Russian Games: 120,000-140,000 Russian Troops on the Ukrainian border…

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It wasn't really all that independent

How is Ukraine not an independent Nation-State?  Are you suggesting Ukraine is really a member of the Russian Federation?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Of course it does. I'm not justifying the Russian aggression of Crimea, and I fully support Ukraine in the present crisis.

It's just worth remembering that their fears of NATO intervention are not exactly purely irrational paranoia, but something based on actual recent events.

A fair point.

[Heartofice]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How is Ukraine not an independent Nation-State?  Are you suggesting Ukraine is really a member of the Russian Federation?

Russia has been interfering in their elections for quite some time. Yushchenko was almost certainly poisoned by them, Yanukovych was pretty much a puppet as far as I'm aware, with a hotline into Moscow. While not a direct vassal I would at least suggest they had been held very close by Russia. Europes closeness to Ukraine has been one of the sparks for this conflict for a while.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Russia has been interfering in their elections for quite some time. Yushchenko was almost certainly poisoned by them, Yanukovych was pretty much a puppet as far as I'm aware, with a hotline into Moscow. While not a direct vassal I would at least suggest they had been held very close by Russia. Europes closeness to Ukraine has been one of the sparks for this conflict for a while.

How does having a close relationship strip Ukraine of its status as a Nation-State.  Canada, Mexico, and the UK have close relationships with the US and often consult on serious international matters.  Are Canada, Mexico, and the UK no longer independent Nation-States?

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How does having a close relationship strip Ukraine of its status as a Nation-State.  Canada, Mexico, and the UK have close relationships with the US and often consult on serious international matters.  Are Canada, Mexico, and the UK no longer independent Nation-States?

I think it was a bit more than just ‘close relationship’

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think it was a bit more than just ‘close relationship’

How does any relationship with a foreign State strip a Nation-State of sovereignty?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Alright, what stable nation-state without potential crimes against humanity has NATO invaded?  Or is the second qualifier what gives Russia (Putin) pause?

As far as Russia is concerned, NATO is a US puppet, and the US has invaded, interfered, etc many times under the guise of human rights salvations (such as Libya recently), nuclear non-proliferation, or simply because they didn't like a certain government or leader in government.

I don't think Russia is going to be invaded any time soon, but it ain't like the US with its mercurial leadership and entirely shitty cassus belli policies in the past is super trustworthy to even keep treaty agreements with nations that they made only a few years back.

WITH RUSSIA, now that I think about it. Put it another way - if the US can make a deal with Russia and China in 2015 and then proceed to back out of it 3 years later, what do 'deals' mean from outsider perspectives?

[Werthead]

Ukraine was an independent country from the breakup of the Soviet Union, but it maintained friendly relations with Russia and Belarus in a number of areas (such as how to deal with Russian ICBMS positioned in Ukraine and how to deal with the ongoing Chernobyl cleanup). Obviously, culturally and in terms of language, Ukraine is more closely aligned with Russia and Belarus than it is the United States or Germany.

Russia was perfectly happy with an independent Ukraine which was somewhat pro-Russia in its attitude, even if it had open trade and so on with the West, which was the case for the best part of a quarter of a century after independence. The second Orange Revolution (Maidan Revolution) of 2013-14 basically saw the pro-Russian government deposed by a popular uprising and a pro-EU, pro-Western, pro-NATO government brought to power and the close Russia-Ukrainian ties snapped, which led to a kneejerk Russian response which was partially successful (claiming Crimea) but partially bungled (the quasi-invasion of eastern Ukraine which bogged down and did not result in the decisive victory the Russians were expecting). The Russians have been hoping that situation would resolve itself and a Ukrainian government would come to power which would be friendlier to them and shut down all talk of joining NATO. That has not occurred.

[Gorn]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The second Orange Revolution (Maidan Revolution) of 2013-14 basically saw the pro-Russian government deposed by a popular uprising and a pro-EU, pro-Western, pro-NATO government brought to power and the close Russia-Ukrainian ties snapped, which led to a kneejerk Russian response which was partially successful (claiming Crimea) but partially bungled (the quasi-invasion of eastern Ukraine which bogged down and did not result in the decisive victory the Russians were expecting). The Russians have been hoping that situation would resolve itself and a Ukrainian government would come to power which would be friendlier to them and shut down all talk of joining NATO. That has not occurred.

Russians consider the Maidan Revolution to be a coup against a democratically elected government because, well, it pretty much was one. And the subsequent dissolution of Party of Regions and ban of Communist Party denied democratic representation to roughly half of Ukrainian citizens.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The Russians have been hoping that situation would resolve itself and a Ukrainian government would come to power which would be friendlier to them and shut down all talk of joining NATO. That has not occurred.

