Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[MCO]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

I've listened to this. On a side note, I sometimes wonder if academics and analyst flex by just trying to put as many books on their backwall as possible. Like... I seriously doubt this dude has read all or even half of those in their entirety.

Anyway, he makes some credible arguments and some that are problematic. His biggest problem is he simultaneously acknowledges that it was irresponsible for NATO to offer membership to Ukraine in 2008 while also saying Russia is solely responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. That is sort of a logical fallacy. You can't be irresponsible for something but then at the same time not be responsible for it and I think it shows the black and white thinking so many people possess in terms of IR and geopolitics, that there must be a right and must be a wrong. 

I don't think anyone wouldn't argue that Putin is "more" responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. But the question is how much more and how responsible was the US and NATO with their needless growth and lack of clear purpose. 49%? 30%? 5%? 0%? Obviously its difficult to put a number on it. 

I think Ukraine is showing the purpose of the growth. Countries should be allowed to self determine. If Ukraine had wanted to be Russia’s bestie like Belarus, more power to them. But they didn’t want that, and it’s not Putin’s decision to force them to align the way he wants.

[Clark Griswold]

Second order effects coming

Ukraine War Causing Food Shortages In Fragile Middle East
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/03/28/ukraine-war-causing-food-shortages-fragile-middle-east/

Cold War 2 / Turbulent 20s needs a strategy for recognition & management
Good thing we have an august group at the helm to lead us…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danger41]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

I've listened to this. On a side note, I sometimes wonder if academics and analyst flex by just trying to put as many books on their backwall as possible. Like... I seriously doubt this dude has read all or even half of those in their entirety.

I always ensure that my collection of R.L. Stine’s Goosebumps is prominently displayed in the background of my video conferences to flex on people.

[Prozac]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

I don't think anyone wouldn't argue that Putin is "more" responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. But the question is how much more and how responsible was the US and NATO with their needless growth and lack of clear purpose. 49%? 30%? 5%? 0%? Obviously its difficult to put a number on it. 

I wonder if some of you guys have ever been to places like Poland or Latvia or Georgia, or ever spoken with people from those places? I spent a fair amount of time in former Warsaw Pact countries as they were in the process of joining NATO. For them, NATO’s purpose has always been very clear. A decade or two free of the Soviets was not nearly enough time to convince them that the Russians had changed their ways. In fact, the former client states knew very well (vs much of “old” NATO) that the Russians would be a threat for generations to come. For them, NATO “expansion” was far from needless. It was absolutely necessary if they were to survive as independent and free nations.  I always respected this position but admit that I just didn’t share quite the same anti-Russian zeal for a long time. Then Putin invaded and occupied parts of Georgia. Then he did the same in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Now that he has outrightly invaded Ukraine, I can see that my Polish and Latvian friends were not exaggerating the threat at all. NATO’s purpose has never been more clear & the West bears ZERO responsibility for Russian aggression. If the Russians are truly concerned about Western expansion, it’s only because they know their system is broken and backwards and they cannot possibly offer their neighbors the same kinds of fruitful and healthy relationships that the West can. 

[hockeydork]

12 hours ago, HeloDude said:

What I am not is progressive or pro-big government (synonymous).

As for China, I’m all for trade, just like I am with Russia.  

I guess this is what I am struggling with. I am fine with you thinking our government is too big in its current state. But to than justify trading with Russia and China? You think our government is too big? Look at them, we ain't got sh*t on those governments. I guess one could shrug their shoulders and say Ukrainians/Russians/Taiwanese/Chinese are not my problem because they aren't Americans. But for me if they have two eyeballs, a forehead and opposable thumbs and don't want to live on their knees, the last thing I am going to do is keep helping the aggressor wreck 40 million people. 

I am with you on the need for consistency in the US. But it's usually a trade off between doing what is right and doing what is in the best interest of ones self and that situation is constantly changing. What was a good idea yesterday can become a terrible idea in an instant, and vice versa. I was against Trumps war on China. I thought it would isolate us, hurts us economically(it will), and make the Chinese even less likely to westenrize, and even more likely to militarize. I was wrong, they're going down that path anyways. 

