How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[barbos]

Just watched congress democrat who apparently visited Ukraine, talking shit and looking strong, advocating helping Ukraine to repel Russian "aggression".
Fucking cretin who probably would not be able find Ukraine on the map.
Russian Army could run over Ukraine in the next hour if they wanted to.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why is it okay for the US to unilaterally say "Sudan, we don't give a shit about your opinion, South Sudan is now a separate country", but if Russia takes any action with regards to eastern Ukraine that is the most morally reprehensible act committed by any country in the last 200 years?

I'm surprised that you are taking this position. As a libertarian, you have always been against imperialism?

My position is "The US should not deploy US troops outside the US unless the US is facing a threat to the US."

I don't actually give a shit about other countries. If they want US support, they should start paying US taxes.

Gotcha. You might just be in the wrong thread. This thread is talking about how the west (the West isn't just the US) should respond to Russian imperialism in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

 

[Copernicus]

Although I think that the Mearsheimer video is interesting, there is no point to further discussion on it here, since barbos seems only interested in using it as a kind of appeal to authority. Mearsheimer is an academic who has been engaged in a decades long debate with other political scientists over theories of "realism" in which he has come out with his own theory of "offensive realism" as opposed to the more popular theory of "defensive realism". So his reasons for opposing US policy in Ukraine are quite arcane and have little to do with the kinds of arguments that barbos has been promoting here. The reason that most political scientists reject Mearsheimer's position are equally arcane--having to do with Mearsheimer's (and political realism's) avoidance of assigning any significance to the role of ideology and domestic politics in global politics. Mearsheimer himself is much more interested in China policy and thinks of Russia as something of a distraction to US foreign policy. He sees Europe as becoming less and less important in the future, so he doesn't want the US to get preoccupied with Russia or eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, what happens in Europe is deeply important to the US, and no US administration can simply turn a blind eye to a Russian invasion of Ukraine or Putin's direct intervention in US elections. The Cold War is over, but Putin has certainly made clear that his country remains a threat to world peace and stability. It wasn't China that helped install 4 years of Donald Trump at the head of the US government. And the Ukraine crisis is very much at the heart of our dispute with Russia's threat to EU and US national interests.

Meanwhile, the latest development is that Putin has said that he would "really like" to meet with Joe Biden for face-to-face talks. The problem for Biden is that Russia shows no signs of demilitarizing Russia's border with Ukraine, and Biden can see little reason to meet while an invasion still seems imminent. If Putin would make a gesture towards demilitarizing the border, then a meeting might take place.

Tensions with Kremlin over Ukraine pose a test for the Biden administration​

 

[barbos]

Why is it okay for the US to unilaterally say "Sudan, we don't give a shit about your opinion, South Sudan is now a separate country", but if Russia takes any action with regards to eastern Ukraine that is the most morally reprehensible act committed by any country in the last 200 years?

I'm surprised that you are taking this position. As a libertarian, you have always been against imperialism?

My position is "The US should not deploy US troops outside the US unless the US is facing a threat to the US."

I don't actually give a shit about other countries. If they want US support, they should start paying US taxes.

Gotcha. You might just be in the wrong thread. This thread is talking about how the west (the West isn't just the US) should respond to Russian imperialism in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

You posed a loaded question that assumes existence of Russian imperialism, when in reality we have American imperialism

 

[barbos]

Although I think that the Mearsheimer video is interesting, there is no point to further discussion on it here, since barbos seems only interested in using it as a kind of appeal to authority.

Yes, I am interested in that. And the reason for this is your gang (you included) continued insistence on dismissing me as being some kind of victim of putin propaganda and even troll.

It became so ridiculous that you even honestly believe that you can teach me russian history, using random crap news articles produced by google search.
You honestly believe that.

Mearsheimer IS an authority and his point of view coincides with mine 100%.
But you can't dismiss him as putin's troll. Even though you (your gang) tried, you literally tried.

So what do you have to say on the topic which is Mearsheimer and his views?

 

[Copernicus]

Although I think that the Mearsheimer video is interesting, there is no point to further discussion on it here, since barbos seems only interested in using it as a kind of appeal to authority.

Yes, I am interested in that. And the reason for this is your gang (you included) continued insistence on dismissing me as being some kind of victim of putin propaganda and even troll.

It became so ridiculous that you even honestly believe that you can teach me russian history, using random crap news articles produced by google search.
You honestly believe that.

