Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 6 hours ago, Arakan said: 2. Yes but useless question anyway or we could start a philosophical conversation about what non-contractual promises are worth anyway nowadays. We don’t live in „honor“ societies with duels and shit anymore So, Representative Democracies can be bound in treaty by the mere verbal statements of agents of those Representative Democracies? There is no requirement that the people making the representation have express authority to make the alleged promises made or that the legislatures of the Representative Democracies confirm the treaty made verbally? Agency law for individuals and corporations is fraught and complicated in a mere business context. It requires special agecy be established and formalities completed to bind individuals and corporations in contracts. Are you really claiming that any individual who mentions a possible agreement for a nation-state can bind that nation-state as though there has been a formal treaty signing without anything like those formalities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 Of course the US is a hegemonic power, which has frequently acted in ways that are imperialistic. It does not mean the US is always wrong. The US was right to take part in WWII, the Korean War, the First Gulf War, the war in former Yugoslavia, even if other military adventures were downright immoral. The US was right to underpin NATO and the world is a better place of it. It's better to be inconsistently right than to be consistently wrong. And, given that the world will always have hegemonic powers, the US is preferable to the alternatives, in the form of Russia, China, or (in past times) European empires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 Right. I am a little puzzled by the idea of the benevolent authoritarian state. That if the West had played very nice with Russia in the 1990s, that Russia would be very grateful when it got itself back on its feet. And it would now be giving everyone lovely hugs. I mean, its not impossible. But expecting anything very positive to emerge from the chaos of the 1990s Russia is very optimistic. I don't think NATO expansion is the original sin in this drama. You need to go back further to why all those countries wanted to join NATO and then further back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 8 minutes ago, Padraig said: Right. I am a little puzzled by the idea of the benevolent authoritarian state. That if the West had played very nice with Russia in the 1990s, that Russia would be very grateful when it got itself back on its feet. And it would now be giving everyone lovely hugs. I mean, its not impossible. But expecting anything very positive to emerge from the chaos of the 1990s Russia is very optimistic. I don't think NATO expansion is the original sin in this drama. You need to go back further to why all those countries wanted to join NATO and then further back... Thank you for that point. I’ll ask the folks claiming this whole mess exista because of NATO’s eastward expansion… were the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania wrong to worry about the actions of Russia and Russian Allies after the dissolution of the Soviet Union? If these nation-states were not members of NATO… would Russia or Russian allies threaten their sovereignty or seek to force them into the Russian “sphere of influence”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 I think it's possible different action in the 90s might have resulted in a different situation now, but I don't think that different action was being even less involved and denying eastern European states that wanted to move closer to the west. If the west had found a way to embrace Russia in a way that helped it back to a better economic situation, then Putin may never have gained power in the first place. But that's a very different counter factual and probably closer to bringing Russia into the EU and NATO than it is to freezing their sphere of influence to try help Russia stay a super power. It's also, obviously, not what happened and not particularly relevant now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 A think piece from three months ago by an old hand, professional Russian watcher. https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/11/12/ukraine-putin-s-unfinished-business-pub-85771 Quote . . . . Important as it is, generational nostalgia for the old empire has an enduring strategic rationale behind it, which suggests that Russia’s policy toward its neighbors is not likely to change dramatically even after the Putin generation leaves the stage. Strategic depth—the buffer between the Russian heartland and powerful European adversaries—has long been a critical requirement for the security of the Russian state. This quest for strategic depth has defined the Kremlin’s policy since the times of Peter the Great, if not earlier. Strategic depth saved Russia from defeat in 1812 when Napoleon’s armies captured Moscow and in 1941 when Hitler’s armies marched almost to the gates of the Soviet capital. With the collapse of the USSR and the expansion of NATO, Russia has lost that strategic depth. Regaining it is an essential requirement of Russian security policy that has endured through centuries, revolutions, and government changes. Over time, advancements in military technology and cyber tools may affect the importance Russian leaders ascribe to strategic depth, but in general it is likely to remain a top priority. . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Oop North Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 Casus belli continues to be defined .. