• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,160
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Maybe Russia should be invited to join NATO.
Love this idea! However, it could be a small problem for Russia to qualify. The eligibility requirements to join NATO:
1. functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
2. fair treatment of minority populations;
3. a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully;
4. They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

I think that #1, 3, and 4 might be a challenge for Russia to adhere to!
Ukraine does not satisfy any of the requirements and yet they are on the path to be in NATO.
Please elaborate. The Ukrainian government is a semi-presidential representative democratic republic with a vibrant multi-party system. Their cabinet of Ministers have executive power. Yes, there is deep graft in their system and problems. But you could make the case that they are more democratic than the US. They are far more democratic than Mother Russia! You can't have a democracy with a dictator at the top! They have not stolen land from any of their bordering neighbors. Regarding treatment of minorities: I'm not going to engage. You believe that their government are Nazis and are actively throwing Russian speakers into camps and are having them hung. This is so preposterous that I won't engage it with you (unless you'd like to provide some evidence for these claims).
I can give you 1. In the sense that they are better than Russia.
But they do have opposition leader under arrest for being .... pro-russian. Journalists get murdered too.

No, it's not preposterous. It's public record, one of the adviser to the government publicly suggested hanging crimeans. And he has not lost his job over it. He is doing fine right now
You would condemn an entire country due to one adviser to the Ukranian government publicly suggested hanging Crimeans? Do you follow US politics?
Maybe Russia should be invited to join NATO.
Love this idea! However, it could be a small problem for Russia to qualify. The eligibility requirements to join NATO:
1. functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
2. fair treatment of minority populations;
3. a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully;
4. They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

I think that #1, 3, and 4 might be a challenge for Russia to adhere to!
Ukraine does not satisfy any of the requirements and yet they are on the path to be in NATO.
Please elaborate. The Ukrainian government is a semi-presidential representative democratic republic with a vibrant multi-party system. Their cabinet of Ministers have executive power. Yes, there is deep graft in their system and problems. But you could make the case that they are more democratic than the US. They are far more democratic than Mother Russia! You can't have a democracy with a dictator at the top! They have not stolen land from any of their bordering neighbors. Regarding treatment of minorities: I'm not going to engage. You believe that their government are Nazis and are actively throwing Russian speakers into camps and are having them hung. This is so preposterous that I won't engage it with you (unless you'd like to provide some evidence for these claims).
I can give you 1. In the sense that they are better than Russia.
But they do have opposition leader under arrest for being .... pro-russian. Journalists get murdered too.

No, it's not preposterous. It's public record, one of the adviser to the government publicly suggested hanging crimeans. And he has not lost his job over it. He is doing fine right now
A certain high-ranking Russian official also once said that Georgian president Saakashvili should be hanged by his balls. He hasn't lost his job over it either.
You don't see the difference between hanging a president who started an illegal war by his balls and government officials suggesting hanging citizens of his own country who are skeptical of the way things are going in the country?

By the way, Saakashvili is in prison in his own Democratic country. So in a way he was hanged by his balls by his own people.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,499
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
You don't see the difference between hanging a president who started an illegal war by his balls and government officials suggesting hanging citizens of his own country who are skeptical of they way things are going in the country?
Like Alexei Navalny?
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,754
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Here is a reason why Putin is doing this. He knows Europe doesn’t have the balls to impose sufficient sanctions against him.


Europe does need to step up to the plate here. The sanctions must be extreme and severe.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,754
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
So war is the solution?
Education is the solution, but you don't want to be educated, do you?
An education from you is exactly what I am requesting. Please explain to me why an invasion of Ukraine by Russia is justified. I’m not even disagreeing with you. I truly don’t know what your support for this is based upon. You just keep ranting that we are all ignorant and have swallowed propaganda. Ok. I will indeed admit ignorance. I do not know why war is the appropriate response here. Please explain.
You are assuming and very fixated on it that I advocate an invasion.
What is the reason for this fixation?

Anyway.
Countries invade other countries all the time. US invaded Iraq - illegaly. Yugoslavia- illegally. Syria - illegaly. Afghanistan was legal, I can give you that.
Why can't Russia invade Ukraine?
There are way better reasons/justifications for Russia to invade Ukraine than US had for invading Iraq. I would prefer education but you clearly don't want to be educated. So consider invasion as a last option.

I posted a video earlier with prof. Mearsheimer. You should really watch it. In fact watch his other videos they are great regardless whether or not you agree with him.
I’ve read Mearshimer’s book and enjoyed it thoroughly. Missed the video. Too lazy to go through 15 pages of posts to find it. I agree there are lots of good reasons to go to war. I’m no pacifist. I’m a combat veteran in fact.

