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

[barbos]

Fair enough but your denial of Russia invading China

I don't remember denying it. But this is pretty pathetic, you must have been searching for days and came up with this? It's no more invasion than current "invasion" of Russia into Syria.
Irony here is that US is currently meddling with the same muslim region trying to cause troubles for the central government.
The difference is, China is not on your border and they have control of that region already, whereas in Russia's case China was not in control and Russia merelly helped their client state on their border to defend from China taking over.
Yes, Russia occasionally "invades" neighboring countries when we think we have to for our own security. Current "invasion" into Ukraine is the best example. Russia can not allow rabidly hostile puppet regimes to exist, because they quickly fall under influence of Nuland&Co

 

[barbos]

You realize Russia was the aggressor in the Crimean war?

No, I don't realize that, because it was not so.
Aggressor was GB and France.

And prior to that Russia expelled Turkish influence over the region and took control. Local "indigenous" population of crimean tatars lost their little slave business because of that.

 

[barbos]

Tu Quoque remains a logical fallacy, however.

It's not applicable here. Because your invasions were illegal whereas Russian invasions were legal.
I merely assumed your view to show your dishonesty. Again In my view, Russia has a right to self defense and if that involves expelling hostile western takeover of border countries, so be it.

 

[barbos]

Well Finland completely closed its border with Russia so barbos is going to have to do a few mental cartwheels to get there.

You do know that they are going to open it again?
They closed not specifically for russians. They closed because of refugees whom Russia no so subtly directed to it.
Yes, Nuland&Co bribed Dancing Queen Sana Marin into joining NATO. But Russia knows that finns are not that dumb to allow themselves to be ukrainised. So yes, Finland is in NATO, but don't expect much beyond that. Finns are not ukrainians, they are not even poles.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You realize Russia was the aggressor in the Crimean war?

No, I don't realize that, because it was not so.
Aggressor was GB and France.

And prior to that Russia expelled Turkish influence over the region and took control. Local "indigenous" population of crimean tatars lost their little slave business because of that.

It was the height of the age of empire. Everybody who could was just grabbing whatever. The Ottoman empire was falling apart. The Brits, French and Russians, all wanted to take over parts of the Ottoman empire. But they didn't want the other great powers to do so. So whenever anyone would make a first move, the other powers would defend it. The Russian tsar, Alexander II had an obsession about Russia taking back Istanbul/Constantinople. This obsession, by the Russian tsars, would later lead to the Russian revolution.

France was at that time ruled by Napoleon III, in a form of government we now identify as fascist. And operated in the same way. Ie, blame everything on your enemies and aggressively attack anything, all the time.

Basically, everyone at this time were scumbags. It was aggressive nationalism all around. It's an outdated way of conducting foreign policy. This is the way Putin conducts foreign policy today. That's why his behaviour is seen as so bizarre and jarring in a modern context. We don't think of "the balance of power" anymore. We don't see the world as a zero sum game anymore. It's better if we have peace and stability, and encourage free trade. Everybody wins that way. The world cannot afford Russia winning. It would be a horrible precedent. It'd be like we learned nothing from imperialism, colonialism and the world wars.

 

[barbos]

It was the height of the age of empire. Everybody who could was just grabbing whatever. The Ottoman empire was falling apart. The Brits, French and Russians, all wanted to take over parts of the Ottoman empire.

No,

Crimean War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[zorq]

It was the height of the age of empire. Everybody who could was just grabbing whatever. The Ottoman empire was falling apart. The Brits, French and Russians, all wanted to take over parts of the Ottoman empire.

No,

Crimean War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your link says Russia was the aggressor. You aren't helping your case at all. If anything you are reinforcing your reputation for living in a surreal wonderland of delusion.

 

[Elixir]

GB invaded pretty much every country in the world.

Ah, the Golden Age of Exploration.
And what was Mother Russia doing during the 15th-17th centuries?

About 1460, measures were taken to bring the peasantry under more regular control of the state and the landlord. Peasant registration appeared at this time, and also the requirement spread that peasants might renounce the tenancy of the land they were working only at the end of the agricultural cycle, in the week of St. Yury’s Day (November 26 [December 8, New Style]). The growing controls upon the peasantry received impetus from the large-scale deportations and colonizations that accompanied the annexations of Novgorod, Tver, Pskov, and Ryazan, when the old nobility were replaced with nobility owing service to the prince of Muscovy. ...

Yup. And they've been "annexing" stuff ever since, under the usual "sign up or die" contract.

