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

[barbos]

Everyone should watch the Gravitas video. I'd be interested in barbos's take but I doubt he'll watch it.

I have looked through. What am I supposed to learn from it?
Seriously what is so enlightening about that video?
It's mostly correct. In one place she proudly quotes statistics about 70% ukrainians against Russia. Crashing majority. But I have already commented on that. Think about the rest 30%. Russia is so bad and the West is so united...... except 30% of Ukraine itself.....

Also I did not see her mentioning ukrainian fascists and and antisemites. Must have skipped it somewhere.

You ignore that is an internal Ukrainian problem. The Quebecois in Canada have in the past tried to declare independence from Canada. The fact that they speak French does not mean that France has the right to invade Canada and annex Quebec.

Tell that to Nuland.
And get back to me when Canada bans french language.

 

[skepticalbip]

Everyone should watch the Gravitas video. I'd be interested in barbos's take but I doubt he'll watch it.

I have looked through. What am I supposed to learn from it?
Seriously what is so enlightening about that video?
It's mostly correct. In one place she proudly quotes statistics about 70% ukrainians against Russia. Crashing majority. But I have already commented on that. Think about the rest 30%. Russia is so bad and the West is so united...... except 30% of Ukraine itself.....

Also I did not see her mentioning ukrainian fascists and and antisemites. Must have skipped it somewhere.

You ignore that is an internal Ukrainian problem. The Quebecois in Canada have in the past tried to declare independence from Canada. The fact that they speak French does not mean that France has the right to invade Canada and annex Quebec.

Tell that to Nuland.
And get back to me when Canada bans french language.

WTF does what Nuland says have to do with whether Russia has a right to invade another country?

Are you claiming that if French was banned in Canada then France would have every right under international law (maybe even an obligation) to invade Canada and annex Quebec?

 

[barbos]

Everyone should watch the Gravitas video. I'd be interested in barbos's take but I doubt he'll watch it.

I have looked through. What am I supposed to learn from it?
Seriously what is so enlightening about that video?
It's mostly correct. In one place she proudly quotes statistics about 70% ukrainians against Russia. Crashing majority. But I have already commented on that. Think about the rest 30%. Russia is so bad and the West is so united...... except 30% of Ukraine itself.....

Also I did not see her mentioning ukrainian fascists and and antisemites. Must have skipped it somewhere.

You ignore that is an internal Ukrainian problem. The Quebecois in Canada have in the past tried to declare independence from Canada. The fact that they speak French does not mean that France has the right to invade Canada and annex Quebec.

Tell that to Nuland.
And get back to me when Canada bans french language.

WTF does what Nuland says have to do with whether Russia has a right to invade another country?

According to Nuland, as far as US concerned, countries do not have internal problems. They are all US problems.

Are you claiming that if French was banned in Canada then France would every right under international law (maybe even an obligation) to invade Canada?

No, I am saying French Canada would declare independence in no time once Canada bans french.

 

[skepticalbip]

Everyone should watch the Gravitas video. I'd be interested in barbos's take but I doubt he'll watch it.

I have looked through. What am I supposed to learn from it?
Seriously what is so enlightening about that video?
It's mostly correct. In one place she proudly quotes statistics about 70% ukrainians against Russia. Crashing majority. But I have already commented on that. Think about the rest 30%. Russia is so bad and the West is so united...... except 30% of Ukraine itself.....

Also I did not see her mentioning ukrainian fascists and and antisemites. Must have skipped it somewhere.

You ignore that is an internal Ukrainian problem. The Quebecois in Canada have in the past tried to declare independence from Canada. The fact that they speak French does not mean that France has the right to invade Canada and annex Quebec.

Tell that to Nuland.
And get back to me when Canada bans french language.

WTF does what Nuland says have to do with whether Russia has a right to invade another country?

According to Nuland, as far as US concerned, countries do not have internal problems. They are all US problems.

So Nuland is an authoritarian idiot.

Are you claiming that if French was banned in Canada then France would every right under international law (maybe even an obligation) to invade Canada?

No, I am saying French Canada would declare independence in no time once Canada bans french.

Again, that would be an internal Canadian problem, not a problem that would justify an invasion by France.

 

[barbos]

Everyone should watch the Gravitas video. I'd be interested in barbos's take but I doubt he'll watch it.

I have looked through. What am I supposed to learn from it?
Seriously what is so enlightening about that video?
It's mostly correct. In one place she proudly quotes statistics about 70% ukrainians against Russia. Crashing majority. But I have already commented on that. Think about the rest 30%. Russia is so bad and the West is so united...... except 30% of Ukraine itself.....

Also I did not see her mentioning ukrainian fascists and and antisemites. Must have skipped it somewhere.

You ignore that is an internal Ukrainian problem. The Quebecois in Canada have in the past tried to declare independence from Canada. The fact that they speak French does not mean that France has the right to invade Canada and annex Quebec.

