made to appeal to Russians, and Western propaganda to appeal to Westerners. Therefore Russian propaganda usually calls on emotion whereas Western propaganda calls on rationality and thus indeed needs to be more subtle.
But stop calling it a damn civil war, because as has been shown to you time and time again--it isn't. It's a state-sponsored(if not facilitated) insurgency at this point.
Are the two mutually exclusive?
A Civil War is still a Civil War even with foreign entities backing the various sides.
A civil war is a civil war until you have those foreign entities not just "backing the various sides" but providing personnel for those sides.
I think you don't know what a civil war is. The US and other Western powers fought in the Russian Civil War. Does that mean it is suddenly not a civil war anymore? Was the Spanish Civil War not a civil war? I shall quote from Wikipedia: "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or country,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state." Whether foreign powers are also involved does not matter.
Kanluwen wrote:
LordofHats wrote: While I disagree with Iron Captain very much on this subject, that is not sufficient reason to go around accusing him of being a secret Russian Internet troll spy agent... w/e. You can disagree with his posts just fine without insinuating they're anything more than his own thoughts.
Which is what's being done--except in the instances where he goes out of his way to talk about "Western propaganda".
After all, he's not just a secret Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent--he's a 15 year old Secret Half-Russian Internet Troll Spy Agent who lives in the Netherlands.
Actually, I am just a completely normal and boring guy who goes to school and just so happens to have been born in Sevastopol and have a Russian father. I could only wish I was a super secret troll agent. My life would be so much interesting. It would also be nice if I could get paid for these posts here. So if anyone has the contact details of this supposed 'troll factory', let me know.
Manchu wrote: Lamest tu quoque I have read all week, not least because by making this "argument" you are effectively admitting the invasion of Ukraine is a matter of Russian imperialist aggression.
Which of course it is ...
Just an side question, but why would imperialism be bad? Isn't it the natural order of things? (note: this does not mean I approve imperialism or anything, I am just interested in the discussion)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/21 21:37:33
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2015/08/21 21:37:09
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Manchu wrote: Again, he's relying on a "natural dominance" appeal to geography. Nevermind the people who live on a certain piece of land, their history, their rights to self-determination, etc.
Since when has that ever stopped America when it came to America's own "natural geographical dominance"?
Lamest tu quoque I have read all week, not least because by making this "argument" you are effectively admitting the invasion of Ukraine is a matter of Russian imperialist aggression.
Which of course it is ...
How can I admit something that I have never denied?
I refer you to my previous post.
Manchu wrote: There is a holdover leftist lobby in the US that will bend over backwards to apologize for anything Russia does, including rhetorical gymnastics toturn a story about Russian imperialism into a story about American imperialism.
I'm of the opinion its both.
The conflict in Ukraine is a geopolitical tug of war. NATO and the EU wants to expand their influence eastwards, Russia wants to keep what little influence it still has and if possible, regain lost influence.
Manchu wrote: And he goes around telling other people they're out of touch!
No, he doesn't. He quite frequently admits and laments that the Left Wing of British politics has won...to the point that our very definitions of Left Wing and Right Wing shifted to the Left.
He's under no delusions that his Anglican Christian, traditional Conservative outlook is popular and "in touch".
Hell, I don't even agree with him on everything (I'm atheist, he's Christian) but on Russia his arguments strike me as very sensible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/21 21:37:56
2015/08/21 21:40:31
Subject: Re:Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Let's not get too hung up on semantics. Here's an example to help you understand what Kanluwen seems to be pointing out: if the US Civil War had been the same kind of "civil war" as what is going on in Ukraine, the Confederacy would have been organized by British people, funded and equipped by the British government, and Confederate troops would have been British redcoats dressed up in gray uniforms and trying to put on Southern accents. Oh and the goal of the Confederacy would have been to put the US under the control of Queen Victoria.
