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

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ok.  Again, this doesn't change the fact Putin is the one trying to change the status quo on the threat of invasion here, not NATO or the US.  

I don't think that's how Russia sees it at all, especially with the joint military exercises that NATO and Ukraine did, or with Zelesny begging NATO membership. 

Again, not saying that it's right, but it really should be something folks understand that this isn't just coming out of nowhere. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

NATO's open door policy is based on Article 10 of its founding document.

Yes? But there's a reason NATO didn't expand into Europe to any degree after 1982 (and only Spain then) and why they went after specific nations before that and not others - and it ain't because they really really cared about Article 10. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

My point is if Ukraine did agree to a neutrality pact as a concession to deescalate, that's certainly something that the US and other EU members could pressure them to do in order to get Putin to save face.  And, again, US/NATO definitely could just give in to Putin's primary demands.  I don't want them to (and they're not) - and you may be right that Putin would still go to war, but that's hardly a sure thing.

I guess that's another issue here. To me, this isn't about saving face for Russia. Backing down might suck - especially without concessions - but I don't know that Russia and Russian allies care that deeply. Russia does, deeply, care about the Ukraine not being allied with the west. I still don't understand why this is so important and want to find out, but it is a very deeply held belief and politically strong position that they hold here. To them, as far as I can tell, their choices are to let the Ukraine join the west and then suffer some catastrophic failure of their country in the future, or go to war now before that happens.

So 'losing face' here means to them a literal failure of the Russian state. And I think that's kind of a big deal. 

[Clueless Northman]

2 hours ago, Toth said:

We need enough leverage to make him accept a proposal that would turn Ukraine into neutral ground, not a battlefield.

Let's fucking do that then. Let's try and see if Putin is serious, let's see if Russian leadership would accept what they claim they want. After all, it's basically how Bashar survived back in 2013 - Kerry was saying to Lavrov "Well if Bashar decided to give up all chemical weapons, so that no new chemical attack could happen, then we wouldn't bomb him next week as planned", and the Russians and Syrians jumped on it "Sure, Syria now gives them all up, so do you stick with the no-bombing promise?". So, let's see if this is truly what Russia wants and if their claimed fears are what their leaders actually fear. If they get concessions close to what they asked for and move the goalposts or keep threatening or even attack, then they'll be seen globally as untrustworthy scumbags.

Of course, "neutral ground" means exactly that: the minute Moscow tries to pull the country fully into Russian sphere, then it's a new Maidan, revolt, fully backed and supplied by NATO - since Russia went full panick mode and supplied separatist militias when Maidan-backed new Ukraine leadership wanted to go full EU.

Caveat: I'm seriously wondering if "strictly neutral ground" isn't actually Putin's desired goal with Ukraine, so doing it might give him some kind of "win" (at least when it comes to his home audience, the only one that truly matters to him). Turning Ukraine into "neutral ground", without being a complete NATO political or strategic defeat, would also means that the US admits it's not the world absolute hegemon but that we're indeed moving towards a multi-polar world; imho this would be just recognizing the reality, but it would also be a kind of political "win" for Russia and China - though this tacit admission might also placate them and make them happy enough to reduce global tensions and even their own expansionist wishes for a few decades. These decades should be taken advantage of so that Europe gets its shit together and actually manages to be a more respectable power military-wise - and for various parts of Asia to get some kind of regional alliances to counter-balance China.

Caveat bis: This is tantamount to a massive sacrifice for most of Ukrainian people, one that's probably unfathomable for many leaders; being "neutral ground doesn't mean lessened economic ties with Europe, and if some kind of lasting peace is achieved this way, Ukraine will deserve a huge lot of economic support and downright aid (that is, no bloody IMF loans) to compensate and bring at long last some economic recovery to the place - actually, were it to me, the country should then be supported and helped to the point it'll be economically the best times they had since independence. Deal with Russia should also include end of separatism in the East - most probably in exchange for some recognition of Russian language, which is one of the sorest points for Moscow, being spoken by 25-30% of people in Ukraine.

Besides, Kal has the right of it: you should try to see why the other guy acts the way he does, not because he's right and you're wrong, or because of appeasement, but most of it because you want to know what he actually hopes to achieve and what he's going to do next - if you've no clue what his motives are, you're not going to be able to predict what he might do, something you can only afford if you have a total military/technological supremacy and the other guy just can't hurt you at all.

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

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.