But it is good to know you are not advocating Putin’s invasion. I am much relieved. But what then are you saying to the OP question posed: How should the West respond to a Russian invasion of Ukraine?

it seems to me that there are several options:

1) Accede to Putin’s demands and remove all NATO elements from Eastern Europe, and cease all FMS to Ukraine and others.
2) Do nothing at all, and tell Putin it’s none of our business, have at it.
3) Issue a strongly worded condemnation.
4) Minor economic sanctions
5) Major economic sanctions (cutoff nordstream, and all trade, and freeze all assets.)
6) Arm Ukraine
7) Send advisors
8) Send NATO forces into Ukraine to fight alongside them.
9) Launch a full scale attack on Russia through the Baltic states (that’ll show ‘em!)

Feel free to add others. Obviously some of these are not mutually exclusive.

But let us know what you prefer.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,160
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Too lazy to go through 15 pages of posts to find it.
Google is banned in US?
let me help you:

How should the West respond to a Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Admit they were wrong, disband NATO, let Russia be and ask for forgiveness, then proceed to denazification of Ukraine and other US Eastern Europe friends.
In Germany you can go to prison for denying holocaust, some of these authors of ukrainian school books should go to prison too. I am sick and tired of that crap.
Then full deneoconization of US with sending cold war era neocon cunts to the long overdue retirement. Yes, I am looking at such Russia "experts" as Victoria Nuland, Fiona Hill and others. And one more thing, ass rape Tom Friedman. Fucking piece of shit and war monger.

And do that before invasion.
also:


She is particularly right about much more important problems (Climate Change) than removing Putin from office.
 
Last edited:

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,499
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Yeah, just hand Europe and North America over to Russia, because it was always theirs.
:hysterical:

Or maybe we should simply realize that Russia is a rogue dictatorship, break it up into little bitty pieces and hand them out to NATO members.
If they keep pretending they can go around issuing ultimatums to the world, it may come to that.

Barbos provides all we need to know;
In Russia, you don’t get education, education gets you.
#SAD
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,817
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Barbos has tried to promote political scientist, John Mearsheimer, as a supporter of Russian policy wrt Ukraine, although he is not. What barbos failed to understand was the basis for Mearsheimer's criticism of US policy--what political scientists call the  Security dilemma. That is, a government that tries to strengthen its security through military buildup inevitably weakens its security by provoking rival states to strengthen theirs. In this case, Russia has built itself up in order to weaken NATO, which was created in 1949 to deter the Soviet threat to Western Europe. NATO had become increasingly weaker after the breakup of the Soviet Union, but Putin has managed to singlehandedly reverse that trend. NATO countries in Eastern Europe are now being strengthened militarily. For example, France is sending troops to Romania, and the former approach of NATO troop rotations to those countries may now evolve into permanent NATO bases. Sweden and Finland are again debating the question of whether to join NATO. Putin's aggressive posture has had the opposite effect of actually decreasing Russia's security by reviving NATO's original purpose for existence.

See this Reuters report:

Analysis: Russian troop build-up sparks unintended NATO renewal

 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,440
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Is Euromaiden Press Reliable?

Barbos demands notwithstanding, is this Russia backing off a bit:

Commenting on the negotiation process with the US, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Russia was ready to consider two options.


  1. The first one is discarding the “formula of the Bucharest summit” which had put Ukraine and Georgia on a membership track.
  2. The second is the US commitment to “never vote for Ukraine and other countries to join NATO.”

Ryabkov’s statement shows that Russia has narrowed down its much broader initial demands put forward a month ago.

It's quite a change from the original demands:

In late December 2021, the Kremlin submitted to the US two draft agreements with the US and NATO, more resembling ultimatums than treaties in tone and style, according to Moscow Times.

Back then, Russia’s demands were:

  • The United States should prevent NATO’s further eastward expansion, denying accession to the former Soviet states;
  • The US should establish no military bases in ex-Soviet non-NATO states and shut down military cooperation with them;
  • NATO should exclude its further enlargement, including the accession of Ukraine and “other states”;
  • the Alliance should refuse any military activity on the Ukrainian territory, as well as in “other states of Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia, and Central Asia”;
  • No NATO forces or weapons should be deployed in countries that joined the alliance after May 1997, i.e. the Baltic states and the former Warsaw-Pact countries;
  • NATO should bar deployment of intermediate-range missiles in areas where they could reach the other side’s territory.

Or perhaps it's half a story.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,916
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Perhaps rational thought is beginning to kick in. Ukraine is not a threat to Russia. The threat to Russia is from inside Russia, from its movement away from democratic rule. And if you look back through history a movement away from democratic rule has been the greatest threat to any nation and has caused many to collapse. China should also take heed.