Tell that to Nuland.
And get back to me when Canada bans french language.

WTF does what Nuland says have to do with whether Russia has a right to invade another country?

According to Nuland, as far as US concerned, countries do not have internal problems. They are all US problems.

So Nuland is a idiot.

Well, she is not alone. That's been US official policy since WW2. Hence the term "World Police"

Are you claiming that if French was banned in Canada then France would every right under international law (maybe even an obligation) to invade Canada?

No, I am saying French Canada would declare independence in no time once Canada bans french.

Again, that would be an internal Canadian problem, not a problem that would justify an invasion by France.

What if Canadian French ask Russia for help? Still internal problem?

 

[skepticalbip]

Everyone should watch the Gravitas video. I'd be interested in barbos's take but I doubt he'll watch it.

I have looked through. What am I supposed to learn from it?
Seriously what is so enlightening about that video?
It's mostly correct. In one place she proudly quotes statistics about 70% ukrainians against Russia. Crashing majority. But I have already commented on that. Think about the rest 30%. Russia is so bad and the West is so united...... except 30% of Ukraine itself.....

Also I did not see her mentioning ukrainian fascists and and antisemites. Must have skipped it somewhere.

You ignore that is an internal Ukrainian problem. The Quebecois in Canada have in the past tried to declare independence from Canada. The fact that they speak French does not mean that France has the right to invade Canada and annex Quebec.

Tell that to Nuland.
And get back to me when Canada bans french language.

WTF does what Nuland says have to do with whether Russia has a right to invade another country?

According to Nuland, as far as US concerned, countries do not have internal problems. They are all US problems.

So Nuland is a idiot.

Well, she is not alone. That's been US official policy since WW2. Hence the term "World Police"

There are certainly some in government who want to be the "world police" there are many who do not. Hence the U.S. have become involved in some countries' internal strife but have pointedly avoided involvement in most.

You are all over the place with your argument. Are you saying that U.S. involvement is really bad and they should never do it but Russian involvement is good?

Are you claiming that if French was banned in Canada then France would every right under international law (maybe even an obligation) to invade Canada?

No, I am saying French Canada would declare independence in no time once Canada bans french.

Again, that would be an internal Canadian problem, not a problem that would justify an invasion by France.

What if Canadian French ask Russia for help? Still internal problem?

It is still an internal problem.

 

[barbos]

There are certainly some in government who want to be the "world police" there are many who do not. Hence the U.S. have become involved in some countries' internal strife but have pointedly avoided involvement in most.

Name one who was on TV lately or ever.

You are all over the place with your argument. Are you saying that U.S. involvement is really bad and they should never do it but Russian involvement is good?

No, am not shooting for "Russia is good, US is bad".
I am shooting for "US is bad, and Russia has involuntary reaction to that"
have you watched any videos I have been posting? Mearseheimer videos? no?

 

[barbos]

It is still an internal problem.

President Kennedy and Nuland and the rest of US establishment and EU vehemently disagree. Any kind of Russian involvement with canadian french would cause cataclysmic reaction.

 

[skepticalbip]

There are certainly some in government who want to be the "world police" there are many who do not. Hence the U.S. have become involved in some countries' internal strife but have pointedly avoided involvement in most.

Name one who was on TV lately or ever.

You are all over the place with your argument. Are you saying that U.S. involvement is really bad and they should never do it but Russian involvement is good?

No, am not shooting for "Russia is good, US is bad".
I am shooting for "US is bad, and Russia has involuntary reaction to that"
have you watched any videos I have been posting? Mearseheimer videos? no?

I don't watch propaganda videos from any side. I prefer to look at the actions of people or countries rather than listen to their spin on why they will, or have, done it.

 

[barbos]

I don't watch propaganda videos from any side

I don't post propaganda videos. I post alternative viewpoints from well respected academics and journalists which are banned from MSM. For propaganda I go to CNN.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't watch propaganda videos from any side

I don't post propaganda videos. I post alternative viewpoints from well respected academics and journalists. For propaganda I go to CNN.

"alternative viewpoints" is a cute way of saying spin or propaganda. But I will give you the CNN as propaganda... Much of their "reporting" has very little to do with reality which is likely why their viewership is in the tank.

 

[barbos]

I don't watch propaganda videos from any side

I don't post propaganda videos. I post alternative viewpoints from well respected academics and journalists. For propaganda I go to CNN.

"alternative viewpoints" is a cute way of saying spin or propaganda. But I will give you the CNN as propaganda... Much of their "reporting" has very little to do with reality.

You clearly have not watched any of the videos I posted.
Calling Mearsheimer a russian propagandist is a proof of that.

 

[Copernicus]

You clearly have not watched any of the videos I posted.
Calling Mearsheimer a russian propagandist is a proof of that.