So you would agree that certain countries have a natural right to politically and (if need be) militarily dominate other countries as a matter of geography?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/08/21 21:45:58
Let's not get too hung up on semantics. Here's an example to help you understand what Kanluwen seems to be pointing out: if the US Civil War had been the same kind of "civil war" as what is going on in Ukraine, the Confederacy would have been organized by British people, funded and equipped by the British government, and Confederate troops would have been British redcoats dressed up in gray uniforms and trying to put on Southern accents. Oh and the goal of the Confederacy would have been to put the US under the control of Queen Victoria.
Eh not completely correct, Russia's goal isn't annexation of Ukraine, but rather to destroy the possibility of it joining NATO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/21 22:39:59
2015/08/21 22:44:34
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Manchu wrote: So you would agree that certain countries have a natural right to politically and (if need be) militarily dominate other countries as a matter of geography?
Depends on the point of view, Crimeans for example would say that the Russian annexation was great for them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/21 23:23:36
2015/08/21 23:24:39
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Let's not get too hung up on semantics. Here's an example to help you understand what Kanluwen seems to be pointing out: if the US Civil War had been the same kind of "civil war" as what is going on in Ukraine, the Confederacy would have been organized by British people, funded and equipped by the British government, and Confederate troops would have been British redcoats dressed up in gray uniforms and trying to put on Southern accents. Oh and the goal of the Confederacy would have been to put the US under the control of Queen Victoria.
So you would agree that certain countries have a natural right to politically and (if need be) militarily dominate other countries as a matter of geography?
Morality has nothing to do with it.
No, countries do not have a right dominate other countries. But they can and they do, when it's in their interest. Russia does it. America does it.
I think the term for it is... Real Politik?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/22 00:04:43
2015/08/22 00:14:28
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Now -- would you agree that certain countries have a natural right to politically and (if need be) militarily dominate other countries as a matter of geography?
Also considering you don't think geography supports a right to dominate the Ukraine, what do you find persuasive about Hitchens's POV?
That Russia has a geopolitical and national security need to stop NATO, (a military alliance hostile to Russia and which was founded to unite Europe against it) absorbing countries on its border. The Warsaw pact was created as a buffer against further invasions from western Europe following WW 2. But now Russia is back at square 1, increasingly vulnerable to invasion from Europe.
If we all just recognised this, and accept that in the interests of avoiding a future ww 3, we might have to actually compromise on areas where our interests (expanding NATO and the EU eastwards) conflict with Russia's interests (securing its borders), we might actually avoid a ww 3.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/22 00:32:01
2015/08/22 00:44:23
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
NATO was created to resist the influence of the USSR. So here again we have this bodyman Hitchens brings up: he keeps saying that Russia is not the USSR. Fine, but neither is NATO an anti-Russian coalition.
And who exactly in Western Europe is going to invade Russia???
Manchu wrote: NATO was created to resist the influence of the USSR. So here again we have this bodyman Hitchens brings up: he keeps saying that Russia is not the USSR. Fine, but neither is NATO an anti-Russian coalition.
Of course it is. That's it's raison d'etre. NATO was founded to unite Europe against the USSR. It should have been disbanded when the USSR dissolved - the existential threat that instigated its founding was no more.
And who exactly in Western Europe is going to invade Russia???
Our reptilian overlords. Who else?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/22 00:54:48
2015/08/22 01:03:04
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
But wait, western Europe and the United states are providing non lethal gear, and medic training to ukranian soldiers. That makes it okay for russia to send in troops and machinery to help the rebels. /s
Russia wanted Crimean. So it took it. It wants to dominate Ukraine. So Russian agents and soldiers are killing Ukrainians.
There is no self-defense excuse. There is no geographical excuse. This is just blatant Russian aggression.
Silly questions begat silly answers.
In the event of an actual war. WE would invade. The members of NATO. America. Britain. Germany. Etc. That's what happens in a war, you invade the enemy when you have the upper hand, unless pinnacle peace first. And yes, Europe's armies are minimal right now, but a lot can change over the next 50 years. And the EU is actively trying to pool national military resources to form a common EU military.