With barbos we're witnessing his emotional decision-making process, which is the same process that may take Russia into Ukraine. Long term that is not a good move for Russia.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,499
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Alex Vindman is “almost certain” that there will be a major European war … it’s up to Uncle Vlad.
But I don’t know of anyone who should know more about it than Vindman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLD

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,754
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Too lazy to go through 15 pages of posts to find it.
Google is banned in US?
let me help you:

How should the West respond to a Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Admit they were wrong, disband NATO, let Russia be and ask for forgiveness, then proceed to denazification of Ukraine and other US Eastern Europe friends.
In Germany you can go to prison for denying holocaust, some of these authors of ukrainian school books should go to prison too. I am sick and tired of that crap.
Then full deneoconization of US with sending cold war era neocon cunts to the long overdue retirement. Yes, I am looking at such Russia "experts" as Victoria Nuland, Fiona Hill and others. And one more thing, ass rape Tom Friedman. Fucking piece of shit and war monger.

And do that before invasion.
also:


She is particularly right about much more important problems (Climate Change) than removing Putin from office.

Thanks for your response. I would only point out that even Putin hasn’t demanded that NATO be dismantled.

I do agree that US policy has been insensitive to Russia‘s legitimate security concerns. I lot of it during Shrub’s administration. Before 9/11 he continued to view Russia as a threat and revived missile defense. He felt it important to have a foreign threat. Obama too meddled in the Ukrainian Maidan Revolution which overthrew a democratically elected President.

But I don’t find any of that valid reasons to simply allow Russia to invade a sovereign nation. I think Ukraine is indeed a fucked up country, very corrupt, but not as corrupt as Russia. I would agree to a solution of breaking off Crimea. Ukraine doesn’t need Crimea and really doesn’t want it. Too Russophile an area for them to control. In exchange Russia should forgive Ukraine’s debt - IIRC ~$30 billion.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,817
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Perhaps rational thought is beginning to kick in. Ukraine is not a threat to Russia. The threat to Russia is from inside Russia, from its movement away from democratic rule. And if you look back through history a movement away from democratic rule has been the greatest threat to any nation and has caused many to collapse. China should also take heed.

With barbos we're witnessing his emotional decision-making process, which is the same process that may take Russia into Ukraine. Long term that is not a good move for Russia.

The threat is not to Russia, but to Putin's grip on power. He has already experienced significant opposition to his rule within Russia itself, and the revolts in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan show him how easily he could face a similar situation. It is too late for him to stop what happened in Ukraine, but he must see it like a dagger pointing at his heart. Ukraine is too similar to Russia itself.

The Pew Research Center has looked at surveys of how many people in former Soviet territories feel that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a bad thing. Older people generally feel that it was to varying degrees, with Estonians being least likely to feel it should have remained together. However, what the statistics show is that younger people increasingly see the dissolution in a more positive light. Only about 50% of Russians 18-34 felt that the dissolution was bad, but 80% of those above (including Putin) thought that it was. I don't know how barbos feels about it, but he is probably over 35. Contrast that with Ukraine, where only 20% of the young demographic felt the dissolution was bad in 2017, and only 40% thought it was bad. IOW, there is a huge disparity between Russia and Ukraine on this subject, and the younger people are, the less likely they are to feel nostalgia for the old Soviet Union. This is really bad new for Putin, who is trying to revive the Soviet Union's former status and glory.

See Older people more likely than younger people to say dissolution of the Soviet Union was a bad thing

Barbos says he has put me on ignore, so he may not see this survey. My guess is that he would say that the Pew report was wildly inaccurate.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,160
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
In exchange Russia should forgive Ukraine’s debt - IIRC ~$30 billion.
No. no more debt forgiving of any kind. It's 250+30=$280bil.
If anything it's Ukraine should ask for forgiveness for crap it put through Crimea and other mostly russian regions. Cutting off water, banning language, etc.
By the way, Crimea has always been depressed region and Junta must thank Russia for taking them off their back.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,754
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
But I don’t find any of that valid reasons to simply allow Russia to invade a sovereign nation.
To clean up the mess West created.


You know, I listened to it, and indeed loved it. Mearshimer makes some of the same points I made above. We have indeed pushed Russia into a corner. But nowhere in there did I find any justification for Russia to invade to “clean up the mess we created.” Ukraine isn’t anywhere close to becoming part of NATO. It’s not even been seriously discussed since 2014. It died right then. As he points out, even John McCain recognized that Ukraine is not in our vital interest to defend with an Article V guarantee. Ukraine knows this. Europe knows this. That’s exactly why Russia doesn’t need to worry about it. Putin’s demands on those issues are a non starter. He’s really screwing up, as Mearshimer points out and as I pointed out in an article earlier about the extreme cost of an invasion. This will not be a repeat of the incursion into Georgia in 2008. He cannot control Ukraine. He can just make their lives miserable. But they can make his life miserable too. And we will help. It’s an extremely risky move. Very likely to fail. It might even end up putting Ukraine into NATO which is exactly what he feared would happen.

