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

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Kalibuster said:

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?

No, I don’t think any of those things are “good”.  Nor do I think allowing Russia to steamroll Ukraine is a good thing.  

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No, I don’t think any of those things are “good”.  Nor do I think allowing Russia to steamroll Ukraine is a good thing.  

So why do you think it's okay to just have NATO invade whatever they want?

[kiko]

28 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

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?

I sense a contradiction here. On the one side you claim that Russia is justified to fear an invasion by Nato. On the other you claim it is insane to attack them. 
I see only two logical conclusions. Either the Russian leadership considers the whole west insane or their are a bit off themselves. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

So why do you think it's okay to just have NATO invade whatever they want?

I don’t.  

[Maltaran]

20 minutes ago, kiko said:

I sense a contradiction here. On the one side you claim that Russia is justified to fear an invasion by Nato. On the other you claim it is insane to attack them. 
I see only two logical conclusions. Either the Russian leadership considers the whole west insane or their are a bit off themselves. 

Why not both?

[Toth]

May I weigh in a bit?

40 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.

The thing is, there is no denying in that the US is a bully on the world stage and has its fair share of blood on its hands when it comes to accomplishing their geopolitical goals with no concern for truth, democracy or peace. But it is also the case that all these countries that you listed are significantly weaker than Russia and in no way capable of responding to aggression with nukes. Think about why North Korea so desperately wants nukes as safety measure against US interference.

Putin knows that the US doesn't intend to start WW3 over any of this. Putin knows that NATO as of right now IS backing off of countries he's warning it not to touch for the sake of not angering him. Putin knows that he US would rather focus containing China because it's a much more serious contender for global dominance (and that Russia isn't being taken seriously vexes him extremely). Literally the only thing NATO doesn't do to appease him is to throw out the countries he wants it to throw out and to give him a declaration that it won't dismiss applications out of hand even if they adhere to the charter. Georgia was refused the application just before Putin attacked it and an application process for Ukraine has never been on the table even though Selenskiy is begging on his knees for it right in this moment.

Putin knows all this and still claims that the EU and NATO are US puppets out to get him.

40 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

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. 

And now what is it that he wants to do? Bully countries he considers in Russia's sphere of influence into compliance, finance extreme anti-Eu/anti-NATO parties, spreading disinformation and directly meddle in elections in an organized bit to cause chaos and break up the EU, murder exiled dissidents in broad daylight and so on and so on and so on. How the fuck do you think Putin is actually truly afraid of us using military action if we already know all this that he's doing and don't even complain about this as to not endanger or beloved business relationship? He's constantly testing the waters, constantly challenging us to see with how much he can get away with, let it be with hacker attacks or damn near constant violations of airspace in a way no other country does with its military fighters. And we never respond with putting troops into a threatening position! It's laughable to think that Putin's aggressive behavior towards just about anyone he declares a US stooge to be justified.

And come on. Threatening Putin with economic sanctions won't cause WW3. This conflict right here in which Russia positions itself to invade a non-NATO, non-EU member for daring to sign a EU-association pact and not capitulating after the first invasion, won't cause WW3 no matter what we do, since there are no NATO troops anywhere in Putin's line of fire and if they were he wouldn't attack, simple as that.

The one thing that I am extremely afraid of, however, is Nord Stream 2 going online and the very next day Putin attacks Ukraine. That would be the ultimate proof that Putin only waits this long to get our go that we won't put any serious sanction on him that would hurt ourselves as well, that Russian gas is more important than Ukrainian lives. This would mean that we end up having blood on our hands. That we have made ourselves culpable. And certainly didn't do anything we could to avoid lives from being lost. That's my fear. That's why I don't want just sit at the sidelines and watch Putin slaughter Ukrainians to install a new puppet regime while whining about how the EU and NATO and the US made him do it. Slaughtering the same people who protested hoping for better lives as EU member, the same people we then chose to leave hanging as to not anger Putin.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Toth said:

May I weigh in a bit?

The thing is, there is no denying in that the US is a bully on the world stage and has its fair share of blood on its hands when it comes to accomplishing their geopolitical goals with no concern for truth, democracy or peace. But it is also the case that all these countries that you listed are significantly weaker than Russia and in no way capable of responding to aggression with nukes. Think about why North Korea so desperately wants nukes as safety measure against US interference.