I'm kind of wondering if the current actions are the result of the Russians giving up this hope (or at least running out of patience for this to happen).  Because everything I'm reading is that anti-Russian sentiment is gaining steam in Ukraine as a result of this invasion threat.  Which is no surprise.  So perhaps Russia's attitude is that a pro-West Ukraine is simply unacceptable and that since events have not been developing to their liking since 2013, they are ready to take military action.

Or putting it in a slightly different way, if Russia was hoping that an independent Ukraine would come back to a more pro-Russia stance, then the actions of the past 3 months make no sense.  Which is why it feels more and more likely that Russia is planning to take some military action, although exactly how big those actions will be remains to be seen. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm kind of wondering if the current actions are the result of the Russians giving up this hope (or at least running out of patience for this to happen).  Because everything I'm reading is that anti-Russian sentiment is gaining steam in Ukraine as a result of this invasion threat.  Which is no surprise.  So perhaps Russia's attitude is that a pro-West Ukraine is simply unacceptable and that since events have not been developing to their liking since 2013, they are ready to take military action.

Or putting it in a slightly different way, if Russia was hoping that an independent Ukraine would come back to a more pro-Russia stance, then the actions of the past 3 months make no sense.  Which is why it feels more and more likely that Russia is planning to take some military action, although exactly how big those actions will be remains to be seen. 

Imagine if Mexico's policies were as anti-US as Venezuela's have been and I think you have a pretty apt comparison of what the US would be thinking about doing. 

Russia is also much less worried about things like 'sentiment' or popularity of policies based on the populace; as far as they're concerned dealing with reluctant populations is just what people do, and they're quite good at it. 'Oh no, human rights violations and innocents dying' is only a concern in as much as how much the US might block vacation homes for the rich. 

[Werthead]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm kind of wondering if the current actions are the result of the Russians giving up this hope (or at least running out of patience for this to happen).  Because everything I'm reading is that anti-Russian sentiment is gaining steam in Ukraine as a result of this invasion threat.  Which is no surprise.  So perhaps Russia's attitude is that a pro-West Ukraine is simply unacceptable and that since events have not been developing to their liking since 2013, they are ready to take military action.

Or putting it in a slightly different way, if Russia was hoping that an independent Ukraine would come back to a more pro-Russia stance, then the actions of the past 3 months make no sense.  Which is why it feels more and more likely that Russia is planning to take some military action, although exactly how big those actions will be remains to be seen. 

Yup. I think Russia took several actions which backfired: historically around half the population of Ukraine has been more or less pro-Russia, or at least positively inclined towards Russia and suspicious of the West. By invading Ukraine and stripping Crimea from it, they turned basically everyone who was neutral and a reasonable chunk of the moderately pro-Russian against them. Apart from the real hardcore Russian fans (mostly contained in the east of the country), most Ukrainians now have a dim view of Putin and the current Russian government, on on top of the historical antipathy some hold towards Russia because of Stalinism and the Holodomor (if the Germans had been a bit cannier, they could have exploited that in 1941 and turned many Ukrainians against Russia, but they instead chose to massacre them and pushed the Ukrainians firmly into Stalin's corner). Russia has created a situation where more Ukrainians now want to be part of the EU and NATO than they ever did in 2014.

Not, I suspect they care very much. Putin views Ukraine as a former Russian vassal state that's gotten ideas above its station and has been flirting with Russia's "enemies," and now needs to be put back in its proper place.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Imagine if Mexico's policies were as anti-US as Venezuela's have been and I think you have a pretty apt comparison of what the US would be thinking about doing. 

Russia is also much less worried about things like 'sentiment' or popularity of policies based on the populace; as far as they're concerned dealing with reluctant populations is just what people do, and they're quite good at it. 'Oh no, human rights violations and innocents dying' is only a concern in as much as how much the US might block vacation homes for the rich. 

Where are you going with this?  Is the US hypocritical for defending the sovereignty of Ukraine based upon US actions in other places, absolutely.  

Does that mean it is, therefore, wrong to oppose Russian beligerancy because it is hypocritical for the US and NATO to do so?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Double post

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Where are you going with this?  Is the US hypocritical for defending the sovereignty of Ukraine based upon US actions in other places, absolutely.  

Does that mean it is, therefore, wrong to oppose Russian beligerancy because it is hypocritical for the US and NATO to do so?

Ah, the lawyer. Nice redirection.