Where I disagree somewhat with Mearshimer is that I think he’s not looking beyond Putin. Putin will not always be around. As others point out , he has an incredible internal security problem (so does China). He sees what’s happening in Kazakhstan and Belarus. It can and likely will happen to him. That may be the real reason for these shenanigans. It’s a distraction from troubles at home. An excuse to crack down further. A uniting cry to battle enemies. It might work in the short run. But it may also reveal to be a desperate last gamble.

I think a much longer run strategy is not merely having Ukraine in NATO, but Russia too. And Belarus. And all three joining the EU. But only after both have demonstrated that they are stable democratic nations and have managed to control corruption to a much more manageable level. Then the West would be an indomitable force against a belligerent China.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,160
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
That’s exactly why Russia doesn’t need to worry about it.
It's not good enough.
Ukraine isn’t anywhere close to becoming part of NATO.
It's not good enough.
As he points out, even John McCain recognized that Ukraine is not in our vital interest to defend with an Article V guarantee. Ukraine knows this
You think they know that? :)
You think georgian knew that when they attacked Russia?

This will not be a repeat of the incursion into Georgia in 2008. He cannot control Ukraine. He can just make their lives miserable
You do realize that Georgia started that war? And they started it because they thought NATO would back them up. Same story with Ukraine, they are behaving like that because they think they have NATO to help. These imbeciles really think that.

Where I disagree somewhat with Mearshimer is that I think he’s not looking beyond Putin. Putin will not always be around. As others point out , he has an incredible internal security problem (so does China). He sees what’s happening in Kazakhstan and Belarus. It can and likely will happen to him. That may be the real reason for these shenanigans. It’s a distraction from troubles at home.
that video is from 2015. Putin was young and had 30 years of ruling over Russia ahead of him :)
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,160
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Russia is not going to invade unless Ukraine provokes it.
Putin does what Mearshimer predicted - wrecking Ukraine without actually invading it.
Once NordStream 2 is operational and current contracts for transit over Ukraine expire, Ukraine would dive into deeper troubles than it is now. And troops near border could stay as long as it is necessary. It's not that expensive. Eventually they can build permanent facilities with heated toilets and flatscreen TVs :)

The whole thing is going well, The West is at least formally listening to what Russia is saying, that's progress.
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,440
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
This article provides some color as to the propaganda barbos has to wad through at home. There are examples of what the media broadcasts today and after the annexation of Crimea.

Russian propaganda is rising in volume and vehemence. The themes of Western conspiracy and loathing are everywhere.

But there are things we do know about Russian media — there is a Kremlin hand on the tone and volume buttons.
Ruling party members of the Duma vie with one another to make ever-more outlandish and inflammatory comments.
Alexy Gromov, one of the most trusted members of Putin’s inner circle, “defines the direction and limits of the government censorship and propaganda [and] makes instructions and directives for leading media outlets.”
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,916
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
State media in Russia reminds me of how the allies treated the fact that they had broken enigma in WW2. The allies couldn't use it unilaterally or the Germans would catch on. It absolutely helped win the war but they had to be careful to not lose their advantage.

That's Ruskie media in a nutshell.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,323
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Germany kept attacking submarines???

More like, German submarines attacked supplies we were sending to England.
You're correct: I worded my post incorrectly. Sleep deprivation.... The Germans kept using submarines to sink both merchant and passenger ships, including those carrying American citizens. (See Lusitania, see Housatonic, for starters).

Or this link: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/america-enters-world-war-i

Yeah, that's much more like it. Except it was ships carrying military supplies to England that were being sunk. We were the ones in the wrong, shipping them on passenger ships.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,910
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Russia can do whatever it wants within its own borders, including precautionary measures against fascist regime in Ukraine.
Ukraine isn't going to attack Russia. Your theory doesn't pass the laugh test.
Yea, Ukraine won't attack. But I'm sure that there are some little green men attempting to attack Russia from Ukraine. Putin has become very predictable lately.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,175
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Germany kept attacking submarines???

More like, German submarines attacked supplies we were sending to England.
You're correct: I worded my post incorrectly. Sleep deprivation.... The Germans kept using submarines to sink both merchant and passenger ships, including those carrying American citizens. (See Lusitania, see Housatonic, for starters).

