There's anti-war and then there is the nonsense in this thread that is getting rightfully culled
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Massive Russian military buildup near Ukraine
- Thread starter Forerunner
- Start date
- Status
There's anti-war and then there is the nonsense in this thread that is getting rightfully culled
The way tankie is used loses all meaning just like the term neoliberal. Tankie is a word coined by leftists specifically to criticize leftists who support leninist dictatorships. Russia is a fascist dictatorship, so tankie doesn't quiet apply.
Honestly useful idiot is fine as the term that applies here.
Honestly useful idiot is fine as the term that applies here.
Just to make sure - you don't think that all of the Ukrainians who are prepping to repel a Russian invasion are neo-nazis, do you?
I mean there absolutely is a segment of the political spectrum that still treats Russia like it's the communist USSR and casually supports them accordingly
I think it's more reflexive contrarianism against the US. Since Russia opposes the imperialist and corrupt western powers, Russia must have some sort of point. Of course, what is missed is that while the former is true, that doesn't mean the latter follows, and context matters.
It also ignores the point that the Russian government is just as imperialist and even more corrupt.
Yeah. Any reasonable person should oppose Russian imperialism just as they would oppose iraq and afghan invasion by US without any equivocation. There are no good guys among the great powers, but we should at least be able to judge each situation by its own context rather than copy and paste the same analysis everywhere.
User banned (1 week): trolling
The ironic thing is that the many of the arguments made in favor of military intervention with Iraq and Afghanistan look exactly the same as the arguments made for military intervention with Russia.
If I squint my eyes enough as I read the comments here it looks more or less the same as the comments in the liberal foreign policy blogs I was reading in 2002.
That's another group but there's absolutely a group that thinks Russia is still the USSR
Wait are you suggesting Russia isn't trying to annex Ukraine, that that argument is equivalent to the claim that Iraq has WMDs?
Because if so I don't think squinting is your problem you might need an optometrist
You didn't beat me to the punch this time Batman mwhahaha
It's still mind boggling there could and probably will be a war in Europe in 2022. No one stood up to Russia when they went into Georgia, went into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, assassinated people on foreign soil.. so of course they keep pushing.
Heart breaks for the Ukrainians.
Heart breaks for the Ukrainians.
Of course not. the post above you names them, I am concerned we are arming some very bad people and I'm anti war. I do not approve of Russian imperialism.
I don't think you actually know what tankie means. Russia isn't Marxist, therefore one supporting its authoritarian tendencies isn't a tankie. Words have meanings, it doesn't just mean anyone that supports authoritarianism.
If they defend Russia and China solely because they are (ostensibly) in opposition to the West and capitalism I think the word fits even though current Russia is not the USSR of old.
I don't see how it applies to Russia. Tankie doesn't mean broadly anti-western, or reflexively defending the not western thing. It's literally a term used by leftists to denigrate militant communists that support other authoritarian communists. It's not some broad term, it's super specific. Russia is the opposite of a communist country. The term has literally no usefulness in the current context other than to be some snappy buzzword that means nothing.
Useful idiot that falls for propaganda from Russia/China while thinking they are taking a moral stance then.
Germany isn't wrong to be so hesitant with throwing arms around and consider war an option of last resort. Nobody save the worst people (warmongers, profiteers, unaccountable militia and paramilitary thugs, and the like) win if the shooting starts, and it'll be yet another new low for relations reached in a negative spiral that has passed through decades and untold numbers of hands to get here. It goes without saying, but Russia, Russians, and Putin don't bear the blame for all of that. This crisis was preceded by countless others and there's been a lot of misunderstandings, mistakes, and duplicity cutting back and forth, and all the bad blood that arises from such.
Talk, talk some more, and keep talking no matter how slim the prospects. At worst, you're running out the clock and complicating the straightforward prosecution of the war. At best, you find a path back to rapprochement that takes the fire out of (credible) Russian fears that they're being encircled and marginalized in their own neighborhood, and the belief (to us, insane, to the cornered Putin, rational) that regional wars of aggression are the only way left to secure their international security against such. It's a tall order to accomplish that without carving up other European states and sending them down the negative, destructive spiral instead. On this point, people citing appeasement can reach for a better example: look to the many partitions that have been visited upon Eastern Europe, with Poland chief among them, and the enduring, cross-generational bad blood and numerous wars that was sparked for centuries afterward. The goal of diplomacy isn't about preventing just one European war, but all its children too.