Calling him someone who supports Russian policy on Ukraine is equally delusional. Those of us who have watched and commented on the Mearsheimer videos have discovered that barbos is not interested in really discussing them and Mearsheimer. His only interest seems to be to prop up Mearsheimer as support for Russian talking points. The fact is that Mearsheimer blames the US for not wanting Ukraine to keep their nuclear weapons, and he thinks of Russia as essentially a distraction from the main US adversary in his mind: China. Anyway, we get nothing but gaslighting from barbos when he claims that nobody was interested in those videos he posted. Several of us watched them and tried to get him engaged, but without success.

BTW, I would also recommend watching the Gravitas video. It supports much of the historical information that I and others have posted in this thread, and it contains quite a lot of information that conflicts with barbos's views of the situation.

 

[barbos]

Finland Prime Mister repeated after Sweden that they are fine without NATO as well.
Clearly sending a message to Ukraine. I bet Sweden and Finland coordinated all of that. I can imagine what they are thinking but not saying about this Ukraine business.
State Department must be mad at Finland/Sweden.

 

[zorq]

Finland Prime Mister repeated after Sweden that they are fine without NATO as well.
Clearly sending a message to Ukraine. I bet Sweden and Finland coordinated all of that. I can imagine what they are thinking but not saying about this Ukraine business.
State Department must be mad at Finland/Sweden.

Nope. I doubt it. NATO isn't fishing for more members. They're strong enough already. If Russia keeps invading its neighbors though, it won't be surprising to see NATO membership rise.

 

[barbos]

Finland Prime Mister repeated after Sweden that they are fine without NATO as well.
Clearly sending a message to Ukraine. I bet Sweden and Finland coordinated all of that. I can imagine what they are thinking but not saying about this Ukraine business.
State Department must be mad at Finland/Sweden.

Nope. I doubt it. NATO isn't fishing for more members. They're strong enough already. If Russia keeps invading its neighbors though, it won't be surprising to see NATO membership rise.

I did not say NATO was fishing for more members. Having said that, NATO did reply Sweden saying that they can become a member overnight.

NATO/US don't need Sweden/Finland, for all intents and purposes they are members.
NATO/US prime concern is unity among NATO members, they can't allow dissent. And there is dissent.

 

[ZiprHead]

I am shooting for "US is bad, and Russia has involuntary reaction to that"

What, like a nervous tic?

 

[Elixir]

I think Finland should nibble off a little bit of Russia... maybe St Petersburg and some surrounding territory.
I heard that someone there said something mean about Finland. They shouldn't have to put up with being attacked!

Seriously, the likely near term outcome will Putin staging a “that wasn’t an invasion” after he invades ans occupies Eastern Ukraine.
Donetsk and Luhansk will be conceded to Russia, and any complaint about that land grab will be spun as Russia "defending its own (planted separatist) people". Taking over the rest of Ukraine can be done in similar stages, and The Dreaded West will react at each turn with all the fight and fury they showed after Pootey grabbed Crimea and Northern Georgia.
Meanwhile, back at home, those patriotic Republicans will level shame at those Democrats sponsoring Ukrainian insurgents who are terrorizing the Russian people...
At this rate, Russia will be nibbling away at US territories and perhaps States, with the full blessing of the Republican Autocracy established in 2024....

NATO/US prime concern is unity among NATO members, they can't allow dissent. And there is dissent.

Neither barbos nor Putin will ever comprehend that dissent is not only the greatest weakness, but also the greatest strength of any democratic establishment. It's not something to quash, it's something to consider, work with and resolve.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think barbos is conflicted. He obviously prefers the benefits of western style democracy but is stuck defending Russian aggression and dictatorship because that's where he is. I can understand that. There's also the harsh reality that those who strongly and openly oppose the Putin regime in Russia risk poisoning, imprisonment, death, etc. So again, I can understand his position. Be loyal to the mob and live.

NATO is a lesser issue within the larger conflict that is democracy and personal freedom vs dictatorship and state control. To understand what's going on is to look past the NATO distraction. NATO only exists because of that fundamental conflict between democracy and totalitarianism.

 

[Elixir]

I think barbos is conflicted. He obviously prefers the benefits of western style democracy but is stuck defending Russian aggression and dictatorship because that's where he is. I can understand that.

I think the conflict has more to do with what stances a Russian agitator may and may not be permitted to evince.
It's fairly obvious that there are things he'd like to say that he cannot, and not due to site moderators...

There's also the harsh reality that those who strongly and openly oppose the Putin regime in Russia risk poisoning, imprisonment, death, etc. So again, I can understand his position. Be loyal to the mob and live.

Exactly. One need not be particularly "open" about it either. Becoming a perceived threat, or even a perceived minor annoyance can do truly weird things to your food, your door handles, your perfume bottles etc. if you're in Russia or are a Russian "subject".