Or this link: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/america-enters-world-war-i

Yeah, that's much more like it. Except it was ships carrying military supplies to England that were being sunk. We were the ones in the wrong, shipping them on passenger ships.
Uh, no, we were NOT in the wrong.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,281
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Maybe Russia should be invited to join NATO.
Love this idea! However, it could be a small problem for Russia to qualify. The eligibility requirements to join NATO:
1. functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
2. fair treatment of minority populations;
3. a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully;
4. They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

I think that #1, 3, and 4 might be a challenge for Russia to adhere to!
That means the US should be made to quit NATO.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,270
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
The US does not want "a war with Russia". Nobody WANTS a war with Russia. Ukraine certainly does not want war with Russia.

The problem here is that it seems like Russia wants a war with Ukraine, for the express purposes of annexation of territory.

Then, Russia cries in bad faith to their people "Help, I'm being oppressed!" In the same way as a drug dealer may steal your money and then telling other passers-by that you are trying to rob them rather than accept the truth that they robbed you.

Nobody is trying to, and the gaslighting can go to hell. Putin is gaslighting you Barbos. And you are gaslighting us in turn. Take the blinders off and accept it: Russia is aggressing. They can either stop doing that or they will have started a war.
The military industrial complex wants a war with Russia.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
2,270
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
that people in the US are living in the matrx
So war is the solution?
Education is the solution, but you don't want to be educated, do you?
An education from you is exactly what I am requesting. Please explain to me why an invasion of Ukraine by Russia is justified. I’m not even disagreeing with you. I truly don’t know what your support for this is based upon. You just keep ranting that we are all ignorant and have swallowed propaganda. Ok. I will indeed admit ignorance. I do not know why war is the appropriate response here. Please explain.
You are assuming and very fixated on it that I advocate an invasion.
What is the reason for this fixation?

Anyway.
Countries invade other countries all the time. US invaded Iraq - illegaly. Yugoslavia- illegally. Syria - illegaly. Afghanistan was legal, I can give you that.
Why can't Russia invade Ukraine?
There are way better reasons/justifications for Russia to invade Ukraine than US had for invading Iraq. I would prefer education but you clearly don't want to be educated. So consider invasion as a last option.

I posted a video earlier with prof. Mearsheimer. You should really watch it. In fact watch his other videos they are great regardless whether or not you agree with him.
I’ve read Mearshimer’s book and enjoyed it thoroughly. Missed the video. Too lazy to go through 15 pages of posts to find it. I agree there are lots of good reasons to go to war. I’m no pacifist. I’m a combat veteran in fact.

But it is good to know you are not advocating Putin’s invasion. I am much relieved. But what then are you saying to the OP question posed: How should the West respond to a Russian invasion of Ukraine?

it seems to me that there are several options:

1) Accede to Putin’s demands and remove all NATO elements from Eastern Europe, and cease all FMS to Ukraine and others.
2) Do nothing at all, and tell Putin it’s none of our business, have at it.
3) Issue a strongly worded condemnation.
4) Minor economic sanctions
5) Major economic sanctions (cutoff nordstream, and all trade, and freeze all assets.)
6) Arm Ukraine
7) Send advisors
8) Send NATO forces into Ukraine to fight alongside them.
9) Launch a full scale attack on Russia through the Baltic states (that’ll show ‘em!)

Feel free to add others. Obviously some of these are not mutually exclusive.

But let us know what you prefer.
9a) Die the horrible death from radiation fallout, the end result of the nuclear war with them. No one left on earth except the life forms less than 5 lbs or so, because Musk did not have time to evacuate to Mars.

Personally, I prefer choice 1. Everyone gets to live and Russia need not be so paranoid anymore about weapons right on their border.....just like how the US felt during the 1960's Cuba missile crises.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,243
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Maybe Russia should be invited to join NATO.
Love this idea! However, it could be a small problem for Russia to qualify. The eligibility requirements to join NATO:
1. functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
2. fair treatment of minority populations;
3. a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully;
4. They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

I think that #1, 3, and 4 might be a challenge for Russia to adhere to!
That means the US should be made to quit NATO.
I'm O.K. with that. NATO accomplished it's purpose quite a while ago. NATO was formed to protect a Europe that had been devastated during WWII from the USSR that had built up a massive war industry and was expansionist. There is no longer a USSR and Europe has rebuilt. The E.U. has three times the population of Russia and Russia's economy is comparable to that of Italy.

Which raises the question, is there any reason that the U.S. should still be a member of NATO and be obligated to intervene in European disputes?
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,754
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
Maybe Russia should be invited to join NATO.
Love this idea! However, it could be a small problem for Russia to qualify. The eligibility requirements to join NATO:
1. functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
2. fair treatment of minority populations;
3. a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully;
4. They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

I think that #1, 3, and 4 might be a challenge for Russia to adhere to!
That means the US should be made to quit NATO.
I'm O.K. with that. NATO accomplished it's purpose quite a while ago. NATO was formed to protect a Europe that had been devastated during WWII from the USSR that had built up a massive war industry and was expansionist. There is no longer a USSR and Europe has rebuilt. The E.U. has three times the population of Russia and Russia's economy is comparable to that of Italy.