That task is difficult, and it's not helped by the loss of American credibility in sticking to its diplomatic commitments, as seen with the Iran nuclear deal across the terms of three presidents: the first extended the olive branch, the second threw it into the flames, and the third demanded a return to compliance while moving as though the second's duplicity hadn't happened. The diplomats have their work cut out for them, and the Russians aren't irrational or bad actors to regard their efforts with suspicion. But for the good of Ukrainians and Russians both, and the rest of us, it has to be tried to the point of exhaustion. And if the shooting does start, it isn't the job of diplomats to take a vacation until the two sides grow weary of slaughtering each other. The work never stops.
Talk, talk some more, and keep talking no matter how slim the prospects. At worst, you're running out the clock and complicating the straightforward prosecution of the war. At best, you find a path back to rapprochement that takes the fire out of (credible) Russian fears that they're being encircled and marginalized in their own neighborhood, and the belief (to us, insane, to the cornered Putin, rational) that regional wars of aggression are the only way left to secure their international security against such. It's a tall order to accomplish that without carving up other European states and sending them down the negative, destructive spiral instead. On this point, people citing appeasement can reach for a better example: look to the many partitions that have been visited upon Eastern Europe, with Poland chief among them, and the enduring, cross-generational bad blood and numerous wars that was sparked for centuries afterward. The goal of diplomacy isn't about preventing just one European war, but all its children too.
That task is difficult, and it's not helped by the loss of American credibility in sticking to its diplomatic commitments, as seen with the Iran nuclear deal across the terms of three presidents: the first extended the olive branch, the second threw it into the flames, and the third demanded a return to compliance while moving as though the second's duplicity hadn't happened. The diplomats have their work cut out for them, and the Russians aren't irrational or bad actors to regard their efforts with suspicion. But for the good of Ukrainians and Russians both, and the rest of us, it has to be tried to the point of exhaustion. And if the shooting does start, it isn't the job of diplomats to take a vacation until the two sides grow weary of slaughtering each other. The work never stops.
You are entitled to your private definition of the word, no matter how nonsensical. But to spin an epithet originally leveled, by leftists no less, at other leftists who supported sending in the tanks to enforce compliance to the central bureaucracy's programs... into being an epithet for leftists who don't support sending in the tanks... when neither state involved even pretends to be advancing Marxism, no less? It's bad comedy. In former eras, Liberals just stuck with calling leftist doves "fucking commie" or "peacenik". That's the vitriol you're renovating with your misappropriated lingo. You want to punch left? Do it honestly.
No one is asking Germany to fight Russia. Helping Ukraine defend itself from an invasion =/= fighting Russia.
In terms of my use of the word - I used it for Russian apologists that are OK with Russia "sending in the tanks" not for people who are anti-war (as most are including me). Also, the conversation above resolved the use of the word before your post.
I'm telling you some of them absolutely still think Russia is that communist super hero
Right, that's what I was telling my wife. That this is some 19th century or early 20th century shit. War to annex land is such an old and antiquated way to expand power, especially by what should be a modern nation.
I mean that would be pretty weird, like in this thread there are people claiming that Russia is communist? Odd.
Probably not but I was talking more the wild wild west sorry east that is twitter.com
At the end of the day lots of leftists just act in bad faith anyway so they destroy the meanings of words themselves, the problem isn't those that criticize them.
A whole lot of leftists (no, not all, and not a majority but a very VOCAL/ONLINE lot) don't want to admit aloud that they view authoritarianism as the only way their goals could ever be achieved, or that they just have a crush on autocracy itself.
staff post - stay on topic
I didn't suggest people were asking Germany to fight Russia, nor that supplying arms was tantamount to German-driven Leopard IIs in front of Kyiv. Cannot fathom where you're interpolating this response from.
German caution on arms to Ukraine rooted in history, energy
Germany’s refusal to join other NATO members in providing weapons to Ukraine has annoyed some allies and raised questions about Berlin’s resolve in standing up to Russia.
apnews.com
The German perspective is eminently reasonable, and beyond that worthy of respect and consideration. Throwing arms and other military aid into the equation sight-unseen and calling it deterrence is desperation, not coherent strategy, and you needn't look any further to the example of my own country that held meetings with a literal neo-nazi militia on Ukrainian soil to see why. Furthermore, Germany remembers well the horrific costs of pursuing war before all other options are exhausted and are more than qualified to remind us of them. The international community can doubt their resolve or their commitment all they like, but their sobriety is sorely need.
Russia is deploying a ton of hardware in Belarus. I mean I know they are beholden to Russia, but they are basically asking for not just punitive actions but a massive future NATO presence at their border from here on out if they are acting as an attack vector for Russia, especially if they siege the capitol from there. Also, it will be much more probable the West will actually support dissidents in Belarus significantly moving forward.