Sure, but then logistics happen. No sane general would launch a major attack from Estonia: troops buildup would be too obvious, and Baltic States are too exposed, they could be cut off or counter-invaded pretty fast. Ukraine has a big border with Russia and it's easy to supply it from the West in troops and equipment. Not that your argument is fully wrong, but Moscow knows no major attack will come from Norway and has plenty of ways to counter attack from the Baltic States. Heck, NATO attack from Poland on Kaliningrad and Belarus is way more realistic and needs a solid defense to oppose it. With Ukraine, once the Dniepr is crossed, there's no major natural obstacle left in front of Moscow - and invading army would start way closer to Russian heartland than in 1812, 1914 or 1941 (if not 1700); of course, that's assuming massive ground attack - but then the same goes with attacking St. Petersburg from Estonia.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Didn’t the Russians just demand that NATO withdraw all troops and Material from former Warsaw Pact Nation-States that have joined NATO?

More or less. Though I suspect he'd settle for a treaty forbidding deployment of medium-range missiles in some wide area of Central and Eastern Europe yet to be defined. Apparently the real concern seems to be that the missile shield stations can easily harbour not just defensive anti-nuke missiles but offensive nuclear missiles.ike.

[DMC]

Just now, Kalibuster said:

I don't think that's how Russia sees it at all, especially with the joint military exercises that NATO and Ukraine did, or with Zelesny begging NATO membership. 

Again, not saying that it's right, but it really should be something folks understand that this isn't just coming out of nowhere. 

Understanding Russia's side is important, sure, or even just simply playing devil's advocate is of value.  But most of your recent exchanges have appeared to me like you're simply adopting Russia's position.  Putin knows, as everybody does, that Ukraine is not joining NATO in the foreseeable future.  Really, he already won in this regard.  Now he's just being a dick.

5 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Yes? But there's a reason NATO didn't expand into Europe to any degree after 1982 (and only Spain then) and why they went after specific nations before that and not others - and it ain't because they really really cared about Article 10. 

It means it's been their long-held position - longer-held than Yeltsin in the 90s that you were citing.  Putin should not be caught off guard by this in 2022.

[Varysblackfyre321]

38 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Sure! It's also important to understand that if we want to, ya know, avoid actual wars it's good sometimes to not push things towards that war.

It’s also important to realize appeasement isn’t always way to prevent war. Often times—like with the Nazis—it just means you’ve given your enemies to subjugate or kill you in the future.

 I’d imagine you’d applaud Neville Chamberlain to back stab the states the nazis conquered.

38 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Because this lesson? This is going to happen again with Taiwan in the very near future too.

Yeah another totalitarian state will violate the sovereignty of a country and American leftists will demand the US should just let that happen because x bad thing they did/do.

Whilst pretending China although is actually is in the right actually.

38 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

That's the thing - it would be a problem for Russia no matter what!

No it isn’t. Ukraine isn’t going to invade Russia. They’re clamoring to get into nato to protect themselves from it.

38 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

BUT they also have to recognize that they have a very hostile nation at their doorstep who has said, repeatedly, over the last 30 years 'don't do this thing'. 

And so they should apppease Putin and just get under that dictatorship.

38 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Really, the idea of whether or not it's fair, or right, or just - that's all things that people who don't have a dog in the hunt get to say

Also the people threatened with invasion get to say.

38 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

It would be awesome if Ukraine didn't have almost a hundred years of history with Russia

Shared ethnicity isn’t some great justification for annexation, why are American leftists so privy to rehash old nazi justifications?

38 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

and it'd be great if Russia didn't have this massive hardon for them - but that's not the case, any more than it's the case that Taiwan is seen by China as their island too. Life sucks that way some times. 

Yeah. Unfortunately, the only way autocrats like Jing or Putin back off from invading something is if they feel doing so is more costly than it’s worth.

38 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Russia, point blank, does not want any more NATO eastward expansion.

They in fact want to expand west.

It’s too nato’s and the US’s interests Russia does not.

Putin needs to understand that the former states aren’t his. 
You muzzle a rabid dog. You don’t just let it to bite whoever it wishes in hopes someday it’d stop.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Understanding Russia's side is important, sure, or even just simply playing devil's advocate is of value.  But most of your recent exchanges have appeared to me like you're simply adopting Russia's position.  Putin knows, as everybody does, that Ukraine is not joining NATO in the foreseeable future.  Really, he already won in this regard.  Now he's just being a dick.