Which raises the question, is there any reason that the U.S. should still be a member of NATO and be obligated to intervene in European disputes?
I agree that as a starter, for Russia to join NATO and the EU, it would have to first dump Putin. It might happen, and rather suddenly if he’s not careful, and if we play our hands right. it would also need to radically reform its democracy, giving much greater local control and cleaning up corruption.

As for NATO, the truth is the US needs it now more than they need us. United western democratic governments, including NATO, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe India, could be the biggest force for world peace and prosperity ever seen. China would be seriously contained. Iran would be thwarted. Anyone who attacks the United States would have to deal with a combined might of about 1.3 billion people.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,817
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
I think that talk of Russia joining NATO makes no sense at all, especially since its original purpose was to stop Soviet expansionism and is now to stop Russian expansionism. After 1991, it seemed to have become somewhat irrelevant, because Russia was not perceived as much of a hostile threat to US and European security as it does now. Ironically, John Mearsheimer, perceived now as somewhat supportive of Putin's America-bashing anti-NATO stance, was one of those who warned against potential Russian aggression, and he certainly isn't supportive of Russia's expansionist policies today. If it were ever possible for Russia to join NATO, then there would be no real need for NATO to even exist. Right now, it has a lot of recently joined members who are only members as a form of insurance against the threat of Russian dominance. And it is Vladimir Putin's rise to power that is motivating fear of Russian expansionism. He has managed to save NATO from dying out in a puff of irrelevance.

As for China, I don't see any possibility of Russia joining forces with the US to help contain China's expansion, even though that might seem logical to some US academics like Mearsheimer. Why would that be in Russia's interest? Russia has closer historical ties to China, and it likely sees China more as an ally in opposing the dominance of Western liberal democracies. Let's not forget that Stalin felt quite comfortable in allying with Hitler, before Hitler stabbed him in the back and drove him into an alliance with the West. Autocratic regimes don't make friends easily with liberal democracies.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,281
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
People shouldn't be throwing stones in Putin's direction considering the state of their own houses. Not every member of NATO has clean hands themselves.

The US only needs NATO if the US has a desire to violate principles 3 and 4 of the four principles.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,817
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
People shouldn't be throwing stones in Putin's direction considering the state of their own houses. Not every member of NATO has clean hands themselves.

The US only needs NATO if the US has a desire to violate principles 3 and 4 of the four principles.
It's true that just about every country has done bad things in the past, especially the US and Russia. Yet people like us still feel a moral obligation to criticize bad behavior when we see it, like what we see playing out now with Russia's aggression against its neighbor. Even with all of that historical baggage that we carry around. What would the world be like if everyone whose country has behaved badly in the past just stopped criticizing other countries, including their own, for bad behavior? Do you think that the world would become a better place? :unsure:
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,817
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The UK, with US backing, is claiming that Russia is plotting to replace the current Ukrainian leadership with another pro-Russia politician. The most likely candidate, according to them, would be  Yevheniy Murayev, a politician from Kharkiv who has favored Moscow's annexation of Crimea. Murayev himself denies this, claiming to be banned from Russia.

Source:

UK accuses Kremlin of trying to install pro-Russian leader in Ukraine


A Russian-backed coup would certainly be a preferable alternative to a military invasion of Ukraine for Russia. Despite all of the saber-rattling, Putin realizes that it would be difficult to claim that an invasion of Ukraine was somehow provoked by Ukraine and/or the West, although that seems to be the best pretext they can come up with.

ETA: I have to admit that the plot sounds pretty hare-brained, if there is any truth to it. It's probably more likely that the intelligence service that came up with this was victimized by a Russian scam. The only way such a plot could work would be after an invasion.
 
Last edited:

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,323
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Maybe Russia should be invited to join NATO.
Love this idea! However, it could be a small problem for Russia to qualify. The eligibility requirements to join NATO:
1. functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
2. fair treatment of minority populations;
3. a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully;
4. They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

I think that #1, 3, and 4 might be a challenge for Russia to adhere to!
That means the US should be made to quit NATO.
I'm O.K. with that. NATO accomplished it's purpose quite a while ago. NATO was formed to protect a Europe that had been devastated during WWII from the USSR that had built up a massive war industry and was expansionist. There is no longer a USSR and Europe has rebuilt. The E.U. has three times the population of Russia and Russia's economy is comparable to that of Italy.

Which raises the question, is there any reason that the U.S. should still be a member of NATO and be obligated to intervene in European disputes?