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60451955 Quote Russian President Vladimir Putin and his ally Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko have extended military drills which were due to end on Sunday. A statement cited the "deterioration of the situation" in east Ukraine as one reason for keeping an estimated 30,000 Russian troops in Belarus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 17 hours ago, Kalibuster said: If the EU stopped buying gas from Russia Russia would either collapse or go into a deep recession. Or they would just sell it to Asia instead and maybe the recession starts in the EU? The interdependancy is too strong currently and a solution is anything but clear yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiko Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said: Or they would just sell it to Asia instead and maybe the recession starts in the EU? The interdependancy is too strong currently and a solution is anything but clear yet. The US managed to butt heads with of the biggest producer and one of the biggest consumer of natural gas and oil at the same time and is aiming to boycott both now. I'm not convinced of the merits of this strategy. Not that they don't have reasons to quarrel with them but still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said: Or they would just sell it to Asia instead and maybe the recession starts in the EU? The interdependancy is too strong currently and a solution is anything but clear yet. Are the pipelines in place to sell the excess oil and gas to Asia if Europe shuts off the tap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueless Northman Posted February 20, 2022 Share Posted February 20, 2022 10 hours ago, SeanF said: And, given that the world will always have hegemonic powers, the US is preferable to the alternatives, in the form of Russia, China, or (in past times) European empires. I don't think most Chinese, Russians or Europeans would agree, though 3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Are the pipelines in place to sell the excess oil and gas to Asia if Europe shuts off the tap? They already have a big one, but as far as I know they're busy making another one. Not sure how long it'll take, but considering how both countries can make things fast, not bothering with red tape or usual lengthy processes of the West, I'd say it'll be done in a couple of years. So Russia might suffer financially until 2024, and less so afterwards. I say "less so" because China being the key buyer and the main market, Beijing would be able to negotiate a better price than Berlin+Paris+Vienna+Brussels or whatever. 9 hours ago, Zorral said: A think piece from three months ago by an old hand, professional Russian watcher. https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/11/12/ukraine-putin-s-unfinished-business-pub-85771 This needs to be repeated again and again. It's what always amuses me when commenters and politicians consider Putin as specially evil and the key nuisance, as if taking him out would solve everything. The only thing is that Russia without Putin could have a less effective and stupider leader, but the next one will be just as patriotic and will have similar goals when it comes to Russia's Western flank; Putin's successor, be it Shoigu, Lavrov, Navalny, Zhirinovsky, or Zyuganov, won't have a much different policy towards NATO expansion and Ukraine. I tend to think it's better to try to settle things with the sanest leader instead of waiting for a dumb fuck or a crazy dude to take over - unless you hope for and are ok with waiting for a possible collapse of the entire country, even more hoping for a second collapse that, like the incredibly lucky collapse of 1989-1991, once again wouldn't imply a major war. Need for strategic depth all around Muscowy has been a constant since the Middle-ages, unsurprising when you're a big landlocked country surrounded by other nations. Battles against Swedes and Crusaders and centuries-long struggle against Tatar rule left a deep mark on the country. It's telling that Alexander Nevsky is considered the biggest Russian hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 23 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said: Need for strategic depth all around Muscowy has been a constant since the Middle-ages, unsurprising when you're a big landlocked country surrounded by other nations. Without Ukraine “Muscowy” has significant strategic depth. Are the Russians justified in going after Poland again if they get Ukraine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share Posted February 21, 2022 8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Without Ukraine “Muscowy” has significant strategic depth. Are the Russians justified in going after Poland again if they get Ukraine? Again, justification isn't the issue. Russia believes this, has believed this, and will likely continue to believe this for a while. You have only a couple options with this being the case - let Russia do this or don't, or figure out some other way to appease Russia. Whether it's fair or just or reasonable doesn't matter in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 11 minutes ago, Kalibuster said: Again, justification isn't the issue. Russia believes this, has believed this, and will likely continue to believe this for a while. You have only a couple options with this being the case - let Russia do this or don't, or figure out some other way to appease Russia. Whether it's fair or just or reasonable doesn't matter in the least. True. But for the fear of uncontrollable escalation I would support direct military intervention, if Ukraine were to request such, to defend Ukraine from a Russian invasion. But I fear uncontrollably escalation… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 Some reports suggesting that Russia may be stepping back. Macron and Putin have reportedly agreed to a high-level, multi-national summit to discuss things. Some reports that Britain and the USA's latest sanction threats, effectively stopping Russia from being able to trade in British sterling or the US dollar, may have really gotten Moscow's attention, and Germany seems to now be willing to impose sanctions on Nordstream. All of these things will really hurt the Russian economy. It could still be obfuscation and Russia may still invade tomorrow or a week on Tuesday, but that sounds at least vaguely hopeful. Quote Need for strategic depth all around Muscowy has been a constant since the Middle-ages, unsurprising when you're a big landlocked country surrounded by other nations. Russia also has 40,000km of coastline, with St. Petersburg, Vladivostok, Sevastopol and Kalinigrad as major ports. Russia also has extensive land borders with countries that are effectively vassals (Kazakhstan, Belarus, the central Asian republics). It's not exactly landlocked. Also, history has told other nations repeatedly that invading Russia is a total non-starter even without being nuked. Quote Are the Russians justified in going after Poland again if they get Ukraine? This is one of the concerns. If they take Ukraine and don't get a tough response, they'll be dusting off those plans to go after the Baltic States. They did seem to downplay that recently, saying they would not think of instigating a war against NATO, but they say a lot of things. They may also been looking towards 2024 and seeing what the next US President is like. If they're saying things like, "Where the fuck is Estonia and why should