I don't know that that's accurate. That's certainly not the Ukraine's position. And I think things really did escalate to significant worse things when Ukraine started doing joint exercises with NATO. That's roughly when we started getting a lot more saber-rattling. I'm sure that Trump sending more weapons to Ukraine didn't help with that either. 

And as far as I can tell, NATO did not remotely go back on that at all, clarify anything or give Russia any concessions for this. They just...kept going. They went and said specifically that they were 'not going to return to spheres of influence', which is definitely a change in policy from the 1949 treaty!

Note also that the invasion in 2014 also appeared to be somewhat in response to the Ukrainian uprising and NATO quickly jumping in and saying how they'd love the Ukraine in there, but I suspect they were also simply trying to get Crimea while Ukraine was kind of hosed. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

It means it's been their long-held position - longer-held than Yeltsin in the 90s that you were citing.  Putin should not be caught off guard by this in 2022.

That's NATO's statement, but they didn't act on it and did in fact follow that 'spheres of influence' policy for a long time. They're changing their behaviors and viewpoints and continue to do so. One of the biggest ways is by requiring that NATO members are democratic and capitalistic and that's pretty new. 

Though really, the biggest change probably happened in 2014, where Ukraine's policy and goal of being a non-bloc state was removed. That's again almost certainly Russia's fault as Wert said earlier, but it's another step towards where we are now. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I don't know that that's accurate. That's certainly not the Ukraine's position.

It's certainly accurate that Putin knows Ukraine is not joining NATO in the foreseeable future.  As for Ukraine's position, again, Putin has only himself to blame for that.

12 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

That's NATO's statement, but they didn't act on it and did in fact follow that 'spheres of influence' policy for a long time.

Article 10 doesn't address anything related to "spheres of influence," it just establishes their open door policy for any European state.

18 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

They're changing their behaviors and viewpoints and continue to do so. One of the biggest ways is by requiring that NATO members are democratic and capitalistic and that's pretty new. 

Huh?  The founding members were all democratic/capitalistic - or "neoliberal" - in fact they basically represent what people refer to when they say "the west."

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Huh?  The founding members were all democratic/capitalistic - or "neoliberal" - in fact they basically represent what people refer to when they say "the west."

Also Russia is a worse capitalistic hell’s cape than the US.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s also important to realize appeasement isn’t always way to prevent war. Often times—like with the Nazis—it just means you’ve given your enemies to subjugate or kill you in the future.

 I’d imagine you’d applaud Neville Chamberlain to back stab the states the nazis conquered.

Only as much as you'd applaud random far right militia for shooting people! 

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah another totalitarian state will violate the sovereignty of a country and American leftists the US should just let that happen because x bad thing they did/do.

Whilst pretending China although is actually is in the right.

Ooh, using 'whilst' makes you sound much smarter, though I'd recommend not trying that while also having basic typos and grammatical mistakes. 

Ultimately here's the position I have: the US defending other nations from invasion is not nearly the cut and dried policy win that we have wanted it to be, even when it is the 'right' thing to do from a lot of perspectives. And in general, it is better to try and not fight wars than it is to fight them. Not always! But simple solutions like 'go to war' are usually ignoring small things like massive civilian casualties and miserable experiences for people. 

But sure, blame American progressives! it's all the rage. I personally love being blamed as an American leftist in this topic and simultaneously being blamed as a centrist in the US politics threads. Super fun!

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No it isn’t. Ukraine isn’t going to invade Russia. They’re clamoring to get into nato to protect themselves from it.

Russia doesn't think the Ukraine is going to invade. Russia thinks NATO will use the Ukraine to stage interventions and project military force on Russia. That is literally one of the things they've stated as a reason for not wanting Ukraine to join. 

I mean, it's cool when you make me a strawman, but making Russia a strawman is extra awesome.

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And so they should apppease Putin and just get under that dictatorship. 

Or...die? 

I mean, that's what you're asking for - you're asking for hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to die instead of them saying 'we will not join NATO' and be more pro-Russia. And that's a reasonable position, maybe! But let's be real clear on what you're asking for when you say that you don't want any concession here. 

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Also the people threatened with invasion get to say.

They do! I suspect a whole lot of them are of the opinion that they'd rather not die. 

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Shared ethnicity isn’t some great justification for annexation, why are American leftists so privy to rehash old nazi justifications?