Putin knows that the US doesn't intend to start WW3 over any of this. Putin knows that NATO as of right now IS backing off of countries he's warning it not to touch for the sake of not angering him. Putin knows that he US would rather focus containing China because it's a much more serious contender for global dominance (and that Russia isn't being taken seriously vexes him extremely). Literally the only thing NATO doesn't do to appease him is to throw out the countries he wants it to throw out and to give him a declaration that it won't dismiss applications out of hand even if they adhere to the charter. Georgia was refused the application just before Putin attacked it and an application process for Ukraine has never been on the table even though Selenskiy is begging on his knees for it right in this moment.

Putin knows all this and still claims that the EU and NATO are US puppets out to get him.

And now what is it that he wants to do? Bully countries he considers in Russia's sphere of influence into compliance, finance extreme anti-Eu/anti-NATO parties, spreading disinformation and directly meddle in elections in an organized bit to cause chaos and break up the EU, murder exiled dissidents in broad daylight and so on and so on and so on. How the fuck do you think Putin is actually truly afraid of us using military action if we already know all this that he's doing and don't even complain about this as to not endanger or beloved business relationship? He's constantly testing the waters, constantly challenging us to see with how much he can get away with, let it be with hacker attacks or damn near constant violations of airspace in a way no other country does with its military fighters. And we never respond with putting troops into a threatening position! It's laughable to think that Putin's aggressive behavior towards just about anyone he declares a US stooge to be justified.

And come on. Threatening Putin with economic sanctions won't cause WW3. This conflict right here in which Russia positions itself to invade a non-NATO, non-EU member for daring to sign a EU-association pact and not capitulating after the first invasion, won't cause WW3 no matter what we do, since there are no NATO troops anywhere in Putin's line of fire and if they were he wouldn't attack, simple as that.

The one thing that I am extremely afraid of, however, is Nord Stream 2 going online and the very next day Putin attacks Ukraine. That would be the ultimate proof that Putin only waits this long to get our go that we won't put any serious sanction on him that would hurt ourselves as well, that Russian gas is more important than Ukrainian lives. This would mean that we end up having blood on our hands. That we have made ourselves culpable. And certainly didn't do anything we could to avoid lives from being lost. That's my fear. That's why I don't want just sit at the sidelines and watch Putin slaughter Ukrainians to install a new puppet regime while whining about how the EU and NATO and the US made him do it. Slaughtering the same people who protested hoping for better lives as EU member, the same people we then chose to leave hanging as to not anger Putin.

When is N2 scheduled to go online?

[Toth]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

When is N2 scheduled to go online?

It's not yet scheduled. Though I read an announcement that just today Nord Stream founded a German subsidiary today that was demanded from them in November to start with the certification process.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Toth said:

It's not yet scheduled. Though I read an announcement that just today Nord Stream founded a German subsidiary today that was demanded from them in November to start with the certification process.

Here’s an interesting twist.  Could Germany support Ukrainian independence by simply dragging its feet on certifying use of the pipeline?  These things do take time after all.  If, as you suspect, Putin is waiting for the  LNG to flow that could put a spoke in his wheel.

[Toth]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here’s an interesting twist.  Could Germany support Ukrainian independence by simply dragging its feet on certifying use of the pipeline?  These things do take time after all.  If, as you suspect, Putin is waiting for the  LNG to flow that could put a spoke in his wheel.

I wonder whether we are already doing this to some degree and how much of that is just typical German bureaucracy being a pain in the ass (ask Elon Musk about his mega plant in Brandenburg). But on the other hand, as I said before, the current German leadership is neatly split in half about the issue. Foreign minister Baerbock was leaning herself quite dangerously out of the window when she gave an extremely thinly veiled threat to Lawrow last week that we might end up decommissioning that thing altogether in the case of an invasion, but Scholz backpedaled soon afterwards and since then tries his damnedest to avoid giving a clear answer about whether this option is even on the table.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Toth said:

I wonder whether we are already doing this to some degree and how much of that is just typical German bureaucracy being a pain in the ass (ask Elon Musk about his mega plant in Brandenburg). But on the other hand, as I said before, the current German leadership is neatly split in half about the issue. Foreign minister Baerbock was leaning herself quite dangerously out of the window when she gave an extremely thinly veiled threat to Lawrow last week that we might end up decommissioning that thing altogether in the case of an invasion, but Scholz backpedaled soon afterwards and since then tries his damnedest to avoid giving a clear answer about whether this option is even on the table.

