Jump to content

Ukraine 9: Where does it go from here


Ser Scot A Ellison
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Their last president has/had a lot of dodgy dealings with Russia, not to mention claims Russia has a compromising tape of Trump. A lot of Russian money went to the Trumps.

Not to mention Trump publicly took Putin’s side over US Intelligence, and then there was the cringe “Reek” meme event

 

It did not change the fact, that USA in general kept treating Russia as foe, Trumps administration imposed sanctions, fought Nordstream 2, expelled diplomats and sold weapons to Ukraine. And Trump is sort of special case.

BTW as far as I remember he also tried to force European states to increase expenses on their military forces, as it just turned out it was not bad idea.

Edited by broken one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

[sigh]

 

I've backspaced five uncharitable replies to both you and Larry in the last 10 - 15 minutes. It's a really charged topic for me, and clearly I'm not in the right headspace for it. I'm going to back out and try to find my zen.

 

I feel you, I really do. I backspace at least 5 replies that shouldn’t see the daylight of the internet every time I open this thread too and just quietly follow. I think we all do, because it’s a really charged topic for a lot of us and we see it from very different perspectives. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s too easy to get lost in our own values and views and fears and wishes, at least I’m 100% guilty of frequently slipping into this, maybe some handle it better. But still we shouldn’t lose site of the fact that we all actually share one wish which is for peace. And I’m sorry if I said something that hit too close to home for you or anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Speaking of Americans not knowing European geography, a coworker told me last week that an American reporter was doing a piece on the refugees going to Romania. The reporter mentioned where a major refugee center was set up but instead of simply naming the city, the reporter referenced the distance to, ahem, Dracula's castle. :laugh: :bang:

Yes that sounds bad with a European mind. But to be fair, if you want me to understand the location of Californian bushfires, Disney or Golden Gate Bridge are the only viable points of reference too, so no judgment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, broken one said:

It did not change the fact, that USA in general kept treating Russia as foe, Trumps administration imposed sanctions, fought Nordstream 2, expelled diplomats and sold weapons to Ukraine. And Trump is sort of special case.

BTW as far as I remember he also tried to force European states to increase expenses on their military forces, as it just turned out it was not bad idea.

That memory is not entirely correct and the most generous reading of what the former guy did.

The defense spending of 2% of the GDP for all NATO members.

The one brought it first up was Dubya at one of the NATO summits. Back then it was not particularly concrete (by when it should be achieved). Next up Obama. Another NATO summit. He picked up on the 2% target, reiterated it and pointed out, that the public mood towards Team America Worldpolice is changing back home, so the other NATO members should up their spending, and this time a concrete time frame was agreed by which they should hit that 2% target (by 2024 IIRC, Rip, DMC or Werthead can correct me). Enter the orange turd. 

NATO is obsolete, we should disband NATO, the US is carrying all the costs of those moocher states, they should pay the US (for whatever reason), they are not meeting their obligation. Ofc, the time frame was different (check above) and he just used the insufficient spending of NATO members as a stick to beat them with, either for political gains domestically, or to drive a wedge between NATO states for reasons (and to Putin's liking).

That's what actually happened in a nutshell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Ofc, the time frame was different (check above) and he just used the insufficient spending of NATO members as a stick to beat them with, either for political gains domestically, or to drive a wedge between NATO states for reasons (and to Putin's liking).

Yeah, and Putin achieved the increase of spending, in even less polite way, with less noble intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Darzin said:

One way to deal with the Tallin problem is to make it less of a choice. I do wish Biden woud've said prior to the war that should Russia invade a major base would be established in Estonia and even now 20,000 US troops there would preemptively call the bluff. 

But if Russia can't beat Ukriane they certnianly can't take on another country xI doubt they could even manage to invade Estonia alone while maintaning thier commitments in Ukraine. 

About the invasion of Estonia: The Baltic countries were historically not part of a greater Russion empire (neither orthodox christians nor speaking a slavian language) and surly they will not be attack being  NATO countries.