Mearsheimer IS an authority and his point of view coincides with mine 100%.
But you can't dismiss him as putin's troll. Even though you (your gang) tried, you literally tried.

So what do you have to say on the topic which is Mearsheimer and his views?

First of all, I have been repeatedly and explicitly saying that I do not dismiss Mearsheimer. I may disagree with many of his claims and assumptions, but I have a great deal of respect for him, and I do consider him an authority in his field of expertise. Moreover, I am no "gang" member here, but I do think that you have been strongly influenced by the bias inherent in the Russian media that you are exposed to. I do not think that I can teach you anything, given that you are so completely resistant to just about anything I say, even when it agrees with claims and positions that you take. I probably could tell you things about Russian history that you don't know, but I don't consider myself a historian or a specialist of any kind on Russian history. I just enjoy reading about it. I do concede that you know a great deal more about Russia than I do and a great many things that I don't know. After all, you are Russian, and you live there.

Regarding Mearsheimer, I have written extensive comments in this thread about him already, and you have simply not responded to them. Maybe you didn't even read those posts. I don't know. But I do know that you haven't acknowledged anything I've said or attempted in any way to refute anything I've said. He is the founder of a political science school called "offensive realism", which was his response to a more famous school called "defensive realism". Neither of us is a political scientist, so it isn't worth debating that subject here. However, to truly understand Mearsheimer's positions on Russia, one needs to try to understand something about where he is coming from, and it is not the same place that you are coming from. He is more pro-American than pro-Russian. He just thinks that Russia is something of an irrelevant distraction for US foreign policy. He wants the US to try to ally with Russia to oppose China--a position that I think is quite unrealistic.

Finally, I said that you are using him as an "appeal to authority", which is a term for a logical fallacy. That is, you are trying to validate your claims and conclusions by pointing to a similarity between Mearsheimer's positions and your own. I grant you that he certainly does repeat many of the same claims that you, Putin, and a great many Russians and east Europeans do about NATO expansionism. However, Mearsheimer is still a minority voice among experts. So, if expertise and authority is a basis for validating your opinion, it is not a very effective one. The important thing here is not really how many experts you can get to back up your opinions. It is what evidence and logic you can bring to support your opinions. Seriously, I am not trying to disrespect you for bringing up the Mearsheimer videos, which I rather enjoyed. I am trying to say that it really does not help your argument to hang it on a fallacious appeal to authority.

 

[barbos]

First of all, I have been repeatedly and explicitly saying that I do not dismiss Mearsheimer. I may disagree with many of his claims and assumptions,

You are dismissing him right here.

Russian media that you are exposed to. I do not think that I can teach you anything, given that you are so completely resistant to just about anything I say, even when it agrees with claims and positions that you take.

We have been over this.
That goes both ways. We are bothj exposed to US media which according to Mearsheimer and I is full of crap (I am paraphrasing him). And secondly, you are not exposed to Russian media at all. You literally don't know anything, all you get is a second hand account going through your media.

So no, you can't teach me anything because you don't know anything, not because I can't be taught. It is you who can't be taught.

Finally, I said that you are using him as an "appeal to authority", which is a term for a logical fallacy.

Nope, it is not. First you asked for it. You constantly ask for sources and dismiss all sources which you are able to accuse in being pro-russian (which is fallacy itself)
Finally I got one and you come with this logical fallacy defense.
Sorry, you can't do that.

The guy IS authority and all his arguments are in his talk.
Deal with it.

However, Mearsheimer is still a minority voice among experts.

Oh it's a democracy now?

I grant you that he certainly does repeat many of the same claims that you

Claims? You said claims?
Many? These are not claims, and they are not "many" they are arguments and they are all, not many.

The important thing here is not really how many experts you can get to back up your opinions. It is what evidence and logic you can bring to support your opinions.

You want evidence?
What evidence do you need?
That your Media and government lied about Afghanistan, Iran-Contra, Georgia, Iraq, Vietnam, Libya. Cuban missile crisis?
You still need evidence for that? You still need evidence that your media did nothing to hold your government accountable?
What makes you think that your government/Media are not lying about Ukraine?
When was the last time CNN/ABC/MBC/FoxNews had an interview with somebody in Crimea? or Eastern Ukraine? or South Ossetia? Do you even remember how last South Ossetia interview turned out?

They lie to you about pretty much everything of substance when it comes to foreign affairs. You should know that by now.