Ahhh… the joys of a coalition government.  :/

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, kiko said:

I sense a contradiction here. On the one side you claim that Russia is justified to fear an invasion by Nato. On the other you claim it is insane to attack them. 
I see only two logical conclusions. Either the Russian leadership considers the whole west insane or their are a bit off themselves. 

Sorry,  the NATO alliance and US aggression ate my previous reply.

So yeah, 'why not both' as @Maltaran said. I don't know that Russia is exactly justified, but given US and NATO-backed aggression in the region in the last 20 years combined with US failure to meet treaties cosigned by Russia in JCPOA and Russia sending an absurdly direct warning for the last 30 years that they will not put up with Ukraine joining or even being wooed to join NATO, I don't know why it should be surprising to think that Russia would think that NATO might invade or attack.

Really, the US had one big strength for 50 years - a very clear and shitty foreign policy. That policy did not change between administrations, could be relied on heavily to be predictable and reliable and shitty, and could be planned around. That has not been the case for the last 30 years, and Russia and China both view this aspect of democratic rule as a problem and a weakness. That we can go from Obama to Trump to Biden and change drastically twice the kind of foreign policy and actions we do in just 6 years is not a great thing, and makes the US an unpredictable and unreliable party in their eyes.

2 hours ago, Toth said:

May I weigh in a bit?

The thing is, there is no denying in that the US is a bully on the world stage and has its fair share of blood on its hands when it comes to accomplishing their geopolitical goals with no concern for truth, democracy or peace. But it is also the case that all these countries that you listed are significantly weaker than Russia and in no way capable of responding to aggression with nukes. Think about why North Korea so desperately wants nukes as safety measure against US interference.

Putin knows that the US doesn't intend to start WW3 over any of this. Putin knows that NATO as of right now IS backing off of countries he's warning it not to touch for the sake of not angering him. Putin knows that he US would rather focus containing China because it's a much more serious contender for global dominance (and that Russia isn't being taken seriously vexes him extremely). Literally the only thing NATO doesn't do to appease him is to throw out the countries he wants it to throw out and to give him a declaration that it won't dismiss applications out of hand even if they adhere to the charter. Georgia was refused the application just before Putin attacked it and an application process for Ukraine has never been on the table even though Selenskiy is begging on his knees for it right in this moment.

Putin knows all this and still claims that the EU and NATO are US puppets out to get him.

To be really clear Putin is almost certainly right in this aspect. The only time that NATO has pushed back against the US  was when Russian-backed US governments fought against NATO politically. 

2 hours ago, Toth said:

And now what is it that he wants to do? Bully countries he considers in Russia's sphere of influence into compliance, finance extreme anti-Eu/anti-NATO parties, spreading disinformation and directly meddle in elections in an organized bit to cause chaos and break up the EU, murder exiled dissidents in broad daylight and so on and so on and so on. How the fuck do you think Putin is actually truly afraid of us using military action if we already know all this that he's doing and don't even complain about this as to not endanger or beloved business relationship? He's constantly testing the waters, constantly challenging us to see with how much he can get away with, let it be with hacker attacks or damn near constant violations of airspace in a way no other country does with its military fighters. And we never respond with putting troops into a threatening position! It's laughable to think that Putin's aggressive behavior towards just about anyone he declares a US stooge to be justified.

Alternately he's watched what the US and NATO have done in the last 20 years, the treaties that they've violated or broken or ignored, and the weirdness associated with the US and seen a growing instability that he both wants to exploit and wants to mitigate. 

2 hours ago, Toth said:

And come on. Threatening Putin with economic sanctions won't cause WW3.

That's not what @Ser Scot A Ellison was asking to do, and you know it.

2 hours ago, Toth said:

This conflict right here in which Russia positions itself to invade a non-NATO, non-EU member for daring to sign a EU-association pact and not capitulating after the first invasion, won't cause WW3 no matter what we do, since there are no NATO troops anywhere in Putin's line of fire and if they were he wouldn't attack, simple as that. 

The thing about war is that it turns out it's not super predictable what's going to happen once the missiles start flying. Easy to start a pretty big deal by, say, shooting down a commercial airline or accidentally targeting forces in a different country. 

 

[Clueless Northman]

4 hours 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.  

The US would've made a coup and, in case of failure, invaded Mexico, if the country had shown any sign of wanting to join Warsaw Pact or going full-communism.