Also surprised China isn't more a voice of caution for Russia, because a full invasion will significantly increase military spending in the West, which is counter to some of China's long term strategic goals. Wouldn't be surprised privately they are extremely annoyed by Russia's moves here.
Also surprised China isn't more a voice of caution for Russia, because a full invasion will significantly increase military spending in the West, which is counter to some of China's long term strategic goals. Wouldn't be surprised privately they are extremely annoyed by Russia's moves here.
But when they're no longer years ahead of everyone else and when semiconductor fabrication isn't as centered in the region?
You're right, it is a gross misinterpretation, a little black humor from my side if you will.
I don't know if I'd want Biden to send in ground troops, I'd support the possibility, but, as we all know, we don't necessarily get the things we want they way we want if that makes sense. So while I'm not against US troops being there it's not like I'd support every circumstance for what their role would be or what the message would be at the same time, you know what I mean?
I think there's basically tiers to what I'd support here. If Ukraine was willing to basically forfeit any territory they don't control and be purely defensive from this point on and I could take that map and say this is Ukraine and we, the US, will defend these borders with Ukraine from this point on, I'd do it. Wouldn't be opposed to troops being stationed there or anything of the sort. If Russia decided to invade further and we were dragged into war with them than so be it.
If Ukraine itself wanted to take it's chances with Russia because they refuse to concede any territory they've lost lost then things are trickier and no I don't really like the idea of our troops being there. I wouldn't want Ukraine thinking we were going to ensure they suffer no losses and that they had carte blanche to go try and get all their territory back. Of course with a defensive pact if Ukraine was the aggressor we could walk away from it at that point but I think signing a defensive pact with a leader who seems likely to break it themselves by attacking leading you to either side with the aggressor or follow them into an offensive is pretty bad too. Not that I think Ukraine even really would be the aggressor if they launched offensives to retake their lost territory but I feel the ship's sailed on that front for external support on that front.
It's like how I think there's hope for Ukraine but maybe not for Belarus, a defensive action is one thing and can be spun a certain way and changing a regime is a totally different thing.
I think some posters were right that we basically couldn't get troops to Ukraine before Russia found out we'd mobilized some and decided to invade. I'm sure they(Russia) track all of that shit. I don't exactly have a plan, I don't even know what the real situation is, I'm just a guy on a message board.
The main thing I think though is this. Obviously with us staying out of it our chances of war with Russia are basically zero, but the chance of them further invading Ukraine are pretty high. But I think if we sided openly and decisively with Ukraine now the chance of increased war altogether drops while obviously the chance of us going to war with Russia's now a lot higher than zero. It's a risk. Almost guaranteed further incursions into Ukraine versus a small chance of war between us and Russia.
Thing is is I don't think Putin's irrational, I don't think he's rash. I think he's smart and calculating. I think he looks to expand because he thinks he can, he weighs the costs and benefits and makes his decisions. He's not at all what I'd consider an irrational person. I don't like him, I think he's an unethical piece of shit but I think he's highly logical. I don't want us to go to war with Russia. I don't want the Ukrainians to have to fight a bigger front or even be taken over. But I also don't think Russia wants to fight the United States. So I think we have to be willing to risk the possibility. I think if we draw a line in the sand that he wont cross it. If we draw no lines in the sand he's going to drive all over it.
Obviously I 100% entertain the idea that I might be completely wrong.
I'm just going be the one to say that I gotta ask what you're referring to here, because I'm trying to think of what you're referring to here and I'm drawing blanks for stuff that's Germany specific and also obviously not the historical events I imagine most people immediately thought of when they read this (since obviously that doesn't fit at all).
(I mean I also have questions about a prior post's phrasing of "This crisis was preceded by countless others and there's been a lot of misunderstandings, mistakes, and duplicity cutting back and forth, and all the bad blood that arises from such." now that I'm thinking about it because it sounds like the argument implicitly made is about spheres of influence and what not but also I would like confirmation before I start bringing up my personal misgivings with that type of argument)
You know what? I think this is a fair take regarding Germany's actions.I didn't suggest people were asking Germany to fight Russia, nor that supplying arms was tantamount to German-driven Leopard IIs in front of Kyiv. Cannot fathom where you're interpolating this response from.
German caution on arms to Ukraine rooted in history, energy
Germany’s refusal to join other NATO members in providing weapons to Ukraine has annoyed some allies and raised questions about Berlin’s resolve in standing up to Russia.