 

[zorq]

Okay, Barbos, you bullied me into watching the first lecture. I bullied you into taking the time to list a few thoughts that you took away from the video that you thought were worth considering, so I figured I owed it to you to consider those thoughts too, so I watched the first lecture, and it was surprisingly enjoyable. It certainly helped that Copernicus vouched for them as coming from a legitimate authority.

The facts he presented were all accurate, but like Copernicus noted, I think that you will find if you stopped to look at some of them that they do not align completely with some of the opinions you have expressed. Of course, he had some opinions about those facts too, which I think is what you are mostly referring to when you say that you agree with him.

Mearsheimer thinks that it is foolish for the west to reach out to any countries that Russia considers to be part of her sphere of influence. He believes this for a couple reasons.
The first is because these countries aren't actually terribly important to the west, especially the US. Ukraine in the fold of the European Union doesn't do much to help their economy and Ukraine in the fold of NATO doesn't do much to help their security. Sure Ukraine would be welcome to participate more in the European economy more and it would help Ukraine a great deal, which is part of what motivates the west to reach out to Ukraine, but what little Ukraine has to offer Europe and the west isn't a big prize.
The second is because these countries are very important to Russia(Irrationally so). If Ukraine joins the EU then they are just a step away from joining NATO, and if Ukraine joins NATO then Russia will lose it's shit. But that's it. Russia will perceive it as an existential threat, but literally nobody wants to conquer Russia. No great power wants to humiliate Russia. No, seriously, Russia doesn't have a good reason to fear Ukraine in NATO, but they do terribly... which is what is so dangerous.

The consequence of the combination of these two facts mean that the west gravely miscalculated when they reached out to Ukraine because they stand so little to gain and have so much to lose when Russia irrationally flips out.

Mearsheimer comments on how surprised Obama and the West (his 21st century thinkers, as he calls them) were that Russia (one of his 19th century thinkers) would react the way that they did in 2014 by invading Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Well, Barbos, the reason Obama and the 21st century thinkers were so surprised by Russia's overreaction to Euromaiden was because Russia perceived it as a dangerous threat but it wasn't at all. It's like if a boy is flirting with cute girl, but when she hands the boy a flower in return her mom chops off her hand. The boy (the west) didn't see the harm in flirting with the girl (Ukraine), because the boy didn't think the girl's mom (Russia) was a psychopath.

Well, the west learned then in 2014 that Russia was for all intents and purposes a psychopath who can't be trusted to evaluate the motives and actions of the west objectively. So when Mearsheimer blames the west for starting the mess in Ukraine part of what that means is that the west should have been smart enough to notice the psychopath in the room before they started flirting around with Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

zorq,
You skipped over pretty much 99% of the lecture and went to the the usual talking point about NATO is not a threat to Russia. That's not what that lecture was about.
Go to my list and address it. Yes, I and Mearsheimer agreed 100% on everything.

And back to your imaginary point Mearsheimer was not making at all.

NATO is an aggressive block which is run by US who use it to harass Russia economically into regime change or submission.
NATO flat out attacking Russia would be dumbest idea. It's not the idea. The Idea is to take Russia piece by piece fermenting regime change by any means possible among russian economic partners and Russia itself, economic sanctions, political isolation, paying baltic politicians for fake outrage and trash they spewing.
US trashing Turkey for buying russian weapons is not because of security considerations. It's fake. It's economical. Same story with gas. US can not allow Russia to trade with EU because it prolongs current "regime" in Russia which according to US does not have the right to exist.

The fact is, Russia letting Ukraine go in 2014 would have been bad for US.
They needed all this crap as an excuse for another set of sanctions. Not all of them that stupid to think that Putin would let Crimea go.
They needed Ukraine to cut economic ties with Russia because it will hurt Russia (they don't care about it hurting Ukraine too)
Then there is Belarus, it's a next target. Belarus have a president who is order of magnitude worse than Putin. And yet, before this latest crap US/EU were trying to buy him. They were literally buying that bastard, until Putin offered more.
Why? because they needed to get Belarus from Russia.