Trading ipods, picture frames, camping chairs and TVs with someone is one thing. Trading essentials, like water, fuel, food and other vital items is another. I don't care if we have to drill in the short term, or push hard to accelerate renewables, or find some middle ground solution, all I know is I don't want the US having its hands tied because we need to buy X from sh*tty country Z. And often only the government has the ability to react rapidly and move the US toward a unified goal, just like only the government had the means to push to put people on the moon in the 60s. So we need a cohesive team plan, even if it may not be our first choice, and regardless of who is in office, we need to just support each other and push towards ensuring the American way of life isn't going anywhere. 

[FLEA]

44 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I wonder if some of you guys have ever been to places like Poland or Latvia or Georgia, or ever spoken with people from those places? I spent a fair amount of time in former Warsaw Pact countries as they were in the process of joining NATO. For them, NATO’s purpose has always been very clear. A decade or two free of the Soviets was not nearly enough time to convince them that the Russians had changed their ways. In fact, the former client states knew very well (vs much of “old” NATO) that the Russians would be a threat for generations to come. For them, NATO “expansion” was far from needless. It was absolutely necessary if they were to survive as independent and free nations.  I always respected this position but admit that I just didn’t share quite the same anti-Russian zeal for a long time. Then Putin invaded and occupied parts of Georgia. Then he did the same in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Now that he has outrightly invaded Ukraine, I can see that my Polish and Latvian friends were not exaggerating the threat at all. NATO’s purpose has never been more clear & the West bears ZERO responsibility for Russian aggression. If the Russians are truly concerned about Western expansion, it’s only because they know their system is broken and backwards and they cannot possibly offer their neighbors the same kinds of fruitful and healthy relationships that the West can. 

Yeah man I currently work extensively in those countries. I get why they joined NATO. It's in their interests. Was it in ours? 

However, it was a bit dishonest or in bad faith for us to agree to parlay with Russia after the Cold War when all along we still believed we needed a military alliance to overcome them. Russia was, in their mind, actively trying to deescalate the world, and the US was not. If you truly believe the US bears no responsibility, then you need to accept that we made a tremendous mistake in agreeing to end the Cold War, establish normal ties, and introduce Russia into the global markets. 

Oh by the way, remember, Russia allowed EVERY single former Soviet state to hold free elections to decide secession on their own. So what changed the geopolitical picture? 

Edited March 28, 2022 by FLEA

[SurelySerious]

. So what changed the geopolitical picture? 

Putin

[GrndPndr]

I guess we're going to put troops into Ukraine after all...

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1507386975753494533

[Prozac]

12 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I get why they joined NATO. It's in their interests. Was it in ours? 

Absolutely. Any nation that truly wants to join the free world deserves our support. The more countries that want to participate in the civilized world, the better off we all are. 

 

15 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Oh by the way, remember, Russia allowed EVERY single former Soviet state to hold free elections to decide secession on their own. So what changed the geopolitical picture? 

They did. I think Boris Yeltsin honestly wanted to liberalize and modernize Russia. If the West made a mistake, it was by not engaging further with Russia when there was an actual window of good will open. That lack of engagement probably helped open the window for someone like Putin to ascend to power. But as stated above, once Putin took power, the geopolitical picture absolutely changed & all bets were off. 

[BashiChuni]

17 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Absolutely. Any nation that truly wants to join the free world deserves our support. The more countries that want to participate in the civilized world, the better off we all are. 

 

 

ok Taiwan wants to join the free world and completely cut off China. They want a seat at the UN and full, independent recognition from the West.

Ready?

In a perfect world i dont disagree with you, but the complexities of international politics don't fix so nicely into your idealistic box.

Edited March 28, 2022 by BashiChuni

[Prozac]

27 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

ok Taiwan wants to join the free world and completely cut off China. They want a seat at the UN and full, independent recognition from the West.

Ready?

In a perfect world i dont disagree with you, but the complexities of international politics don't fix so nicely into your idealistic box.

Yeah. Absolutely. Taiwan is for all intents and purposes an independent country & one of the most successful and thriving democracies in Asia at that. The One China policy & Chinese claims to the island are demonstrably absurd to any informed observer & it’s long past time to call a spade a spade. But your point is taken. I get that nuance and sensitivity are often required when it comes to international politics. Sometimes though, directness and strength are the correct approach. The current situation in Ukraine is one of those times. And if we’re honest, it’s probably just about time for the same tack when it comes to Taiwan. 