Americans die for them?" Russia may feel emboldened to go after them next. This all presupposes that they do invade Ukraine. This weekend was arguably the most logical time to do that and they've now apparently gone through a second window with the invasion not happening (no doubt for more trolling next week about the West warning of an invasion that never comes). However, keeping their troops in Belarus when they are not needed is a red flag. It might be they are still hoping that Ukraine caves and agrees to sign a deal ruling out NATO membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share Posted February 21, 2022 2 hours ago, Werthead said: Also, history has told other nations repeatedly that invading Russia is a total non-starter even without being nuked. I mean, yes? But it also hasn't actually stopped would be invaders from trying several times. I don't think it's a particularly rational viewpoint that Russia needs to have this buffer, but I also don't think that rationality matters. As I said in the previous thread and here it is a sincerely held belief that has a long history. Saying to someone that they're stupid for believing something isn't going to dissuade them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Kalibuster said: But it also hasn't actually stopped would be invaders from trying several times. No one is going to invade Russia when it has nukes. Least anyone who doesn’t want humanity to die. Putin is many things but he’s not an overly fearful fool. 1 hour ago, Kalibuster said: don't think it's a particularly rational viewpoint that Russia needs to have this buffer, but I also don't think that rationality matters It serves no one but the corrupt oligarchs in Russia to take their expressed worries as genuine instead of what it is; just a pretense to make their brutality seem better than it actually is. 1 hour ago, Kalibuster said: As I said in the previous thread and here it is a sincerely held belief that has a long history. No it isn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share Posted February 21, 2022 22 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: No one is going to invade Russia when it has nukes. Least anyone who doesn’t want humanity to die. Turns out there are a lot of those. 22 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Putin is many things but he’s not an overly fearful fool. Fear maybe? Maybe he doesn't want to go nuclear and fears that? 22 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: It serves no one but the corrupt oligarchs in Russia to take their expressed worries as genuine instead of what it is; just a pretense to make their brutality seem better than it actually is. What pretense? What an idiotic argument. Russia does not care what you think of their pretense because it matters to them to have a buffer around their country. You can call that stupid or irrational or short sighted and none of that changes that viewpoint. The only thing to understand is that this will be a point of contention - which Russians will be willing to go to war over - for decades. That isn't going to change if you call it stupid. That doesn't change anything of how good or bad it is. You're arguing against the river. It ain't gonna change its course because of your feelings. 22 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: No it isn’t. As zorral pointed out just upthread and others pointed out earlier, yes, it is. I am not justifying an invasion or saying anything about Russia being in the right, but none of that matters. This is going to be what Russia will do. It's what Yeltsin wanted to do. It's what putin wants to do. It will be what putins successor will likely want to do. You can hate that all you like. You can hate terrorists thinking its okay to kill innocent women because their God says so, you can think it's horrible that the Chinese are committing genocide. But that won't change that viewpoint. So I ask again - Ukraine is accepting people to join their forces right now. Several Americans have gone over. When do you ship out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 31 minutes ago, Kalibuster said: Turns out there are a lot of those. Not really no. 31 minutes ago, Kalibuster said: Fear maybe? Maybe he doesn't want to go nuclear and fears that? Neither do members of nato or the US. Hence not trying to topple him through more direct military means in the decades he’s proved a nuisance. 31 minutes ago, Kalibuster said: As zorral pointed out just upthread and others pointed out earlier, yes, it is. I No it isn’t. Statesmen rarely frame their power-grabs as anything but self-defense against an immoral irrational enemy. 31 minutes ago, Kalibuster said: I am not justifying an invasion or saying anything about Russia being in the right, but none of that matters. I agree to an extent; it doesn’t matter if Russia thinks they’re in the moral right or even if they’re irrational for thinking so. The west still mustn’t humor their nonesense. 31 minutes ago, Kalibuster said: This is going to be what Russia will do. It's what Yeltsin wanted to do. It's what putin wants to do. It will be what putins successor will likely want to do. You can hate that all you like Sure. I can recognize appeasement to whatever ridiculous demands they give is unlikely but encourage them to demand and take more. 31 minutes ago, Kalibuster said: you can think it's horrible that the Chinese are committing genocide. Hey the CPC says they’re liberating Uighur women through their efforts. All their sterilizing and forced abortions are just being done because they value gender equality. Do you think we should believe them? 31 minutes ago, Kalibuster said: When do you ship out? Tell me honestly when Russia begins killing people are you going to lecture Ukrainians for fighting back instead peacefully surrendering? Are you going to go out and protest in the name of stopping arms shipments and financial aid to Ukraine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 9 hours ago, kiko said: The US managed to butt heads with of the biggest producer and one of the biggest consumer of natural gas and oil at the same time and is aiming to boycott both now. I'm not convinced of the merits of this strategy. Not that they don't have reasons to quarrel with them but still... It's a proverbial rock and a hard place. I'm wondering if Biden and the Europeans will actually be successful and convince Putin to not invade through the diplomacy and sanction manuevering? If sucessful, this should be a well earned victory lap for all involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.