Putin was fine with Ukraine going to EU as long as Russia is not paying for it. EU which is really run by US literally said to Russia "Fuck You!"
And then they really said the same to ..... Ukraine when they offered them ridiculous agreements which folk in Ukraine itself were saying "What is this shit you are offering to us?!" EU literally said "You open all your domestic market to us now and we are opening this tiny bit to you" This tiny bit was I think was about 10% what Ukraine could do at the time. Basically it was nothing. If I remember correctly Ukraine was able to max out their tariff-less limits literally in couple of month. Of course there were no tariffs on stuff EU was interested in like wood. EU fucked Ukraine over, and ukrainian government could not say anything about it.

Now, you may ask - why don't you be like Eastern Europe and other countries and just let US govern over Russia liberal democracy - blah blah kumbaya? In theory that would have been great. In practice, it's not going to work at all. That would be 10 times worse than what is going on in Ukraine right now. And US assholes know that.
They are counting on it. They are planning that I would be starving to death like I was in the 1990s, while US President drinking and dancing with whatever puppet they installed in Russia.

Solution is which I and Mearsheimer suggested is to have Ukraine neutral (like Finland), have an economic deal which respects Russian interests, EU interests and Ukrainian Interests. And no NATO expansion without explicit Russian permission.

 

[TV and credit cards]

More on Russian imperialism the Russification of eastern Ukraine. When I posted similar information earlier, it was from a state sponsored Turkish news agency I was unfamiliar with and hence did not cite my source. Linked is from Reuters.
So would you want to be a Ukrainian living in the eastern region having to explain why you have yet to claim Russian citizenship?

Interesting tidbit from Reuters: “Last year, the Donetsk People's Republic marked Russia Day on June 12, which is a national holiday in Russia to commemorate Russia's declaration of independence from the Soviet Union.” Color me naive but I always thought of Russia for all intents and purposes as the Soviet Union. So I went to Wikipedia to look up “Russia Day” and found this: “According to some surveys, many Russians think that this holiday is Russia's Independence Day, but the holiday has never had such a name in official documents. According to the survey of Levada Center in May 2003, 65 percent of the respondents named the holiday as the Independence Day of Russia.” Independence from whom? Yourself? Is this what passes for “history” in Russia? “Official documents” or not, if 65% of the people believe this, someone is feeding them a load of shit.
Perhaps I’m not reading it in the proper context.

 

[barbos]

TV and credit cards, is that your main complain? seriously?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why is it okay for the US to unilaterally say "Sudan, we don't give a shit about your opinion, South Sudan is now a separate country", but if Russia takes any action with regards to eastern Ukraine that is the most morally reprehensible act committed by any country in the last 200 years?

I'm surprised that you are taking this position. As a libertarian, you have always been against imperialism?

My position is "The US should not deploy US troops outside the US unless the US is facing a threat to the US."

I don't actually give a shit about other countries. If they want US support, they should start paying US taxes.

Gotcha. You might just be in the wrong thread. This thread is talking about how the west (the West isn't just the US) should respond to Russian imperialism in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

You posed a loaded question that assumes existence of Russian imperialism, when in reality we have American imperialism

Negative Kemosabe. Your country wants to invade another country and conquer it. It has eyes on conquering other countries such as Finland, possibly Poland and many other eastern european countries. You support an imperialist country.

 

[barbos]

Negative Kemosabe. Your country wants to invade another country and conquer it. It has eyes on conquering other countries such as Finland, possibly Poland and many other eastern european countries. You support an imperialist country.

See a doctor.
My Country actually wants to get rid of some parts.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

More on Russian imperialism the Russification of eastern Ukraine. When I posted similar information earlier, it was from a state sponsored Turkish news agency I was unfamiliar with and hence did not cite my source. Linked is from Reuters.
So would you want to be a Ukrainian living in the eastern region having to explain why you have yet to claim Russian citizenship?

Interesting tidbit from Reuters: “Last year, the Donetsk People's Republic marked Russia Day on June 12, which is a national holiday in Russia to commemorate Russia's declaration of independence from the Soviet Union.” Color me naive but I always thought of Russia for all intents and purposes as the Soviet Union. So I went to Wikipedia to look up “Russia Day” and found this: “According to some surveys, many Russians think that this holiday is Russia's Independence Day, but the holiday has never had such a name in official documents. According to the survey of Levada Center in May 2003, 65 percent of the respondents named the holiday as the Independence Day of Russia.” Independence from whom? Yourself? Is this what passes for “history” in Russia? “Official documents” or not, if 65% of the people believe this, someone is feeding them a load of shit.
Perhaps I’m not reading it in the proper context.