The German perspective is eminently reasonable, and beyond that worthy of respect and consideration. Throwing arms and other military aid into the equation sight-unseen and calling it deterrence is desperation, not coherent strategy, and you needn't look any further to the example of my own country that held meetings with a literal neo-nazi militia on Ukrainian soil to see why. Furthermore, Germany remembers well the horrific costs of pursuing war before all other options are exhausted and are more than qualified to remind us of them. The international community can doubt their resolve or their commitment all they like, but their sobriety is sorely need.
We can spend money on both things.
It's shocking to see so many posters die on this hill.
Yeah, if only more countries witheld providing weapons and arms to Ukraine so they can protect themselves. Such a sober response to 140k strong army on their border by a country which has already occupied their land and actively funds separatists who further attack their people. The region sure could use more responses just like that.
"I'm just going to be the one to say" and "I gotta ask" is a really strange manner to lead with out of the blue. If you're trying to appear personable or reasonable, it's having the opposite effect.
For Germany the two World Wars are going to loom largest in practical lessons of choosing war. To accomplish their state objectives (many of them unspeakably debased, lest this point become the fixation of some random JAQing off with a driveby) they eagerly pursued each war of aggression at such a great cost of life to themselves, their neighbors, and millions of innocents that every objective was frustrated and ran into the negative. The state itself was destroyed and scrubbed down to the cultural studs, two new ones raised from the ashes in a partition between East and West that lasted decades, divided families and one side of the continent from the other, and became a hotspot of tension in one bloc teetering on the brink of a nuclear exchange with another.
Germany holding the memory of the costs and consequences of its militarism close in mind when weighing their response and counseling the actions of their neighbors and allies in such fraught times is to be expected, and more than that commended. Some hither or thither might bemoan the Germans as being made feeble in this crisis by dependency on Russian natural gas, but such is lazy, shallow analysis.
As to the other thing. States with imperial histories tend to take a violently dim view of competition, threat, or the possibility of being marginalized in their own neighborhood (as the US is concerned, the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis both readily come to mind). You don't need a grand theory of spheres of influence or an intense study of international relations to come to that conclusion: it's a basic tendency, realpolitik in one of its simplest parts, and a tendency that both America and Russia have operated on for centuries into the present, but one some Americans strangely act with the act that it's an unnatural and outdated affectation of the Russian mind or something. They misunderstand how they operate themselves, let alone Russia, and it severely hamstrings their attempts to diplomatically engage with this negative relations spiral constructively. Know your enemy, the proverb goes, but there's another that goes unheeded: know thyself.
Without recognition and reckoning that this "my backyard" logic is also as American as apple pie, demands made to Russia to move beyond it will look hypocritical and self-serving to them. And they will be right on that point. There are enough difficulties present in trying to walk back from the brink without self-sabotage, and what is ("I'm not going to stand for this in my backyard") impedes the ought ("this is our backyard, we have to compromise")... for now. That we must collectively move past it is a given, and I have hope that we will. But the work is far from complete, and we flatter ourselves if we consider the west as having evolved past it. We're not there yet.
I read your post twice, and I still have no idea what you're talking about.
No one is creating this crisis except Russia. This has nothing to do with whatever else you're attempting to say.
I swear, if we were back in the late 1930s some people on this forum would find ways to put Poland/Czechoslovakia on the same level nazi Germany. Some of you are really fucking embarassing.
Russia invaded Crimea through a black flag operationand they claimed that there was a need to "protect" the Russian population there, and given Russia's behaviour it's all but certain that there are least plans (whether they'll be executed or not is another question) for a false flag operation as a casus belli to invade Ukraine.
If there's one nation in western Europe that should not be putting up with Russia's bullshit, it's Germany. Instead of that, they're preventing other nations from donating hardware for Ukraine to defend itself (hardware that they didn't even build I might add).
Germany's behaviour is honestly shameful. If they want to follow the path of appeasment it's their choice, but they shouldn't actively get in the way of other nations trying to help.
And hell, Germany should also know better than anyone that appeasment doesn't work.
As for the rest of your post: This entire crisis is not created by some sort of misunderstanding by America, it's created entirely by Russia. More specifically, by Putin and his nostalgia for the USSR and his desire to back to the "good old time". He's essentially in " make Russia great again" mode. If Russia stopped putting thousands of troops and armored vehicles at Ukraine's doorstep, this whole thing would go away. The whole blame lies solely on their shoulders.
nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia with the pretext of "protecting" Germans and invaded Poland using a false flag operation.
Russia invaded Crimea through a black flag operationand they claimed that there was a need to "protect" the Russian population there, and given Russia's behaviour it's all but certain that there are least plans (whether they'll be executed or not is another question) for a false flag operation as a casus belli to invade Ukraine.