I believe the expansion into Europe of an aggressive Russian empire would be more likely starting in serbia. They are orthodox christians and thought historically positiv of russia as their protective power. They were (totally justified but still) bombed by the NATO. They had the only pro Russians demonstrations in the last weeks in all of Europe. What if Russia extents their protectiv military might to them (like the old warzaw pact, the opponent of the NATO). What then if they attack kosovo or bosnia (which is not so unlikely, they are not happy with the way the borders were drawn) and then e.g. north-macedonia or croatia (which are NATO members) intercept on behalf of their population in these countries. We would then have a  NATO-Russia confrontation in the middle of Europe. I personally do not think this scenario is unlikely, but I am not from the Balkans and would really like to here from board members of this region , who know this more closely,  how likely they think this is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

About the invasion of Estonia: The Baltic countries were historically not part of a greater Russion empire (neither orthodox christians nor speaking a slavian language) and surly they will not be attack being  NATO countries.

I believe the expansion into Europe of an aggressive Russian empire would be more likely starting in serbia. They are orthodox christians and thought historically positiv of russia as their protective power. They were (totally justified but still) bombed by the NATO. They had the only pro Russians demonstrations in the last weeks in all of Europe. What if Russia extents their protectiv military might to them (like the old warzaw pact, the opponent of the NATO). What then if they attack kosovo or bosnia (which is not so unlikely, they are not happy with the way the borders were drawn) and then e.g. north-macedonia or croatia (which are NATO members) intercept on behalf of their population in these countries. We would then have a  NATO-Russia confrontation in the middle of Europe. I personally do not think this scenario is unlikely, but I am not from the Balkans and would really like to here from board members of this region , who know this more closely,  how likely they think this is.

 

The anti-covid measures protests here in Austria have adopted a pro Russian stance including the waving of flags. They are bigger than anti war protests but being pro Russia or anti LGBT is his a bonus for them not the main reason people go there.

Edited by Luzifer's right hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, broken one said:

Americans and Canadians tend to understand whats going on in Europe better than some Europeans. Anyway they are not bombarded by Russian propaganda, entangled with pipes nor corrupted by Russian business. 

False.

This has been going on in the USA, at least, for years, lead by Murdoch's Faux News, this propaganda about Putin and Russia strong=good, US and Democrats and etc. weak=bad.

Here is a single example of how it is currently operating.

"How Russia and Right-Wing Americans Converged on War in Ukraine
Some conservatives have echoed the Kremlin’s misleading claims about the war and vice versa, giving each other’s assertions a sheen of credibility."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/technology/russia-american-far-right-ukraine.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

About the invasion of Estonia: The Baltic countries were historically not part of a greater Russion empire (neither orthodox christians nor speaking a slavian language) and surly they will not be attack being  NATO countries.

The baltic countries definitely were part of the Russian Empire, as was Finland. They became independent after WWI but were invaded by Stalin as part of the pact that also divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Loge said:

The baltic countries definitely were part of the Russian Empire, as was Finland. They became independent after WWI but were invaded by Stalin as part of the pact that also divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union.

By that logic… so was Poland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

I believe the expansion into Europe of an aggressive Russian empire would be more likely starting in serbia. They are orthodox christians and thought historically positiv of russia as their protective power. They were (totally justified but still) bombed by the NATO. They had the only pro Russians demonstrations in the last weeks in all of Europe. What if Russia extents their protectiv military might to them (like the old warzaw pact, the opponent of the NATO). What then if they attack kosovo or bosnia (which is not so unlikely, they are not happy with the way the borders were drawn) and then e.g. north-macedonia or croatia (which are NATO members) intercept on behalf of their population in these countries. We would then have a  NATO-Russia confrontation in the middle of Europe. I personally do not think this scenario is unlikely, but I am not from the Balkans and would really like to here from board members of this region , who know this more closely,  how likely they think this is.

None of the countries around Serbia would be amenable to allow Russia to directly support Servia militarily, and most are part of NATO, so I have no idea how Russia would be able to do this. So I guess only with supplying munitions, and only even if this is allowed by NATO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Loge said:

The baltic countries definitely were part of the Russian Empire, as was Finland. They became independent after WWI but were invaded by Stalin as part of the pact that also divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union.

But then we would go back to the Mongol debate. Yes they were part of the Russian Empire at one point, but at older points they weren't. Moldova, for example, could unite with Romania, as they were one country between the two world wars, and thus effectively become part of NATO. Neither country is really making moves for that. (I'm sure there are people making these noises, there always are)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

By that logic… so was Poland.

After the partitions of Poland in late eighteenth century by Russia, Prussia and Austria, sure, part of Poland was part of Russian Empire for more than a century. It didn't change the fact (or in fact it contributed to it greatly), that we are perceived as one of the most anti Russian nations in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...