Russia wants Crimea because it's critical to its geopolitical security. When the former government friendly to Russia was overthrown, it's important strategic bases in Crimea were threatened. So they annexed Crimea to secure them.
2015/08/22 01:12:16
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Ustrello wrote: But wait, western Europe and the United states are providing non lethal gear, and medic training to ukranian soldiers. That makes it okay for russia to send in troops and machinery to help the rebels. /s
Right and this one time, Napoleon invaded and this other time some Germans did so ... so ...
What war??? The same hypothetical one every rogue nation is constantly using to justify their violent aggression.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: When the former government friendly to Russia was overthrown, it's important strategic bases in Crimea were threatened. So they annexed Crimea to secure them.
Makes sense. If you Brits elect a government hostile to us, we'll keep this strategy in mind.
Because ... realpolitik right?
When did realpolitik ever go wrong?
Oh right ...
Spoiler:
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/08/22 01:18:31
Ustrello wrote: But wait, western Europe and the United states are providing non lethal gear, and medic training to ukranian soldiers. That makes it okay for russia to send in troops and machinery to help the rebels. /s
We're training their soldiers, not just medics. And we're providing intelligence.
And before the conflict Ukraine was in the process of negotiating to join NATO and the EU. Russia wants to prevent that.
This ain't difficult to grasp.
And like I said, no it doesn't make it "ok". But it's cause and effect. Don't want the effect? Don't create the cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Surely you have learned from Hitchens that Russia is not the USSR? They're completely different, comrade how you say dood.
.
Oh look, a mod spamming.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/22 01:16:13
2015/08/22 01:17:09
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Russia wanted Crimean. So it took it. It wants to dominate Ukraine. So Russian agents and soldiers are killing Ukrainians.
There is no self-defense excuse. There is no geographical excuse. This is just blatant Russian aggression.
I think I hashed this one out recently with Iron_Captain and managed to break down the 'Russian' perspective. To copypaste
Ketara wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue here is that NATO member states are free to pursue independent foreign policies whilst under the umbrella protection of NATO. And Russia feels that that's somewhat unfair (to put it simplistically).
For example, Estonia can choose to cut trade to Russia overnight, and Russia has no way of responding bar similar economic methods. Poland can decide to impound a Russian military ship in their waters. If Kazkhstan goes to hell, and France suddenly decides to land troops, Russia cannot intervene against those troops without worrying about NATO getting involved. If Belarus joins NATO, Russia might have trouble stopping it from joining the EU later on to Russia's economic disadvantage.
In such a way, Russia's foreign policy options are curtailed, because it cannot interfere militarily in any situation which might involve a NATO member. So whilst NATO in and of itself is not a direct threat to Russia (due to the nukes), when more and more of Russia's neighbours sign up to it, Russia's foreign policy powers are increasingly reduced. Primarily because Russia's standing in the world and its ability to influence events is based upon its military, unlike the US or GB, who have more economic and diplomatic levers to pull. Also unlike the US and GB, Russia's influence is also limited to those countries which border it, due to its lack of international trade or distance fighting capabilities.
Therefore NATO 'encirclement' as you put it, whilst it poses no direct military threat to Russia (thanks to the nukes), does indirectly diminish Russia's power and standing.
From a Western perspective, the desire of Russia to still be a member of the big boys club quite simply isn't a good enough reason for the humanitarian and moral issues caused by the interference in Ukraine. From Putin's perspective, feth humanitarian reasons, and he works to a different moral chart.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/08/22 01:18:55
2015/08/22 01:22:30
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Ustrello wrote: But wait, western Europe and the United states are providing non lethal gear, and medic training to ukranian soldiers. That makes it okay for russia to send in troops and machinery to help the rebels. /s
We're training their soldiers, not just medics. And we're providing intelligence.
And before the conflict Ukraine was in the process of negotiating to join NATO and the EU. Russia wants to prevent that.
This ain't difficult to grasp.