I dunno - ask them maybe? I was talking about the actual political history of the Ukraine and Russia over the last 100 years. Ukraine was one of the three main signatories that ended the previous USSR, as an example, and stabbed Gorbachev in the back in return for more sovereignty and a close alliance with Russia. Ukraine has been historically a massively strategic important place for Russia. You can just...ignore that, and then act surprised when Russia gets pissed, but that doesn't change what has actually happened. 

I guess if you wanted a US example, imagine if Canada suddenly started doing military exercises with China. I don't know that the US would invade (depends on if Trump 2.0 is involved), but I think you would see very quickly that the US was Not Down With That.

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah. Unfortunately, the only way autocrats like Jing or Putin back off from invading something is if they feel doing so is more costly than it’s worth. 

Again you entirely misunderstand the Russian position. Their goal - stated and implied - is not to invade for invasion's sake, at least not this time. (it probably was that way for Crimea, but not here) It is to stop the eastward expansion of NATO, specifically into Ukraine. If NATO was going after, say, Kazakhstan, we'd be having a very different conversation because Putin and Russia don't really care that much. But they very much care about Ukraine getting more allied with the West to the point where they're willing to go to war for that alone. 

Again, this sucks! Especially for Ukraine! But it is also the reality of the situation, and wishing that it were not so does not change that it is the case. 

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They in fact want to expand west.

It’s too nato’s and the US’s interests Russia does not.

Ooh, should've slipped in another 'whilst'. Maybe next time!

Russia would like to end NATO. They would like to fracture the EU and were thrilled with the UK leaving the EU (there ya go, happy @Ser Scot A Ellison?). And they've been pushing more and more paramilitary and espionage disruption tactics towards these goals, and the US and other western countries should not as a rule let them stand. I've said for a long time that what Russia did in 2016 was worthy of significantly more escalation than what happened - and the US needed to step up at that point and say that this was not acceptable behavior. 

But ultimately the US and those Western nations are not, as of yet, willing to go to war to fight for that. Russia is 100% willing to fight to stop Ukraine from joining NATO. Again, totally sucks - but this is not Hussein invading Kuwait for oil or a Nazi quest for lebensraum; this is Russia setting up missiles in Cuba in response to the US setting up missiles in Turkey. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's certainly accurate that Putin knows Ukraine is not joining NATO in the foreseeable future.  As for Ukraine's position, again, Putin has only himself to blame for that.

I don't know that Putin knows Ukraine isn't joining. Things have sped up considerably since Juncker said  that it'd be 20-25 years before Ukraine joined. 

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Article 10 doesn't address anything related to "spheres of influence," it just establishes their open door policy for any European state.

I understand that, but that wasn't the acted-on policy of NATO for roughly 50 years of its life. NATO was very, very careful to not expand beyond certain limits and try and avoid spheres of influence that Russia had. (Russia was similarly careful with the US). 

But again, that has changed since, and NATO has made that spheres of influence statement explicit:

“Russia has no veto. Russia has no say. And Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence, trying to control their neighbours,” Stoltenberg told reporters, pounding his podium.

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Huh?  The founding members were all democratic/capitalistic - or "neoliberal" - in fact they basically represent what people refer to when they say "the west."

Founding? Almost. Portugal was a founding member and was very much not a democracy. Turkey and Greece? Not so much. The main criteria of NATO at the time was really anti-communist and largely pro-capitalist, but that whole pesky democracy thing didn't matter so much.

he whole Membership Action Plan idea was done in 1999, and specifically calls for members:

Quote

 

Willingness to settle international, ethnic or external territorial disputes by peaceful means, commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and democratic control of armed forces

Ability to contribute to the organization's defence and missions

Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership

Security of sensitive information, and safeguards ensuring it

Compatibility of domestic legislation with NATO cooperation

 

That wasn't an issue prior to the USSR dissolution. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Russia would like to end NATO. They would like to fracture the EU and were thrilled with the UK leaving the EU (there ya go, happy

:))

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalibuster said:

I don't know that Putin knows Ukraine isn't joining. Things have sped up considerably since Juncker said  that it'd be 20-25 years before Ukraine joined.

I think he clearly does, but this argument is going anywhere.

2 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I understand that, but that wasn't the acted-on policy of NATO for roughly 50 years of its life. NATO was very, very careful to not expand beyond certain limits and try and avoid spheres of influence that Russia had. (Russia was similarly careful with the US). 

But again, that has changed since, and NATO has made that spheres of influence statement explicit:

That spheres of influence statement is completely irrelevant. 