If there's one nation in western Europe that should not be putting up with Russia's bullshit, it's Germany. Instead of that, they're preventing other nations from donating hardware for Ukraine to defend itself (hardware that they didn't even build I might add).
Germany's behaviour is honestly shameful. If they want to follow the path of appeasment it's their choice, but they shouldn't actively get in the way of other nations trying to help.
And hell, Germany should also know better than anyone that appeasment doesn't work.
As for the rest of your post: This entire crisis is not created by some sort of misunderstanding by America, it's created entirely by Russia. More specifically, by Putin and his nostalgia for the USSR and his desire to back to the "good old time". He's essentially in " make Russia great again" mode. If Russia stopped putting thousands of troops and armored vehicles at Ukraine's doorstep, this whole thing would go away. The whole blame lies solely on their shoulders.
In an attempt to get back on track a bit, here is a good analysis of some motivations, and geopolitical outcomes - particularly around European security and the US pivot to the Pacific theater.
It's well reasoned, and has a lot of detail. They conclude an escalated war is inevitable unfortunately. It's a stark read, which... Yeah, another unsettled night.
It's well reasoned, and has a lot of detail. They conclude an escalated war is inevitable unfortunately. It's a stark read, which... Yeah, another unsettled night.
Putin’s Wager in Russia’s Standoff with the West - War on the Rocks
A large war in Europe is likely in the coming weeks. The current security architecture of the continent, the future of NATO, and America’s role in shaping
warontherocks.com
Ah, I didn't know Germany were outright blocking arms from other countries. That is shitty of them.
How can Germany block Estonia from transferring weapons they bought and own? Are there some contractual obligations in place? That article doesn't clarify that.
I'm pretty sure most (all?) weapon sales have such clause. Transferring US weapons to another active situation also requires approval from the US government iirc.
Why are Germany and France at odds with the Anglosphere over how to handle Russia?
Analysis: Differing views over Russia within Nato alliance resurface in Ukraine crisis
www.theguardian.com
Btw, speaking of Siemens
Siemens to step up investment in Russia – DW – 02/16/2019
CEO Joe Kaeser tells DW the German conglomerate hopes to raise its investments in Russia despite EU-US sanctions. He said it was "regrettable" that several Siemens power turbines ended up in Russian-annexed Crimea.
www.dw.com
Third time's the charm? In seriousness, I talked upthread at length about other aspects of my view, so if another poster asking after them out of order is disorienting, there's really nothing for it but to start at the start. If the argument is that this crisis can be distorted and reduced to such an extent, we fundamentally disagree.
If that both sides bile is aimed at me, you can swallow it. I've been nothing but clear that Russia is mooting a war of aggression in this crisis, and that ceding slices of other nations in talks isn't a solution for peace.
As with sacrament, if the argument is that this crisis can be distorted and reduced to such an extent, we fundamentally disagree. And I have but to point to your own example to illustrate the perils of indulging in such slipshod reductionism: your recounting of the war invoked the invasions of Poland and Czechoslovakia... and omitted the appeasement that immediately preceded it, chiefly carving away the Sudetenland and the demand to repeat the same by ceding Danzig. Land cessions. That's appeasement. Equating being more circumspect and holding exports of weapons to Ukraine to handing Putin prime slices of his neighbors is a gross distortion of past and present, and in reducing that chapter of history to so small a mote, you lost sight of what appeasement actually constituted and instead substituted the freely-shaped, vague "putting up with bullshit". Appeasement thus has been diluted to the point of meaninglessness, fit for little more than heaping scorn upon Germany for not blindly following along with plan "flood Ukraine with weapons and threaten Russia with sanctions". It's a misuse of history.
As tempting as it is to just throw my hands up and say X Woke Up Today And Chose Violence, checking that impulse grants me a fuller understanding of tensions and spares me embarrassing fumbles like this one to boot (and I've made plenty of them, no lie). History and the crises emerging from it are tangled up together in many hands and precipitating events, compounding one upon the other, and waving away those complexities will do more than hamper our efforts to negotiate, it'll fundamentally corrode our own recollection of what came before and our understanding of how we got here.
Apparently, these are old howitzers from East Germany (DDR) which have been sold to Finland.
They've been sold from Finland to Estonia in the meantime and therefore the previous owners (Germany and Finland) have to allow the the delivery.
Which clashes with Germanys stance that they don't want to deliver lethal weapons.
A "sacred obligation," give me a fucking break. I don't recall her ever using the word "sacred" to describe any of the meager pandemic aid going to Americans.
I don't care how justified everyone thinks this all is, because these people are absolute fucking psychopaths and I despise them.
- Status