Changing the name doesn't get rid of the fact that they're nuclear armed and expansionist.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,243
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Maybe Russia should be invited to join NATO.
Love this idea! However, it could be a small problem for Russia to qualify. The eligibility requirements to join NATO:
1. functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
2. fair treatment of minority populations;
3. a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully;
4. They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

I think that #1, 3, and 4 might be a challenge for Russia to adhere to!
That means the US should be made to quit NATO.
I'm O.K. with that. NATO accomplished it's purpose quite a while ago. NATO was formed to protect a Europe that had been devastated during WWII from the USSR that had built up a massive war industry and was expansionist. There is no longer a USSR and Europe has rebuilt. The E.U. has three times the population of Russia and Russia's economy is comparable to that of Italy.

Which raises the question, is there any reason that the U.S. should still be a member of NATO and be obligated to intervene in European disputes?

Changing the name doesn't get rid of the fact that they're nuclear armed and expansionist.
You completely missed the point. Currently NATO is nothing like it was intended to be. European countries were completely incapable of offering any resistance because of the destruction of their infrastructure and industry during WWII. The creation of NATO (with the U.S., Canada, etc.) was to protect them while they rebuilt. They have rebuilt and the E.U. is now more populous and have a greater economy than any likely adversary. They are now "big boys" and should be able to protect themselves.

NATO is now nothing like it was formed and the U.S. should reconsider if it wants to remain. Given the current NATO obligations, the U.S. would be required to militarily support Tajikistan if they had a border conflict with Afghanistan because Tajikistan is a member of NATO and Afghanistan isn't.

By withdrawing from NATO, the U.S. could decide to help some country if we saw just reason but would not be obligated, under treaty, to do so.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,817
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
...
NATO is now nothing like it was formed and the U.S. should reconsider if it wants to remain. Given the current NATO obligations, the U.S. would be required to militarily support Tajikistan if they had a border conflict with Afghanistan because Tajikistan is a member of NATO and Afghanistan isn't.

By withdrawing from NATO, the U.S. could decide to help some country if we saw just reason but would not be obligated, under treaty, to do so

I think that you are wildly underestimating the ability of the EU, which is not a military alliance, to resist Russian expansionism, especially if they use the "divide and conquer" strategy that has worked so well since the time of Julius Caesar. Once Ukraine is absorbed, Moldova would probably also go, and pressure would be put on all of the former East European bloc to fall back in line with Russia. But for NATO membership, of course. And that's the point.

BTW, Tajikistan is not a member of NATO, and there would be no treaty obligation for the US to defend it if it were attacked by Afghanistan or anyone else. It is a member of the Russian-led CSTO, so Russia would be more likely to intervene.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,243
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
...
NATO is now nothing like it was formed and the U.S. should reconsider if it wants to remain. Given the current NATO obligations, the U.S. would be required to militarily support Tajikistan if they had a border conflict with Afghanistan because Tajikistan is a member of NATO and Afghanistan isn't.

By withdrawing from NATO, the U.S. could decide to help some country if we saw just reason but would not be obligated, under treaty, to do so

I think that you are wildly underestimating the ability of the EU, which is not a military alliance, to resist Russian expansionism,
Again that is pretty much my point. Why the hell doesn't the E.U. currently worry enough about their self-defense to join in a military alliance? They have discussed it but instead rely on U.S. protection through NATO. And even then, many do not even contribute their required financing, expecting the U.S. to pick up the slack. If not for the U.S. as a major supporter of NATO, they would develop their own defense force.
BTW, Tajikistan is not a member of NATO, and there would be no treaty obligation for the US to defend it if it were attacked by Afghanistan or anyone else. It is a member of the Russian-led CSTO, so Russia would be more likely to intervene.
My brain fart. Let's try a border conflict between Croatia and Serbia, or any other two countries, one in NATO and the other not, (that most people have no clue where they are) that have a border conflict. The U.S. through NATO is obligated to be militarily involved. But then Neocons do like that it gives them an excuse to commit U.S. troops to a lot more military conflicts than they could otherwise justify.
 
Last edited:

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,160
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist

Russia can do whatever it wants within its own borders, including precautionary measures against fascist regime in Ukraine.
Ukraine isn't going to attack Russia. Your theory doesn't pass the laugh test.
Yea, Ukraine won't attack. But I'm sure that there are some little green men attempting to attack Russia from Ukraine. Putin has become very predictable lately.
Only because they were told by NATO in no uncertain terms that they would be Georgia 2.0. if they attack.
Having said that, I still can't exclude ukrainian provocations asking for "minor" invasion.
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,160
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Personally, I prefer choice 1. Everyone gets to live and Russia need not be so paranoid anymore about weapons right on their border.....just like how the US felt during the 1960's Cuba missile crises.
Yeah, but who is going to buy F35s in that case? check and mate!
 

barbos

Contributor
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
14,160
Location
Mlky Way galaxy
Basic Beliefs
atheist
This article provides some color as to the propaganda barbos has to wad through at home. There are examples of what the media broadcasts today and after the annexation of Crimea.