All the open door policy says is that NATO can invite any European state to join.  Doesn't say they have to.  You're confusing what countries NATO has invited throughout its history with what the open door policy represents - that no one (and, obviously, especially Russia) can deny any European state membership.  That's why this demand is a nonstarter.  And, again, Putin knew it was going to be a nonstarter.

14 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Founding? Almost. Portugal was a founding member and was very much not a democracy. Turkey and Greece? Not so much. The main criteria of NATO at the time was really anti-communist and largely pro-capitalist, but that whole pesky democracy thing didn't matter so much.

LOL, you really wanna argue about the most pointless and minute details of anything, don't you?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

And, again, Putin knew it was going to be a nonstarter.

This is really all it needs to boil down to. Putin knew his demands were nonstarters. He also knew that his actions were a provocation, trying to use the excuse of "she made me hit her." And finally he knows that Ukraine joining NATO isn't happening anytime soon. His talking points are all bullshit, he knows it and he knows we know it and is probing at what he can get away with. It's wise to try and understand Russia's perspective, but not through the lens of their clear and obvious propaganda. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

Ooh, using 'whilst'

I kinda always thought that can be used by anyone without feeling too forced.

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

Only as much as you'd applaud random far right militia for shooting people! 

Wait are you saying you would or wouldn’t applaud Chamberlain’s appeasement strategy? Because you seem to be insinuating you’d act the same way you think I’d act in response to a far right militia shooting people.  If you’re saying I would applaud such a scenario than I guess you are saying the appeasement strategy was really good on Hitler and you applaud. If you’re saying I wouldn’t…uh thank you I guess. Idk lol.

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

Ultimately here's the position I have: the US defending other nations from invasion is not nearly the cut and dried policy win that we have wanted it to be, even when it is the 'right' thing to do from a lot of perspectives.

And from the US’s perspective. As much as I wish it were not the case Isolationism would weaken America.

the US can’t just bunker down and have the world have no effect on it.

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

And in general, it is better to try and not fight wars than it is to fight them

Who here or any high level official  has called for America to personally fight?

Whats been offered is giving aid in the forms of weapons, money, to Ukraine and dealing out sanctions to Russia when/if they invade or continue to threaten to invade.

What your arguing is just for flat-out appeasement because Russia wants Ukrain and we don’t wanna make them mad.

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

I dunno - ask them maybe? I was talking about the actual political history of the Ukraine and Russia over the last 100 years. Ukraine was one of the three main signatories that ended the previous USSR, a

And the USSR is dead.

it was dissolved decades ago. Russia isn’t the Soviet Union and the US would be fools if it simply let Russia act like it was unbothered.

 

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

You can just...ignore that,

As much as I can and people should have ignored nazi Germany’s claim to Poland yes. Shared ethnicity isn’t justification for invasion. 

And you can ignore what the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians actually want. 

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

guess if you wanted a US example, imagine if Canada suddenly started doing military exercises with China. I don't know that the US would invade (depends on if Trump 2.0 is involved), but I think you would see very quickly that the US was Not Down With That.

Ukrain will not invade Russia, they never planned to, and all they would like from Russia at the moment is to leave them alone.

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

Again you entirely misunderstand the Russian position. Their goal - stated and implied - is not to invade for invasion's sake, at least not this time. (it probably was that way for Crimea, but not here)

Of course not.

like all invasions, people start them because there’s an expectation of  a reward that would justify the cost of such

From NATO and the US perspective making sure Russia fails to absorb Ukrain or its neighboring states is to their material interests.

It clashes with putin’s interest in expansion.  Sucks for him, but it’d be stupid if the US just let him have everything he wanted because he demanded it.

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

this is Russia setting up missiles in Cuba in response to the US setting up missiles in Turkey. 

You get that the missiles in question were nuclear ones right? You know the things that could obliterate a country before they had a chance to respond.

Ukrain doesn’t have nuclear missiles. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

Or...die? 

Or…for Putin to not murder them?

They don’t want to be made puppets of Russia or killed by them. These positions aren’t contradictory.

3 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

mean, that's what you're asking for - you're asking for hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to die instead of them saying 'we will not join NATO' and be more pro-Russia.

The Ukrainians would rather fight than be under Russia’s imperialist boot. Maybe you think they’re stupid for seeing their subjugation as a reasonable sacrifice for peace. But they in general don’t agree with you. And NATO’s interest mutually aligns with Ukraine’s want for sovereignty so they’re acting reasonably in pursuit of their specific goals.

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

she made me hit her."

“And she made me hit her harder when she called the cops to get me to stop hitting her.”