People are just thinking about it as "I love Russia Day." Not too terribly difficult to understand.

 

[barbos]

People are just thinking about it as "I love Russia Day." Not too terribly difficult to understand.

Yeah, much less controversial than Columbus day, or even Thanksgiving.

 

[zorq]

Barbos, I only have so much time. I'm not retired. I work. I'm not trying to "skip 99% of the lecture" I addressed something that I noticed about the lecture, then it was time for me to go.

I agree that Mearsheimer wasn't pushing the point I brought up about Russia's irrational fear. He wanted to focus on other aspects. He excuses Putin's irrational fear by trying to make us recall how irrationally the US behaved with respect to Cuba deep in the center of the Cold war. I think the geopolitical circumstances of that era were a bit different but it doesn't mean that the US wasn't acting a little irrational back then too. Nevertheless, it is silly to put all the blame on the west when Russia is the one recklessly misinterpreting relatively innocent gestures the west offers to countries who are interested in joining their club.

You insist that the west isn't offering innocent gestures. You keep saying that the west is aggressive, dangerous, and interested in destroying Russia as it is today. Well, I will say that the west does think there should be some changes in Russia. Russia's government as it exists today represents a dangerous threat to it's neighbors' sovereign existences. That's not cool. Russia has some ongoing human rights violations. That's not cool. Corruption is rampant in Russia. That's not cool. At this point, democracy is a farce in Russia. That's not cool. Are you cool with this shit? Is there really nothing that you would change about Russia today? Would you really be upset if Putin decided to reform Russia into a liberal democracy that attempts to clamp down on corruption and offered freedom and security to its own people? I really don't know what your answer to these questions would be. Because the way you talk about Russia, you seem perfectly happy with the way it is right now.

Anyway, yes, the west puts pressure on Russia to change. But one of the real reasons they want Russia to change is because it will benefit not just the west but Russia too. I understand that you (and Putin) think the west wants domination over Russia and that therefore all the changes that the west tries to pressure Russia to adopt are really secret US ploys to take advantage of and subtlety dominate Russia. Here's the thing: You and Putin could be correct. I'm not an insider in the political game and there COULD be some shifty business and deep state conspiracy going on trying to slowly, sneakily subvert Russia into disaster, but it just isn't very likely.

You see the reason that liberal democracies in the west keep trying to push liberal democracy on the rest of the world is because for all of it's (abundant) faults, liberal democracy usually leads to more prosperity and less human suffering than any other functional government type out there. No conspiracy needed. Germany is a success story. Japan is a success story. South Korea is a success story. You and Russia are convinced that underneath these kumbaiya success stories, the United States is puppeteering them for the sole benefit of the USA. But that isn't true. If you pay close attention, Mearsheimer himself briefly mocked that mindset in the lecture you posted. Mearsheimer knows that liberal democracy is a good thing and the spread of it isn't intended to be malicious.

Eh. It's time for bed.

 

[barbos]

it is silly to put all the blame on the west when Russia is the one recklessly misinterpreting relatively innocent gestures the west offers to countries who are interested in joining their club.

How do you know they are innocent? How do you know that? MSM does not even report what russian officials complain about. When was the last time you saw Russian Foreign minister on TV?
And forget about what they know but do not complain. You here are utterly oblivious to what actually is happening there. All you see are TV cunts who lose their shit over interpreter mistake with Putin.



And it does not even matter according to Mearsheimer/Me. It does not fucking matter.
Russia has nukes and you have to respect that.

 

[barbos]

Russia has some ongoing human rights violations. That's not cool.

Saudi Arabia apparently does not.

 

[barbos]

That's not cool. At this point, democracy is a farce in Russia.

Saudi Arabia democracy is not a farce?
American Democracy is not a farce now?
South Korea, remind me how much democracy it had in 1960s-1970s-1980s?

Russia, had a lot of democracy in 1990s, not much food though and even less "not being suddenly dead if you have money and don't want to give it to people with guns"
What if people in Russia don't want "democracy"? They voted to keep what they have right now. Who are you to decide for them?

 

[barbos]

Japan is a success story. South Korea is a success story.

They were not liberal democracies for most of their recent modern history And you can't compare them to Russia. US does not want liberal democracy in Russia.

Japan was flat out occupied and governed by US.
Korea was flat out occupied and governed by US installed authocrats who were worse than Putin. And both Japan and South Korea were utterly uninteresting as a target for pillaging.