Russian propaganda is rising in volume and vehemence. The themes of Western conspiracy and loathing are everywhere.
For the million's time. I don't really watch russian channels. So no need to wad through anything.
Having said that, russian viewers are way better informed about your point of view than vice versa. Basically all the crap being spewed here is transmitted and commented rather well. And even more, unlike free press US, in Russia alternative views are directly presented, albeit for entertainment purposes. There are hard-core ukrainian quasi-nazi, and pro-american americans there. These are highest ranking shows. To be fair they are there for beating mostly, but they voice your point of view. These shows are hard to watch, Basically Jerry Springer but with politicians and commentators.
Find me any pro-russia russian dude on TV in US. You can't. All your TV experts are hard-core neocons like Friedman and Hill. They sound very polite and knowledgeable but they are paid full of shit liars.
 
Last edited:

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,817
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
...I think that you are wildly underestimating the ability of the EU, which is not a military alliance, to resist Russian expansionism,
Again that is pretty much my point. Why the hell doesn't the E.U. currently worry enough about their self-defense to join in a military alliance? They have discussed it but instead rely on U.S. protection through NATO. And even then, many do not even contribute their required financing, expecting the U.S. to pick up the slack. If not for the U.S. as a major supporter of NATO, they would develop their own defense force.

The military alliance is NATO. Not every EU country belongs to NATO, but not every NATO member is an EU country. Those countries that feel it in their interest to join NATO do so, and the US is such a country. The US has extensive economic and cultural ties to Europe and a host of reasons for not wanting those ties to be disrupted or coopted by a hostile power. As for NATO funding, the situation has changed drastically in the past few years. Now there are at least 10 NATO members meeting their obligations, but the cost sharing formula is more complicated than it appears to be in popular press media, especially right wing news sources. I cannot agree with you that European nations would pick up the slack if the US withdrew, causing a catastrophic collapse of NATO infrastructure. Rather, I think that Russia would step in rather quickly to take advantage of a weakening of NATO power.

See

NATO: Which Countries Pay Their Share On Defence?


BTW, Tajikistan is not a member of NATO, and there would be no treaty obligation for the US to defend it if it were attacked by Afghanistan or anyone else. It is a member of the Russian-led CSTO, so Russia would be more likely to intervene.
My brain fart. Let's try a border conflict between Croatia and Serbia, or any other two countries, one in NATO and the other not, (that most people have no clue where they are) that have a border conflict. The U.S. through NATO is obligated to be militarily involved. But then Neocons do like that it gives them an excuse to commit U.S. troops to a lot more military conflicts than they could otherwise justify.

NATO is not obligated to join in military conflicts that involve other NATO members unless they are attacked. If Croatia attacked Serbia, it would be on its own. If Serbia attacked Croatia, then NATO would be obligated to step in.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,817
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
This article provides some color as to the propaganda barbos has to wad through at home. There are examples of what the media broadcasts today and after the annexation of Crimea.

Russian propaganda is rising in volume and vehemence. The themes of Western conspiracy and loathing are everywhere.
For the million's time. I don't really watch russian channels. So no need to wad through anything.
Having said that, russian viewers are way better informed about your point of view than vice versa. Basically all the crap being spewed here is transmitted and commented rather well. And even more, unlike free press US, in Russia alternative views are directly presented, albeit for entertainment purposes. There are hard-core ukrainian quasi-nazi, and pro-american americans there. These are highest ranking shows. Yo be fair they are there for beating mostly, but they voice your point of view. These shows are hard to watch, Basically Jerry Springer but with politicians and commentators.
Find me any pro-russia russian dude on TV in US. You can't. All your TV experts are hard-core neocons like Friedman and Hill. They sound very polite and knowledgeable but they are paid full of shit liars.
Absolutely untrue. The Russian media very selectively edit what they present to Russian viewers, because they are under pressure to adhere to government doctrine. That was the point of all those journalists getting harassed, attacked, and murdered in the past. The Russian press is largely cowed right now. The US and other Western media are not unbiased, but journalists don't fear being murdered or jailed for airing their opinions. A news organization like Fox News, which represents a major propaganda outfit for the political party that opposes the current US administration and often spouts propaganda from a hostile foreign power uncritically, would not be possible in Russia. Russia has laws in place to shut down opposition news organizations and political groups.
 
Top Bottom