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

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


Why? Good question. In today's economic paradigm peace, stability and open borders benefit us all. What flag is where is less and less important. As long as we have peace and stability, all is good.
Indeed, as the Good Friday Agreement shows. I don't think any of the involved parties in Northern Ireland view it as ideal, but rather as a compromise that they can live with, as evident by that it has been quite calm in Northern Ireland since its establishment.
There is no benefit of having an empire today. Today's empires are corporations. Not countries. The richest men today are all industrialists. Not emperors or presidents. Putin just didn't get the memo.
I don't think Putin is waging war because he is after money or resources. To recreate the Russian Empire (and it is the Tsarist empire, not the USSR, that he fancies) is his life project. It gives his life meaning in the same way as, for example, being an environmentalist activist gives meaning to Greta Thunberg, or working to advance liberal democracy gives meaning to George Soros.

I think the Ukraine war is about the newly discovered natural gas reserves in Ukraine. Putin had a near monopoly on selling gas to Germany.

What a surprise Putin only wants Luhansk, Doetsk and Crimea. The areas with the gas deposits.

I'm pretty sure this is the sum total of the reason for Putin attacking
This is very unlikely. Russia loses way more from this war than if Ukraine would also sell some gas.

Putin's ultimatum back in December 2021 made it clear what it is about: Geopolitics. Putin doesn't want Ukraine to leave Russia's sphere of influence.

It is for the same reason that they attacked Georgia back in 2008. Georgia was getting too close to the EU and NATO, and moving away fro Russia's sphere of influence.

You are thinking about this is in an overly Marxist way.
 

Why? Good question. In today's economic paradigm peace, stability and open borders benefit us all. What flag is where is less and less important. As long as we have peace and stability, all is good.
Indeed, as the Good Friday Agreement shows. I don't think any of the involved parties in Northern Ireland view it as ideal, but rather as a compromise that they can live with, as evident by that it has been quite calm in Northern Ireland since its establishment.
There is no benefit of having an empire today. Today's empires are corporations. Not countries. The richest men today are all industrialists. Not emperors or presidents. Putin just didn't get the memo.
I don't think Putin is waging war because he is after money or resources. To recreate the Russian Empire (and it is the Tsarist empire, not the USSR, that he fancies) is his life project. It gives his life meaning in the same way as, for example, being an environmentalist activist gives meaning to Greta Thunberg, or working to advance liberal democracy gives meaning to George Soros.

I think the Ukraine war is about the newly discovered natural gas reserves in Ukraine. Putin had a near monopoly on selling gas to Germany.

What a surprise Putin only wants Luhansk, Doetsk and Crimea. The areas with the gas deposits.

I'm pretty sure this is the sum total of the reason for Putin attacking
This is very unlikely. Russia loses way more from this war than if Ukraine would also sell some gas.
Well, they do if the war isn't a quick armoured strike into Kyiv, that's all over in a fortnight. But that wasn't a cost that was factored in to Putin's original planning.
Putin's ultimatum back in December 2021 made it clear what it is about: Geopolitics. Putin doesn't want Ukraine to leave Russia's sphere of influence.
For sure. Putin grew up completely embeded in the Cold War, as a massive supporter of the USSR and of the Soviet influence over the Warsaw Pact nations, and doubtless has fond memories of that era when Russia was both feared and admired.
It is for the same reason that they attacked Georgia back in 2008. Georgia was getting too close to the EU and NATO, and moving away fro Russia's sphere of influence.
There's no reason why the motivation cannot include both geopolitics and a resources grab.
You are thinking about this is in an overly Marxist way.
I don't see how anything anyone has said here is Marxist, even when I look at the works of Groucho as well as Karl.
 
So Kiev regime moved their planes close to the line of contact. Russia destroyed 5 planes and damaged 3 in one strike.
That's gotta be the worth decision they have ever made. They brought Patriot for protection - did not help. Russian air defence are now shooting down Patriot missiles in the air (!!!!) :D
 
They can’t do shit against a much smaller and weaker country
You are aware that whole West is supplying Ukraine?
And even with that, Ukraine has 5-10 times higher losses.
If your loss numbers for Ukraine were accurate the war would be over because they wouldn't have a force anymore.
We are almost there.
You said that two years ago.
We were two years. Elensky signed agreement in Istanbul. But then neocons sent Johnson.
Now, we are at the end of military resolution.
 

Why? Good question. In today's economic paradigm peace, stability and open borders benefit us all. What flag is where is less and less important. As long as we have peace and stability, all is good.
Indeed, as the Good Friday Agreement shows. I don't think any of the involved parties in Northern Ireland view it as ideal, but rather as a compromise that they can live with, as evident by that it has been quite calm in Northern Ireland since its establishment.
There is no benefit of having an empire today. Today's empires are corporations. Not countries. The richest men today are all industrialists. Not emperors or presidents. Putin just didn't get the memo.
I don't think Putin is waging war because he is after money or resources. To recreate the Russian Empire (and it is the Tsarist empire, not the USSR, that he fancies) is his life project. It gives his life meaning in the same way as, for example, being an environmentalist activist gives meaning to Greta Thunberg, or working to advance liberal democracy gives meaning to George Soros.