[FLEA]

Just now, Prozac said:

Yeah. Absolutely. Taiwan is for all intents and purposes an independent country & one of the most successful and thriving democracies in Asia at that. The One China policy & Chinese claims to the island are demonstrably absurd to any informed observer & it’s long past time to call a spade a spade. But your point is taken. I get that nuance and sensitivity are often required when it comes to international politics. Sometimes though, directness and strength are the correct approach. The current situation in Ukraine is one of those times. And if we’re honest, it’s probably just about time for the same tack when it comes to Taiwan. 

Prozac just curious how powerful do you think the US is? Do you think we possess the outright capability to uphold some of these claims without significant and permenant damage to the US and it's interests.... Because that's a big part of all of this. We have the greatest military on the globe but not the greatest military on anyone one spot in the globe, and the logistics Kung Fu required to make that isn't really achievable without significant exposure and vulnerability of our country's strategic centers of gravity. I think that's a huge piece people misunderstand. 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

The more countries that want to participate in the civilized world, the better off we all are.

I think this is the sticking point for a lot of the isolationists. They suggest we will demonstrably harm our economic interests by "taking sides," in this case, the side of defending sovereignty, but they forget that the very wealth they seek to protect was gained explicitly through the stability provided by a world that respects sovereignty.

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

In a perfect world i dont disagree with you, but the complexities of international politics don't fix so nicely into your idealistic box.

You make it sound like there are only two choices, but obviously there are not. We aren't launching cruise missiles into Russia. There are many steps between unrestricted interaction and nuclear war. But we should not be supporting a country (and trading with the US is absolutely a form of support) that does not acknowledge sovereignty at a minimum.

We are also providing material support to the Ukrainians, which we should. We do this because we hope it will lead to a Russian failure, which would be a win for the concept of sovereignty. 

The isolationists (FLEA being the most breathless example here. Similar to Tucker Carlson, who I also frequently agree with) keep asking what we are willing to sacrifice for Ukrainians. Not much, honestly. Ukrainians should sacrifice for Ukrainians, and they are. But for the geopolitical norm (sovereign borders) that has yielded unfathomable wealth and human flourishing for Americans and foreigners alike? Yes, for that we should sacrifice a lot.

 

And that concept of sovereignty came from the enlightenment-era moral revelation of the sovereignty of the individual. Turns out when you base your society around that morality, wealth and growth follow. We should not be so quick to let it wither.

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[FLEA]

Definitely not an isolationist, more of a money baller. Looking for the biggest interests for the smallest investment. 

Your history on sovereignty is a bit off. Sovereignty came from the peace of Westphalia (hence its often called Westphalian sovereignty) and was one of many rules instituted by belligerents to protect larger states who were seen as more capable of governance. The other common rules were embracing standing armies, rules against political assassination, and the beggining concepts of balance of power. All of these conclusions were reach in Europe first but not by accident. Europe balkanized after the fall of Rome which caused it to develop hard political boundaries far earlier than the rest of the world. It's one of the reasons that makes discussing issues of historic sovereignty difficult with China. The eastern empires of China and India didn't really have hard boundaries. They just expanded into new territory until their power faded from its capital centers of gravity. So China did control some contested territories at some historical points in history but not in the same sense of control we think of. More so that those areas were just close enough to Chinese influence that it made accepting governance more beneficial for them. 

In all of the above mentioned rules (sovereignty, balance of power, no assassination, standing armies) there was an underlying theme to remove international power from smaller states and embody it in larger states. The whole idea of great powers and their satellites. It was believed that a few great powers could negotiate security more effectively that a conglomerate of states with straying interests. 

In any case, none of that is really important today. What is important is the recognition that sovereignty is relatively new in geopolitics, and like other political constructs, it will eventually fade to be replaced by something else. There is already emerging evidence to show that human networks that are transgeographic are beginning to erode sovereign power on global affairs. (Think anonymous) Now is that something that happens in our lifetime? Probably not. Is it something that happens in a few hundred years, probably. 

Personally, I see sovereignty for what it is. A temporary political construct that does the bare minimum to prevent descent from chaos but has little upholding it from being a hard and fast rule. Very few people on here are arguing to make the US a pariah state after violating Iraqs sovereignty over WMDs, a charter of war most of the world saw as an excuse to get oil. 