And like I said, no it doesn't make it "ok". But it's cause and effect. Don't want the effect? Don't create the cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Surely you have learned from Hitchens that Russia is not the USSR? They're completely different, comrade how you say dood.
.
Oh look, a mod spamming.
Implying ukraine had a chance to actually join NATO, also seeing as how the last NATO expansion was six years ago and the last border country to join NATO was in 2004. Oh but lets not forget that Georgia has basically been stonewalled from joining NATO to make russia feel better.
Oh man our training must be really helping so much that russia needs to send in elements of its army to deflect the newly trained Ukrainian soldiers, who totally aren't beat down tired and under armed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/22 01:26:03
Ustrello wrote: But wait, western Europe and the United states are providing non lethal gear, and medic training to ukranian soldiers. That makes it okay for russia to send in troops and machinery to help the rebels. /s
Right and this one time, Napoleon invaded and this other time some Germans did so ... so ...
What war??? The same hypothetical one every rogue nation is constantly using to justify their violent aggression.
I'm sure people said something like this before WW1.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: When the former government friendly to Russia was overthrown, it's important strategic bases in Crimea were threatened. So they annexed Crimea to secure them.
Makes sense. If you Brits elect a government hostile to us, we'll keep this strategy in mind.
Because ... realpolitik right?
When did realpolitik ever go wrong?
Oh right ...
Spoiler:
Eh?
2015/08/22 01:27:16
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Manchu wrote: So Russia has to learn how to do talk to its neighbors without brandishing the stick?
Oh how terrible!
To sum up: to remain a hooligan, Russia must engage in some hooliganism. Well, you can't fault the logic.
Hey, if you work in pure geopolitical terms, it makes sense. It also makes sense if you work on the assumption that Russia needs to remain strong to safeguard its own people.
It's only when you work in Western humanitarianism (and that from the last forty years specifically) that it becomes ludicrous. And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
2015/08/22 01:32:33
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Manchu wrote: So Russia has to learn how to do talk to its neighbors without brandishing the stick?
Oh how terrible!
To sum up: to remain a hooligan, Russia must engage in some hooliganism. Well, you can't fault the logic.
Hey, if you work in pure geopolitical terms, it makes sense. It also makes sense if you work on the assumption that Russia needs to remain strong to safeguard its own people.
It's only when you work in Western humanitarianism (and that from the last forty years specifically) that it becomes ludicrous. And when the countries preaching it are the ones who went into Iraq, well.....it all seems a little hypocritical from the Russian side of the border.
Indeed. Our monumental feth up in Iraq (and now our ongoing feth ups in Libya, Syria and Iraq again) completely destroyed my idealism and faith in my country and Europe as "the good humanitarian guys".
We are the people who lecture Russia for its crimes in Ukraine and human rights abuses, yet cover up our programs of torture and extraordinary rendition. Who support a disorganized rabble of Syrian rebels, many of them radicalized extremists , and some of whom evolve into ISIS. Who encouraged and directly supported the overthrow of Gadaffi, creating a power vacuum that has partly enabled the current Mediterranean migrant crisis. Who practice mass surveillance of our own societies, sometimes illegally.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/22 01:39:24
2015/08/22 01:33:00
Subject: Ukraine: Witness the rise of a new Russian Empire, live!
Look if you miss a point, don't just assume it's because someone is trolling you. There is zero threat of any invasion from the West. Yet pro-Russian propaganda equates the EU with Nazism.
Look if you miss a point, don't just assume it's because someone is trolling you. There is zero threat of any invasion from the West. Yet pro-Russian propaganda equates the EU with Nazism.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear your point over the sound of your shoulders shrugging and failing to actually make it.
The threat exists, because the capability to do so exists. The fact that we're unlikely to exercise that capability today doesn't change the fact that we can and might do it 10 or 20 years in the future should the situation worsen, and thats what worries the Kremlin.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/22 01:38:45
Of course it is. That's it's raison d'etre. NATO was founded to unite Europe against the USSR. It should have been disbanded when the USSR dissolved - the existential threat that instigated its founding was no more.