A lot of what Russia's done is fucking wrong, but we shouldn't delude ourselves in thinking the US would've acted as if nothing happened, had things occurred the other way around.

I wish both sides realized this, were aware of their own double standards and shortcomings, and everybody calmed the fuck down. A war that would kill tens of thousands in Ukraine, or hundreds of thousands on both sides, would be terrible and should be avoided - at the very least of the next few decades of foreseeable future.

I'm basically agreeing with pretty much all that Kal and Wert have written in the last few pages. I'll just add a couple of points about Russian "paranoia": Putin's older brother died during the siege of Leningrad and possibly most of his family in 1941 died during the war - not his parents though, otherwise we wouldn't have to deal with him now. / Poland, Baltic states and Ukraine don't like Russia much and push NATO to take a harsher position against Russia - not a surprise considering the past and considering the fact that on their own, without US support and intervention, they're still weaker than Russia; it's quite probable that they would push NATO to treat Russia way worse if that country were ever to be significantly weaker (say, like in early 1990s).

As I just said, all sides (countries) involved in this mess have to concede that they could pose some level of threat to the other under the right circumstances, and that either it'll be a feedback loop of mistrust, military buildup and dire warnings until a regional war breaks out, or they all have to take into consideration concerns of the neighbouring countries, to reach not happy friendship - would take centuries probably - but a middle ground that allows all concerned countries to feel safer and to live along each other without risk of invasion or regional war. Of course, the key concessions and guarantees have to come from the biggest powers (US and Russia basically); US and Russia working together to sort some things out and making concesions to each other might have been possible back in 1995-2002, but it's way more difficult right now.

[DMC]

I'm not sure what this argument is about other than everyone rehashing their own account of recent history.  Is the Biden administration doing anything in response to Russia's posturing that they shouldn't be doing?  If someone's mentioned that I must have missed it.

[Toth]

6 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Alternately he's watched what the US and NATO have done in the last 20 years, the treaties that they've violated or broken or ignored, and the weirdness associated with the US and seen a growing instability that he both wants to exploit and wants to mitigate. 

What the fuck are you even arguing for?

I for one like having peace in Europe. I for one like having the EU as a stabilizing factor to ensure that peace, as imperfect as it is most of the time. I don't like a foreign actor financing fucking Nazis that work to tear my country apart. I don't like the US either. I thought Merkel should have stood up to Obama when it turned out his CIA was spying on her phone and sure as hell thought numerous times the EU should grow a spine and become a much more independent actor, especially when the US elected a Russia-backed wannabe-TV-fascist. But not liking the US very much does not in any way, shape or form excuse Putin wanting to cause havoc in my country and its neighbors with which we have such a cozy peaceful union going on. Also I would very much like not having to worry about Russian secret agents shooting someone in broad daylight just a couple of kilometers from where I live. Something that happened. Just two years ago.

Why are my fears less worth than the ones Putin claims with crocodile tears in his eyes? And I'm not even in a country threatened with direct aggression. Like Ukraine. Where people are dying right now. And even far more will die if we let this war happen. This war that will happen because Putin wants to keep the harbor he annexed. With an invasion. That already killed more than ten thousand people.

24 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

That's not what @Ser Scot A Ellison was asking to do, and you know it.

I get it that you want to counter Ser Scot because he comes off as hawkish, but I'm sitting here wondering whether excusing Putin's excuses is seriously the hill you want to die on. Like I said above, Putin is not threatened by direct military action, he has nukes. He knows that. Nobody is willing to push that button. All I'm asking you is to not eat up his bullshit justifications for punishing the countries he considers his god-given pawns.

28 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

The thing about war is that it turns out it's not super predictable what's going to happen once the missiles start flying. Easy to start a pretty big deal by, say, shooting down a commercial airline or accidentally targeting forces in a different country. 

Again: Putin's only target is Ukraine. He doesn't want WW3, so why should we expect something to spiral out of control that badly? This is not the Cold War...

And what's your plan anyway? How to avoid war? The current plan of piling up weapons in Ukraine and then wishing them luck seems to pretty much count on that war happening, us not being a part of it and still wanting to take down as many Russians as possible. Doesn't sound very appealing to me. I rather would have our leaders search for ways to avoid war, even if that means threatening poor misunderstood Putin with serious sanctions that could actually devastate his economy. If we wouldn't tear each other apart about whether we should care or not, we maybe could project enough strength to make him re-think his plans. We need enough leverage to make him accept a proposal that would turn Ukraine into neutral ground, not a battlefield.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Toth said:

What the fuck are you even arguing for?