I'm trying to put myself in the feet of Russia. You asked the question of whether or not NATO can be expected to invade countries any time soon and if that is a legitimate threat - and the answer from Russia's perspective is almost certainly yes. Given the last 20 years of history of US aggression and behavior - of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Ethiopia, Pakistan - and given NATO's complicity or outright involvement in the above - it is entirely reasonable to believe that NATO would actually invade or attack another country if it fit their goals and needs, led entirely by the US.

Add to this that the US has, shall we say, not been particularly good at keeping promises with their treaties recently - with Russia! - and it is not an unreasonable fear that the US and NATO would use their military power to stop Russia from doing something that they want to do. 

Hypocriticalness has nothing to do with it. It has to do with Russia weighing the risk of having a pro-NATO country directly on their border unchecked, backed by countries that have had in the recent past wanted to curb Russian behavior. The notion that either the US or NATO isn't going to attack other countries is at the very least rosy-colored, and as far as Russia is concerned the answer is obviously 'yes', because they've already done it repeatedly this century.

[polishgenius]

Just now, Kalibuster said:

It has to do with Russia weighing the risk of having a pro-NATO country directly on their border unchecked, backed by countries that have had in the recent past wanted to curb Russian behavior.

 

Hmm well as  Pole I don't want Russia directly on our border unchecked (well, Kalinigrad already is but then that goes both ways, that's surrounded by NATO so go them), so I vote NATO just invades Russia pre-emptively to stop them taking Ukraine. That's understandable, right?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Ah, the lawyer. Nice redirection.

I'm trying to put myself in the feet of Russia. You asked the question of whether or not NATO can be expected to invade countries any time soon and if that is a legitimate threat - and the answer from Russia's perspective is almost certainly yes. Given the last 20 years of history of US aggression and behavior - of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Ethiopia, Pakistan - and given NATO's complicity or outright involvement in the above - it is entirely reasonable to believe that NATO would actually invade or attack another country if it fit their goals and needs, led entirely by the US.

Add to this that the US has, shall we say, not been particularly good at keeping promises with their treaties recently - with Russia! - and it is not an unreasonable fear that the US and NATO would use their military power to stop Russia from doing something that they want to do. 

Hypocriticalness has nothing to do with it. It has to do with Russia weighing the risk of having a pro-NATO country directly on their border unchecked, backed by countries that have had in the recent past wanted to curb Russian behavior. The notion that either the US or NATO isn't going to attack other countries is at the very least rosy-colored, and as far as Russia is concerned the answer is obviously 'yes', because they've already done it repeatedly this century.

Are the US and NATO wrong to oppose Russian beligerancy?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Hmm well as  Pole I don't want Russia directly on our border unchecked (well, Kalinigrad already is but then that goes both ways, that's surrounded by NATO so go them), so I vote NATO just invades Russia pre-emptively to stop them taking Ukraine. That's understandable, right?

Hey, the city that I was vaguely named after - sweet!

Sounds good to me, go for it

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are the US and NATO wrong to oppose Russian beligerancy?

Right and wrong have nothing to do with it, but as far as Russia is concerned yes, they are wrong to oppose belligerency. 

Again, you asked whether or not Russia is right to think that NATO on their direct border - especially NATO with a country the size and geography of Ukraine - should think that is a threat, or if NATO is even a threat to anyone. And the answer - clearly - is a resounding yes! NATO forces have already opposed various actions that Russia has done in the region as well as other autocratical actors. The idea that NATO is just some rickety old mutual defense system wasn't really reasonable back in the 80s, much less now. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Kalibuster said:

Hey, the city that I was vaguely named after - sweet!

Sounds good to me, go for it

Right and wrong have nothing to do with it, but as far as Russia is concerned yes, they are wrong to oppose belligerency. 

Again, you asked whether or not Russia is right to think that NATO on their direct border - especially NATO with a country the size and geography of Ukraine - should think that is a threat, or if NATO is even a threat to anyone. And the answer - clearly - is a resounding yes! NATO forces have already opposed various actions that Russia has done in the region as well as other autocratical actors. The idea that NATO is just some rickety old mutual defense system wasn't really reasonable back in the 80s, much less now. 

Opposing autocratic actions is a bad thing to do?  Are you taking a purely realpolitik position regarding this situation?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Opposing autocratic actions is a bad thing to do?  Are you taking a purely realpolitik position regarding this situation?

Never said that. Again, for now what, the 4th time - you asked if it is reasonable for Russia to fear NATO invading them. I've answered repeatedly 'yes'. 

Let's redirect back to you, since straight answers don't appear to work. Are you in favor of starting world war 3? Why do you think it's a good idea to get into a direct war with a country with nuclear weapons?