3 ms·

I think we'd be better making friends with Russia. I think making friends with anyone means making friends (trade, support, cultural exchange etc), not sending

I think we'd be better making friends with Russia. I think making friends with anyone means making friends (trade, support, cultural exchange etc), not sending warships. If we provoke an incident and Ukraine pays the price I doubt they'll thank us. I also think crimea is a part of Russia. It was for 100s of years, most people who live there are Russian. The fact some drunken communist gave it away to an ally holds very little water compared to those factors. I also think that the cold War should have ended in the 1990s. Our insistence on continuing it is what created the Putin we see today. He used to be an internationalist. But the need for an enemy is too deep for us right now.

ipaddr 5y ago
Being a friends means having their back when someone bigger attacks them. When times are good everyone wants to be your friend but a true will be there when you are down. Picking Russia as a friend because they are stronger makes you weaker.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  So you're proposing war with Russia over the Ukraine then? Because that's the alternative here. Fortunately it is possible to be friends with someone without fighting someone else. That's how 99% of friendships work 99% of the time. The US and UK are allies even though the US didn't fight Argentina in the Falklands and the UK never really engaged in Vietnam.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    If they tried to take over the entire Ukraine I would. If the Ukraine was part of NATO and Russia invades that triggers an automatic response. Troops would be sent. The UK didn't request assistance in the Falklands. No one attacked America in the Vietman war. The US was backing up the south Vietnam government.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > If the Ukraine was part of NATO and Russia invades that triggers an automatic response. No, it triggers treaty obligations. Adherence to those is not automatic. Of course, if NATO admitted Ukraine now, given that there is an ongoing war in which Russia is openly occupying part of Ukraine and attacking other parts, it would be very close to a declaration of war by the existing NATO powers against Russia. > The UK didn't request assistance in the Falklands NATO’s collective defense obligations only applies to attacks on member-state territory in Europe or North America. [0] The Falkland Islands are very much not in either of those continents. [0] North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5; https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
      - jevgeni 5y ago
        Russia claims that they are not participating in any hostilities in Ukraine, so formally it wouldn’t be.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Russia claims that they are not participating in any hostilities in Ukraine Article 5 is triggered by attacks, not whether the attacker claims they are attacking, and both Ukraine and NATO already officially recognize the fact of Russia’s military intervention in Eastern Ukraine as well as the harder-to-obfuscate fact of Russia’s occupation of Crimea.
        jevgeni 5y ago
        True. Fine, trolling attempt failed. :)
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      None of the examples you cited are relevant to NATO. Vietnam and the Falklands are outside the statue of Article 5, unambiguously. Ukraine will never be part of NATO. For it to be would require change to the NATO approval process that bars states with territorial disputes from entering, and any attempt to change this would be seen by Russia (correctly) as a declaration of war and they would successfully invade the rest of Ukraine. Beyond that, it's not even certain NATO would risk nuclear warfare to save Ukraine. Because that's what it would take. Russia has the firepower to make sure the status quo will not change, no matter what.
jevgeni 5y ago
A Brit saying that we should appease a violent dictator in hopes they’ll be less violent. Hmm…

ipaddr 5y ago

Being a friends means having their back when someone bigger attacks them. When times are good everyone wants to be your friend but a true will be there when you are down. Picking Russia as a friend because they are stronger makes you weaker.

LatteLazy 5y ago
So you're proposing war with Russia over the Ukraine then? Because that's the alternative here. Fortunately it is possible to be friends with someone without fighting someone else. That's how 99% of friendships work 99% of the time. The US and UK are allies even though the US didn't fight Argentina in the Falklands and the UK never really engaged in Vietnam.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  If they tried to take over the entire Ukraine I would. If the Ukraine was part of NATO and Russia invades that triggers an automatic response. Troops would be sent. The UK didn't request assistance in the Falklands. No one attacked America in the Vietman war. The US was backing up the south Vietnam government.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > If the Ukraine was part of NATO and Russia invades that triggers an automatic response. No, it triggers treaty obligations. Adherence to those is not automatic. Of course, if NATO admitted Ukraine now, given that there is an ongoing war in which Russia is openly occupying part of Ukraine and attacking other parts, it would be very close to a declaration of war by the existing NATO powers against Russia. > The UK didn't request assistance in the Falklands NATO’s collective defense obligations only applies to attacks on member-state territory in Europe or North America. [0] The Falkland Islands are very much not in either of those continents. [0] North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5; https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
    - jevgeni 5y ago
      Russia claims that they are not participating in any hostilities in Ukraine, so formally it wouldn’t be.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Russia claims that they are not participating in any hostilities in Ukraine Article 5 is triggered by attacks, not whether the attacker claims they are attacking, and both Ukraine and NATO already officially recognize the fact of Russia’s military intervention in Eastern Ukraine as well as the harder-to-obfuscate fact of Russia’s occupation of Crimea.
        jevgeni 5y ago
        True. Fine, trolling attempt failed. :)
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    None of the examples you cited are relevant to NATO. Vietnam and the Falklands are outside the statue of Article 5, unambiguously. Ukraine will never be part of NATO. For it to be would require change to the NATO approval process that bars states with territorial disputes from entering, and any attempt to change this would be seen by Russia (correctly) as a declaration of war and they would successfully invade the rest of Ukraine. Beyond that, it's not even certain NATO would risk nuclear warfare to save Ukraine. Because that's what it would take. Russia has the firepower to make sure the status quo will not change, no matter what.

jevgeni 5y ago

A Brit saying that we should appease a violent dictator in hopes they’ll be less violent. Hmm…