Understanding that Putin is not a particularly irrational actor and that the western countries - particularly the US - have some major culpability in this crisis. 

Because if we don't understand that this is going to bite us over and over and over again. 

Beyond that, I think it's also good to understand what may and what may not work. For Russia the Ukraine even threatening to join NATO or begging to do so (as Zelesny has done) is crossing a massive red line that they have to answer. And this isn't just Putin - this is the liberal government that Yeltsin had back in the day saying the same thing! So telling Putin to go pound sand is akin to telling the US that they should just be fine with, say, Mexico becoming a virulently anti-US islamic nation; it just isn't a realistic goal here.

What I'd be arguing for is Ukraine to voluntarily declare themselves to be independent and commit to being neutral. That sucks for them for a lot of reasons and does capitulate to Russia, but it is also far less dangerous and far more stabilizing for a while. I'd also (as the US) tell NATO to explicitly state that the Ukraine is not welcome in NATO for at least X years and that while NATO respects their sovereignity they do not have the history of democratic rule in place for long enough to be considered a member state, or something to that effect. It's all bullshit, of course, especially given places like Hungary and Turkey and to a lesser extent Poland, but something like that needs to happen. 

3 minutes ago, Toth said:

I for one like having peace in Europe. I for one like having the EU as a stabilizing factor to ensure that peace, as imperfect as it is most of the time. I don't like a foreign actor financing fucking Nazis that work to tear my country apart. I don't like the US either. I thought Merkel should have stood up to Obama when it turned out his CIA was spying on her phone and sure as hell thought numerous times the EU should grow a spine and become a much more independent actor, especially when the US elected a Russia-backed wannabe-TV-fascist. But not liking the US very much does not in any way, shape or form excuse Putin wanting to cause havoc in my country and its neighbors with which we have such a cozy peaceful union going on. Also I would very much like not having to worry about Russian secret agents shooting someone in broad daylight just a couple of kilometers from where I live. Something that happened. Just two years ago.

Why are my fears less worth than the ones Putin claims with crocodile tears in his eyes? And I'm not even in a country threatened with direct aggression. Like Ukraine. Where people are dying right now. And even far more will die if we let this war happen. This war that will happen because Putin wants to keep the harbor he annexed. With an invasion. That already killed more than ten thousand people. 

Unfortunately you're gonna have to worry about all of those things because Russia has a big-ass army, a ton of nukes and a ton of economic power in Europe. That doesn't excuse it or make you want to like it, but it should at least tell you what is and isn't actually possible. The same is true for Uighurs in China. Or the US and climate change. This isn't anything to do with not liking what the US does or doesn't do and more recognizing that Putin has an actual point.  

The war will happen because for 30 years Russia, under Yeltsin first and consistently since, has stated that if Georgia and Ukraine even threaten to join NATO or NATO tries to encourage them to join that that will provoke war. It isn't just about a harbor or Crimea; this is a very specific statement Russia has had, a very specific position Russia has had for quite a while, and thinking that this is just Putin acting crazy is really ignoring the actual political viewpoint. You can reasonably say that this is an unreasonable demand or that it is unfair to Ukraine or any number of legitimate reasons why it sucks that they want it, but they have made this position about as crystal clear as you can possibly make anything in the world. 

And if you want to avoid a war in Ukraine, you should first understand that position and understand that unless Putin gets something better for his troubles Russia is 100% willing to go to war to back that red line up. I doubt they particularly want to do that for a variety of reasons, but Russia is not  willing to look weak in the face of what they consider unforgiveable NATO aggression and expansion.

3 minutes ago, Toth said:

I get it that you want to counter Ser Scot because he comes off as hawkish, but I'm sitting here wondering whether excusing Putin's excuses is seriously the hill you want to die on. Like I said above, Putin is not threatened by direct military action, he has nukes. He knows that. Nobody is willing to push that button. All I'm asking you is to not eat up his bullshit justifications for punishing the countries he considers his god-given pawns.

Again, this isn't Putin and it isn't his excuses. These are political realities. I think they suck and are bullshit, but that doesn't make them any less true, any more than my feeling about antivaxxers means they don't actually exist either. 