... In the period from 1606 to 1613, during the so-called Time of Troubles, chaos gripped most of central Muscovy; Muscovite boyars, Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian Cossacks, and assorted mobs of adventurers and desperate citizens were among the chief actors. In May 1606 a small-scale revolt supported by popular indignation at the foolishly insulting behaviour of Dmitry and his Polish garrison brought the overthrow and murder of the pretender. The boyars gave the crown to Prince Vasily Shuysky, a leader of the revolt against Dmitry, with the understanding that he would respect the special rights and privileges of the boyars. While the new tsar had the support of most boyars and of the northern merchants, he could not end the disorders in the south or the adventures of the Polish and Swedish kings, who used Muscovy as a battlefield in their continuing conflict with each other.

Lulz - their bellicosity was such a reliable feature of Russian society, that third parties could basically play chess, using real Russians as pieces.
Ho hum, the more things change the, more they stay the same.

 

[barbos]

Your link says Russia was the aggressor.

Not in Crimea (GB/France were aggressors there) In other places technically yes, but in reality Russia was a liberator of oppressed christian population from Osman empire. Crimea was a russian land. Russia kicked muslim invaders out of Europe.

 

[barbos]

Basically, everyone at this time were scumbags.

Some (GB, France) were bigger scumbags.
You (Sweden), by the way, were scambags too, you were with Turkey too, at least at some point you were coordinating with them.
And GB are scambags now.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Basically, everyone at this time were scumbags.

Some (GB, France) were bigger scumbags.
You (Sweden), by the way, were scambags too, you were with Turkey too, at least at some point you were coordinating with them.
And GB are scambags now.

Everyone is a scumbag except for the great white victims: the Russians.

 

[barbos]

Basically, everyone at this time were scumbags.

Some (GB, France) were bigger scumbags.
You (Sweden), by the way, were scambags too, you were with Turkey too, at least at some point you were coordinating with them.
And GB are scambags now.

Everyone is a scumbag except for the great white victims: the Russians.

Will you ever say anything substantive?

 

[Elixir]

Basically, everyone at this time were scumbags.

And it came to pass that the Time of Troubles, gave way to the Age of Scumbags. And there Russia remains to this day.
Bringing the peasantry under more regular control of the state remains the main effort of the Muscovy government, that they may continue the taxation that enables the annexation of any nearby acreage that appears inadequately guarded.
Expecting that to change after nearly 600 years of the same behavior, would seem unrealistic.

 

[bilby]

The Russian tsar, Alexander II had an obsession about Russia taking back Istanbul/Constantinople. This obsession, by the Russian tsars, would later lead to the Russian revolution.

Via the Great War, where it was Russian desire to block Austro-Hungarian influences over the Balkan Peninsula, and hence over the land approaches to Constantinople, that was the major reason for their willingness to engage in a Europe-wide war for the sake of Serbia.

The Imperial era was an horrific mess that inevitably led to military conflict, and eventually to an all-consuming war that destroyed an entire generation of men across a large fraction of the world. And Putin yearns for that and wants to emulate it.

 

[bilby]

Russia kicked muslim invaders out of Europe.

Did anyone tell the Bosnians or the Albanians?

Shit, Russia didn't even "kick the muslim invaders out" of the Soviet Union.

And religious war actually achieves the extremely difficult objective of being even stupider and less justifiable than imperial war.

 

[Elixir]

religious war actually achieves the extremely difficult objective of being even stupider and less justifiable than imperial war.

Since no god is available to defend itself, I will rise to their defense with a heartfelt NUH-UHN!

 

[TomC]

religious war actually achieves the extremely difficult objective of being even stupider and less justifiable than imperial war.

Since no god is available to defend itself, I will rise to their defense with a heartfelt NUH-UHN!

I'm no military historian. But I've never heard of a truly religious war.

Religion has always been the way aristocrats marshal the dumbass cannon fodder necessary for a war of conquest. It's used to explain why "they" need destroying, because God. That it entirely benefits the kings or whatever kinda gets glossed over.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Religion has always been the a way aristocrats marshal the dumbass cannon fodder necessary for a war of conquest.

FIFY. There’s also flag-hugging, jingoistic patriotism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize Russia was the aggressor in the Crimean war?

No, I don't realize that, because it was not so.
Aggressor was GB and France.

And prior to that Russia expelled Turkish influence over the region and took control. Local "indigenous" population of crimean tatars lost their little slave business because of that.

You didn't get what you wanted with words so you resorted to attacking. You continue to consider countries doing things you don't like as aggressors. Reality is that the country that engages in an act of war is the aggressor. Normally that means shooting but it can be things like blockades.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your link says Russia was the aggressor.

Not in Crimea (GB/France were aggressors there) In other places technically yes, but in reality Russia was a liberator of oppressed christian population from Osman empire. Crimea was a russian land. Russia kicked muslim invaders out of Europe.

I see you are backtracking. This is effectively an admission you were the aggressor. "Liberating" is your standard pretext for war.