I think the Ukraine war is about the newly discovered natural gas reserves in Ukraine. Putin had a near monopoly on selling gas to Germany.

What a surprise Putin only wants Luhansk, Doetsk and Crimea. The areas with the gas deposits.

I'm pretty sure this is the sum total of the reason for Putin attacking
This is very unlikely. Russia loses way more from this war than if Ukraine would also sell some gas.

Putin's ultimatum back in December 2021 made it clear what it is about: Geopolitics. Putin doesn't want Ukraine to leave Russia's sphere of influence.

It is for the same reason that they attacked Georgia back in 2008. Georgia was getting too close to the EU and NATO, and moving away fro Russia's sphere of influence.

You are thinking about this is in an overly Marxist way.

That is also a factor of course. But wars are expensive and need good motivation

Also, Putin doesn't care about the Russian people. Putin cares about Putin. He'll be rich no matter what. What he cares about is staying in power. So he's playing that game
 
What a surprise Putin only wants Luhansk, Doetsk and Crimea. The areas with the gas deposits.
I do not know if Putin wants that. Of course, gas deposits are a welcome bonus, but perhaps because these areas have a Russian speaking majority.
 
Putin's ultimatum back in December 2021 made it clear what it is about: Geopolitics. Putin doesn't want Ukraine to leave Russia's sphere of influence.
It is for the same reason that they attacked Georgia back in 2008. Georgia was getting too close to the EU and NATO, and moving away fro Russia's sphere of influence.
You are thinking about this is in an overly Marxist way.
That is what I too think. But not many here think that way. Sphere of influence, a leadership which will at least maintain a balance.
 
That is also a factor of course.
What he cares about is staying in power. So he's playing that game
At last, you accept a part of my reasoning. Not caring about that has landed Russia, Ukraine, NATO and the world in a long war.
Sure, that is what every politician/dictator wants. Be it Biden, Trump, Macron, Sunak, Trudeau, Putin, Xi or Modi. No surprise here.
 
Last edited:
It is for the same reason that they attacked Georgia back in 2008
According to EU own investigation and conclusion it was Georgia who attacked russian peacekeepers.
Putin's ultimatum back in December 2021 made it clear what it is about: Geopolitics.
Not really even that. Putin accepted Ukraine's going to EU. All he wanted Ukraine staying neutral.
As for BS DrZoidberg spewing, for the million's time, Putin could have taken whole Ukraine in 2014.
I mean whole Ukraine. In reality he did not even take Eastern Ukraine which asked to be taken. With all their gas and lithium and coal, he said NO. He was hoping for neutral Ukraine. And only after 8 years of NATO supported terrorism by the Kiev Regime, he was shamed (literally) into doing more than before. All he really wanted was neutral Ukraine.
I bet the day Putin started SMO, people in washington were drinking champagne and congratulating themselves, expecting fall of Russia.
 
What a surprise Putin only wants Luhansk, Doetsk and Crimea. The areas with the gas deposits.
I do not know if Putin wants that. Of course, gas deposits are a welcome bonus, but perhaps because these areas have a Russian speaking majority.
Speaking Russian doesn't make a Ukranian supportive of Putin, nor make him want to have his home forcibly made a part of Russian jurisdiction.

Irredentism is (and has always been) a dreadful way to justify war.

Would you support the UK if they chose to invade Ireland? Ireland has an overwhelmingly large majority of English speakers, with Gaelic speakers mostly isolated to a small number of villages, mostly in Munster and Conaught. Nevertheless, the territorial division agreed upon in 1921, and finally accepted by all but the most radical of partisans in 1998, should be respected by both sides. For the UK to renege on these agreements because they are militarily strong, have a majority of English speakers in the territory, and have historically owned the entire island of Ireland, would be hugely immoral.

There are Indian states whose only official language is English; Would it be acceptable to you if the UK were to (re)invade with overwhelming military force, and annexe these states? The whole of India used to belong to the British Empire. I rather doubt that you would consider this a just cause for an invasion of any part of India.

But that's exactly what you are supporting Putin in doing in Ukraine.
 
Also, Putin doesn't care about the Russian people. Putin cares about Putin. He'll be rich no matter what. What he cares about is staying in power. So he's playing that game
He also cares about keeping his head out of a noose or falling from a window.
 
Also, Putin doesn't care about the Russian people. Putin cares about Putin. He'll be rich no matter what. What he cares about is staying in power. So he's playing that game
He also cares about keeping his head out of a noose or falling from a window.
Same thing. If his power falters, he's dead meat. Kinda like Trump or Xi or Kim or Duterte or Netanyahu - it's not all that easy or safe to be a dictator.
 