[kiko]

Speaking of sanctions: instead of or additional to the self-crippling sanctions against the Russian gas pipelines and the inconvenience of no direct access to Swift isn't there another almost painless way? London could freeze all illegal Russian oligarch assets while hinting that it wouldn't be unfrozen as long as Putin is moving against Ukraine. I know it feels like Putin has a tight grip on his oligarchs, but only because he allows them to make money as long as they pay their share. He can separate one from the herd easily but if his actions hurt all their pockets and ability to enjoy their wealth abroad, I think that would put as much pressure on him as the need for using one additional hop for Russian money flowing through the Swift system.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Reading the response to Kal here you'd think he's been advocating for Russia to invade Ukraine and then for the rest of the world to do nothing about it.  

[karaddin]

Yeah, at the end of the day I think something adjacent to Kal's point is: if Russia are committed to this invasion to the point of the sanctions not mattering, then there's really only one thing the West can do about it - which is military action. If the West is unwilling to do this, irrespective of why we're not, then it's not unreasonable to hope for Ukraine to make the necessary concessions to satisfy Putin and avoid said invasion even if that outcome is 1) shitty and 2) rewards Putin for his belligerence. Ukraine shouldn't have to bleed just because it's wrong for Putin to win this way.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying the West getting involved militarily would be a good idea, just that it's the only truly concrete action.

ETA: Kal - whilst some people may use the word "whilst" to try and sound smart, some of us just grew up with it as the appropriate variant in certain contexts and your sniping on that point is pretty frustrating even if I doubt its the case for many Americans

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, karaddin said:

if Russia are committed to this invasion to the point of the sanctions not mattering, then there's really only one thing the West can do about it - which is military action. If the West is unwilling to do this, irrespective of why we're not, then it's not unreasonable to hope for Ukraine to make the necessary concessions to satisfy Putin and avoid said invasion even if that outcome is 1) shitty and 2) rewards Putin for his belligerence. Ukraine shouldn't have to bleed just because it's wrong for Putin to win this way.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that if Ukraine wants to make those concessions and it succeeds in deescalating, great!  Or at least I'm not.  My problem is when "understanding" Putin becomes adopting his very obviously bullshit reasoning and acting like Biden or the US or NATO should (or shouldn't) be doing anything they aren't already doing.  And it's especially preposterous when this is framed as a "realpolitik" perspective on the crisis.

[polishgenius]

6 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

If NATO was going after, say, Kazakhstan, we'd be having a very different conversation because Putin and Russia don't really care that much. Bu

 

If that's true, it rather puts the lie to the idea that it's 'encircling' or even mostly tactical advantage that makes them concerned about the Ukraine. Like yeah obviously Ukraine in Nato would directly threaten Russia's naval bases in the Black Sea, but if it came to conflict, NATO military presence in Kazakhstan would threaten that area of Russia almost as much, while also providing almost as close a threat to Moscow as the Baltic states do but from the opposite direction, and sharing by far the longest land border with Russia of any nation. If it's really about that Kazakhstan will be nearly as much of a no-go, and if you buy into the argument that Russia wouldn't care, it really just supports the argument that all this is not anything to do with NATO direct, but overwhelmingly about Russia's bee in their bonnet about the Kievan Rus' and trying to claim long-term legitimacy via implied historicity. A legacy, from Putin - 'the man who got the heartlands back'. 
   

 

That would also mean it far less likely that Russia would actually back off if NATO did.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Reading the response to Kal here you'd think he's been advocating for Russia to invade Ukraine and then for the rest of the world to do nothing about it.  

No he’s just advocating for appeasement. Just give the dictator from economically fragile with ambitions of expansion what it wants and hope he chills.

That NATO Doesn’t  give Ukraine arms, or money, or sanction Russia heavily in response to their crimes.

53 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Putin and avoid said invasion even if that outcome is 1) shitty and 2) rewards Putin for his belligerence. Ukraine shouldn't have to bleed just because it's wrong for Putin to win this way.

The concessions would essentially make it a puppet for an autocracy with a long and recent history concerning its treatment of Ukraine.

I’m sorry the way you’re framing this makes it seem as though Ukraine resisting Putin is childish. 

I don’t think you’d do this if a western colonial power trying to re-establish domination over a country they once subjugated, through the threat of military force. Like you wouldn’t openly wish  the former colony to submit to avoid bloodshed and say they shouldn’t have to bleed just deny their former masters a win.