The only question is whether or not you are willing to go to war to stop Russia from invading Ukraine. That really is it. And I think the answer is 'no'. That doesn't mean you shouldn't punish Russia in some way, and ending European dependence on Russia is a good thing no matter what, but you have to understand that Russia very much believes that they need to do this or get assurances that Ukraine will never, ever join NATO, and even those assurances are not particularly valuable to them given the fickle nature of the US recently. 

3 minutes ago, Toth said:

Again: Putin's only target is Ukraine. He doesn't want WW3, so why should we expect something to spiral out of control that badly? This is not the Cold War...

Because war is chaotic and bad, diplomatic options aren't great right now, and miscommunication happens all the time!

Like, if you don't understand that Russia feels that the Ukraine is theirs and has stated that for almost 100 years now and that NATO doing anything there is a Big Red Line, you won't understand how to de-escalate the situation. What if the calls for the US to do air strikes against Russian forces in Ukraine become high enough that Biden chooses to do them? What if we start doing our own cyberactions against Russia and they spiral out of control? What if a rogue military official orders some attacks because they believe Trump is God? 

Shitty things start escalation of wars all the time. Once they start, they don't tend to be all that well-contained.

3 minutes ago, Toth said:

And what's your plan anyway? How to avoid war? The current plan of piling up weapons in Ukraine and then wishing them luck seems to pretty much count on that war happening, us not being a part of it and still wanting to take down as many Russians as possible. Doesn't sound very appealing to me. I rather would have our leaders search for ways to avoid war, even if that means threatening poor misunderstood Putin with serious sanctions that could actually devastate his economy. If we wouldn't tear each other apart about whether we should care or not, we maybe could project enough strength to make him re-think his plans. We need enough leverage to make him accept a proposal that would turn Ukraine into neutral ground, not a battlefield.

As I said above, my plan would be to push really really hard to make Ukraine declare a pact of neutrality. Threatening sanctions is fine; putting them in before Russia does anything would be stupid. But as far as Russia is concerned there is no leverage that NATO has outside of actual war that will cause them to reconsider, and that's my point. 

[Kalbear]

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not sure what this argument is about other than everyone rehashing their own account of recent history.  Is the Biden administration doing anything in response to Russia's posturing that they shouldn't be doing?  If someone's mentioned that I must have missed it.

Publicly stating that NATO should never deny anyone anything is not a very smart move, IMO, if they want to avoid war. 

And really, to be clear this isn't Russia 'posturing'. This is Russia very clearly setting up to invade. This isn't them rattling swords or whatnot. Russia is going to invade, probably in the next 30-45 days, and that will only be stopped by giving them major concessions. 

[Werthead]

4 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

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.

I agree this relies on the belief that the US and NATO are the same thing, which the Russian government may or may not have but it's an easy thing to sell, since Russia and the Warsaw Pact were very much seen as the same thing.

Of course, Russia itself was complicit in the USA's involvement in Afghanistan, loaning airbases for US use and providing a vast array of weapons to the Afghan Northern Alliance. This was also the only one of those examples in which the NATO mutual defence clause was actually invoked and non-US NATO troops were involved in a NATO mission.

Quote

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.

The counter argument is that Russia has had one NATO member directly bordering its territory for the past eighteen years (Estonia, not counting Poland and Lithuania bordering Kaliningrad) and another one for seventy-three years (Norway) and no NATO military incursion against Russian territory has taken place from either territory. In fact, if you want to seriously fuck Russia over, you invade via Estonia because you can have tanks and troops in Russia's second-biggest city on day one of the conflict.

[DMC]

Just now, Kalibuster said:

Publicly stating that NATO should never deny anyone anything is not a very smart move, IMO, if they want to avoid war. 

Of what you mentioned above I agree a neutrality pact would be a feasible concession to deescalate.  I don't think the US should allow Putin to dictate terms on NATO though, no.  No real reason to have NATO if that's the case.

3 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

And really, to be clear this isn't Russia 'posturing'. This is Russia very clearly setting up to invade. This isn't them rattling swords or whatnot. Russia is going to invade, probably in the next 30-45 days, and that will only be stopped by giving them major concessions. 

This is semantics - and not even a convincing semantic argument considering you yourself qualified that they may not invade if given concessions.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

That's not what @Ser Scot A Ellison was asking to do, and you know it.

I’m absolutely talking about sanctions. I’m well aware that boots on the ground is off the table for good reasons.