Also noone upheld sovereignty when we went into Syria to eliminate ISIS. And we certainly aren't offering to pay reparations for damages caused there. 

If I go back even further we can talk about Iran, Cuba, Guatamala, or the dozen other times we deliberately ignored sovereignty to meet state ends. 

So while it sounds all rainbows and unicorns to uphold this crusade to defend sovereignty I think it's a bit misguided because in reality we want to maintain the capability to "interpret sovereignty differently" when it meets our needs as well. Or so I presume. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by FLEA

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Prozac just curious how powerful do you think the US is? Do you think we possess the outright capability to uphold some of these claims without significant and permenant damage to the US and it's interests.... Because that's a big part of all of this. We have the greatest military on the globe but not the greatest military on anyone one spot in the globe, and the logistics Kung Fu required to make that isn't really achievable without significant exposure and vulnerability of our country's strategic centers of gravity. I think that's a huge piece people misunderstand. 

We've already pledged to defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression.

Although we also gave guarantees to Ukraine...so maybe there will be a bunch of politicians and military officers willing to say Taiwan "invited" the Chinese to invade by "being provocative".

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

 

 

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1508525310295351298?s=21&t=IJhwbxrBFTHBB-2d4oLuVA

Edited March 28, 2022 by BashiChuni

[Sua Sponte]

5 hours ago, GrndPndr said:

I guess we're going to put troops into Ukraine after all...

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1507386975753494533

What was the whole video context before that propaganda site edited their hot take and took his comment out of context?

[BashiChuni]

You guys keep calling it propaganda when they’re actually quotes the President said. 
 

Quotes. Not made up. Quoted on video. 

[BashiChuni]

[VigilanteNav]

Not that I ever want to get shot down but if someone is going to do it... 

[VigilanteNav]

Was wondering if the IED would come into play...

 

[GrndPndr]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

What was the whole video context before that propaganda site edited their hot take and took his comment out of context?

Well, now that I have seen Joe give his explanation (see BashiChuni's post above), I understand it all.  We're not sending troops there, we're not suggesting regime change, and I'm actually not sure about Chem. weapons.

[Prozac]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

Prozac just curious how powerful do you think the US is? Do you think we possess the outright capability to uphold some of these claims without significant and permenant damage to the US and it's interests.... Because that's a big part of all of this. We have the greatest military on the globe but not the greatest military on anyone one spot in the globe, and the logistics Kung Fu required to make that isn't really achievable without significant exposure and vulnerability of our country's strategic centers of gravity. I think that's a huge piece people misunderstand. 

The One China policy is an American product, borne from a time when we thought the natural order of things was the liberalization of mainland China. Since they are going backwards, why should we force ourselves to continue this policy? What’s to stop us from recognizing Taiwan as an independent country (should they decide that’s the direction they want to pursue) & establishing normal relations while encouraging other enlightened countries to do the same? Up to this point in history I would’ve said that scenario was just about impossible, as too many nations had major economic interests in China and would balk at the idea before it ever got any traction. But given recent events, my hope is that more of the world is willing to recognize and challenge the bad actors on the geopolitical stage. China is committing genocide on its Western frontier, has quashed democracy in Hong Kong (and ruined a once great world city), has been irresponsible (at best) with pathogens and unleashed a deadly plague on the entire world, routinely intimidates its neighbors and ignores their legitimate territorial claims, constantly commits industrial espionage/steals intellectual property, and overtly threatens Taiwan with war. They’ve also refused to denounce the Russian invasion and appear to have taken the Russian side in its conflict with Ukraine. If there were ever a time that the world could get behind Taiwanese independence, now is it. I would go so far as advocating for cementing our defense agreement with Taiwan in no uncertain terms and permanently placing US military assets in Taiwan & the straight. The American people have signaled they’re willing to make sacrifices in order to support freedom around the globe (another thing that makes this place uniquely special). I wonder if the CCP can equally afford to sacrifice its own economic interests in the name of Taiwanese reunification? My guess is absolutely not. 

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

best-22 i'm curious why the down vote on this picture?

seems....immature to say the least.

 

it's not great that Biden's WH, his own sec state, and now the french president have to walk back his comments.

Edited March 28, 2022 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

got it.

thanks for proving my point.