Why? Good question. In today's economic paradigm peace, stability and open borders benefit us all. What flag is where is less and less important. As long as we have peace and stability, all is good.
Indeed, as the Good Friday Agreement shows. I don't think any of the involved parties in Northern Ireland view it as ideal, but rather as a compromise that they can live with, as evident by that it has been quite calm in Northern Ireland since its establishment.
There is no benefit of having an empire today. Today's empires are corporations. Not countries. The richest men today are all industrialists. Not emperors or presidents. Putin just didn't get the memo.
I don't think Putin is waging war because he is after money or resources. To recreate the Russian Empire (and it is the Tsarist empire, not the USSR, that he fancies) is his life project. It gives his life meaning in the same way as, for example, being an environmentalist activist gives meaning to Greta Thunberg, or working to advance liberal democracy gives meaning to George Soros.

I think the Ukraine war is about the newly discovered natural gas reserves in Ukraine. Putin had a near monopoly on selling gas to Germany.

What a surprise Putin only wants Luhansk, Doetsk and Crimea. The areas with the gas deposits.

I'm pretty sure this is the sum total of the reason for Putin attacking
This is very unlikely. Russia loses way more from this war than if Ukraine would also sell some gas.

Putin's ultimatum back in December 2021 made it clear what it is about: Geopolitics. Putin doesn't want Ukraine to leave Russia's sphere of influence.

It is for the same reason that they attacked Georgia back in 2008. Georgia was getting too close to the EU and NATO, and moving away fro Russia's sphere of influence.

You are thinking about this is in an overly Marxist way.

That is also a factor of course. But wars are expensive and need good motivation

Also, Putin doesn't care about the Russian people. Putin cares about Putin. He'll be rich no matter what. What he cares about is staying in power. So he's playing that game
His grip on power is decidedly more shaky now than before February 2022.

And you are correct, Putin doesn't care about the Russian people. He cares about the Russian Empire as an idea, an abstract concept, and himself as its Tsar.
 
The press secretary of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has definitively denied that Zelensky will ever sit for former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. Wednesday, Carlson caused a bit of a media ripple when he announced on "X" that he had scored an interview with Zelensky (see Tucker Carlson Confirms He Will Interview Ukrainian President Zelenskyy: ‘Coming Soon We Hope’).

Much more in the link.
 
EU commission called them peacekeepers.
Cite?
here:
The commission noted, "Georgia did not use force against Russian troops on Russian territory, but only on Georgian territory."[153] The commission stated that an attack by Georgian troops on Russian peacekeepers present in Georgia – "if not in self-defence against a Russian attack", would not be justified.[154] The commission wrote that it was "not entirely clear that Georgian military action against the base was aimed specifically at Russia".[155] However, the commission concluded that an attack on Russian peacekeepers was not "a sufficient condition" to be used for self-defence by Russia and "the fact of the Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeepers’ basis could not be definitely confirmed by the mission."[156] The commission said that Russian peacekeepers had the right to immediate, necessary and proportionate response in case of direct attack on them.[157] However, "doubts remain whether the Russian peacekeepers were attacked in the first place,"[157] and the mission "was unable to establish whether, at the time of the alleged attacks on Russian peacekeepers’ bases, the peacekeepers had lost their protection owing to their participation in the hostilities."[158] The commission concluded that "the expulsion of the Georgian forces from South Ossetia, and the defence of South Ossetia as a whole was not a legitimate objective",[159] and "according to international law, the Russian military action taken as a whole was therefore neither necessary nor proportionate to protect Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia."[160] The commission concluded that Russia did not have the right to justify its actions as "a mere reinforcement and fulfilment of its peacekeeping mission."[161]
 
EU commission called them peacekeepers.
Cite?
here:
The commission noted, "Georgia did not use force against Russian troops on Russian territory, but only on Georgian territory."[153] The commission stated that an attack by Georgian troops on Russian peacekeepers present in Georgia – "if not in self-defence against a Russian attack", would not be justified.[154] The commission wrote that it was "not entirely clear that Georgian military action against the base was aimed specifically at Russia".[155] However, the commission concluded that an attack on Russian peacekeepers was not "a sufficient condition" to be used for self-defence by Russia and "the fact of the Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeepers’ basis could not be definitely confirmed by the mission."[156] The commission said that Russian peacekeepers had the right to immediate, necessary and proportionate response in case of direct attack on them.[157] However, "doubts remain whether the Russian peacekeepers were attacked in the first place,"[157] and the mission "was unable to establish whether, at the time of the alleged attacks on Russian peacekeepers’ bases, the peacekeepers had lost their protection owing to their participation in the hostilities."[158] The commission concluded that "the expulsion of the Georgian forces from South Ossetia, and the defence of South Ossetia as a whole was not a legitimate objective",[159] and "according to international law, the Russian military action taken as a whole was therefore neither necessary nor proportionate to protect Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia."[160] The commission concluded that Russia did not have the right to justify its actions as "a mere reinforcement and fulfilment of its peacekeeping mission."[161]
Thank you for your cite.

While it certainly does call the Russians peacekeepers it certainly doesn't absolve Russia for all of it's action.
 
Back
Top Bottom