5 ms·

>For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on... I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? Russia will

>For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on... I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? Russia will invade more countries? Russia will start a war with NATO?

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
> I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encirclement, with missiles, is part of Russia's argument. This is an old argument too, and well known. The well-known late Stephen F Cohen (2010) https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE The eminent John Mearsheimer (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo You were saying?
- sorokod 4y ago
  Isn't Russian, by occupying Ukrainian territory, is moving the hostile presence closer?
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    You can't get closer than NATO missiles on the border.
    - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
      There is a big difference between NATO missiles in a NATO-Ukraine, or NATO missiles in Poland.
      - sorokod 4y ago
        Or Finland?
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    If Ukraine (Borderland) is NATO controlled, it could have missiles within seconds (not minutes) of Moscow. This nullifies their missile defense, and mutually assured destruction. It also enables NATO to bring to bear superior numbers, and greater technology advantages. It also eliminates a key port for Russia. If Ukraine is split into Eastern (New Russia) and Western Ukraine, they will have avoided the worst possible outcome, but at significant cost. If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) that would have been the best outcome for Russia. No troops deployed, no losses, no big threat of NATO on your doorstep. This game is merely about avoidance of the worst outcome at this point for the Russians
    - sorokod 4y ago
      Looks like Ukrainans are not interested in getting split up in the way you are proposing. How about Finland? Putin stated that he has no problem with Finland joining NATO, wouldn't missiles within seconds of St Petersburg be a reason to invade?
      - VictorPath 4y ago
        If Finland was a threat outside Karelia, the USSR once mobilized could have marched in in 1945. Finland was not a threat then and it is not now.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        Why would they be in a better position in 1945 (after losing millions) compared to 1940 when they were defeated by Finland [1]? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
        VictorPath 4y ago
        The article you linked to says the result of the war was Finland ceded land to the USSR. It's a strange war that ends with the Victor ceding land to the defeated. It's also a strange idea that a fully mobilized Soviet Union in 1945 could push the German army back to Berlin, but would be incapable of taking over Finland. Finland was there for the taking for the Soviet Union in 1945, but the USSR did not see any threat outside Karelia so did not pursue this. This would not have been much disputed at all back then.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    The missiles that were going to be placed on the border of Russian inside Ukrainian now will be placed further away.
pessimizer 4y ago
> I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? It's find to support turning a border conflict into WWIII, but pretending like sending $40 billion of arms to Ukraine isn't an escalation is beyond the pale. Russia's yearly military budget is only $70 billion.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  A failed incursion to a peaceful country's capital, failed assassination attempts of that country's leader - that's not a border dispute, it's just a war of aggression that has been extremely poorly executed.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Do you not agree that self-defense is always justified? It would seem matching a significant portion of Russia's budget would be necessary for that. Are you also aware that today the US refused to give Ukraine long-range missiles that would be able to strike within Russia? And do you also know that the US has consistently refused to give Ukraine targeting information on Russia?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- libertine 4y ago
  >turning a border conflict into WWIII I think you're either being naive or acting like one. First you need to define what border are you talking about? Ukraine and Russia Border? Ukraine, Belarus, Russia border? Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Russia border? EU and Russia border? You can pick any of them and it'll be a right answer. Second, this aggression of Russia destroyed many treaties, violated international laws, and acted on a basis of deceive - remember Russia was just doing military exercises closer to the Ukraine border and any claim of invasion was just a provocation from the west. So let's not pretend that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the country that was supposed to secure Ukraine safety after they gave their nukes away, isn't an international conflict. This is what we know so far, apparently international laws mean nothing to Russia, they act differently from their words, and they're willing to be aggressive - how can Russia be trusted at this point in time?

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

> I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encirclement, with missiles, is part of Russia's argument. This is an old argument too, and well known. The well-known late Stephen F Cohen (2010) https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE The eminent John Mearsheimer (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo You were saying?

sorokod 4y ago
Isn't Russian, by occupying Ukrainian territory, is moving the hostile presence closer?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  You can't get closer than NATO missiles on the border.
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    There is a big difference between NATO missiles in a NATO-Ukraine, or NATO missiles in Poland.
    - sorokod 4y ago
      Or Finland?
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  If Ukraine (Borderland) is NATO controlled, it could have missiles within seconds (not minutes) of Moscow. This nullifies their missile defense, and mutually assured destruction. It also enables NATO to bring to bear superior numbers, and greater technology advantages. It also eliminates a key port for Russia. If Ukraine is split into Eastern (New Russia) and Western Ukraine, they will have avoided the worst possible outcome, but at significant cost. If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) that would have been the best outcome for Russia. No troops deployed, no losses, no big threat of NATO on your doorstep. This game is merely about avoidance of the worst outcome at this point for the Russians
  - sorokod 4y ago
    Looks like Ukrainans are not interested in getting split up in the way you are proposing. How about Finland? Putin stated that he has no problem with Finland joining NATO, wouldn't missiles within seconds of St Petersburg be a reason to invade?
    - VictorPath 4y ago
      If Finland was a threat outside Karelia, the USSR once mobilized could have marched in in 1945. Finland was not a threat then and it is not now.
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        Why would they be in a better position in 1945 (after losing millions) compared to 1940 when they were defeated by Finland [1]? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
        VictorPath 4y ago
        The article you linked to says the result of the war was Finland ceded land to the USSR. It's a strange war that ends with the Victor ceding land to the defeated. It's also a strange idea that a fully mobilized Soviet Union in 1945 could push the German army back to Berlin, but would be incapable of taking over Finland. Finland was there for the taking for the Soviet Union in 1945, but the USSR did not see any threat outside Karelia so did not pursue this. This would not have been much disputed at all back then.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  The missiles that were going to be placed on the border of Russian inside Ukrainian now will be placed further away.

pessimizer 4y ago

> I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated? It's find to support turning a border conflict into WWIII, but pretending like sending $40 billion of arms to Ukraine isn't an escalation is beyond the pale. Russia's yearly military budget is only $70 billion.

ethanbond 4y ago
A failed incursion to a peaceful country's capital, failed assassination attempts of that country's leader - that's not a border dispute, it's just a war of aggression that has been extremely poorly executed.
guerrilla 4y ago
Do you not agree that self-defense is always justified? It would seem matching a significant portion of Russia's budget would be necessary for that. Are you also aware that today the US refused to give Ukraine long-range missiles that would be able to strike within Russia? And do you also know that the US has consistently refused to give Ukraine targeting information on Russia?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
libertine 4y ago
>turning a border conflict into WWIII I think you're either being naive or acting like one. First you need to define what border are you talking about? Ukraine and Russia Border? Ukraine, Belarus, Russia border? Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Russia border? EU and Russia border? You can pick any of them and it'll be a right answer. Second, this aggression of Russia destroyed many treaties, violated international laws, and acted on a basis of deceive - remember Russia was just doing military exercises closer to the Ukraine border and any claim of invasion was just a provocation from the west. So let's not pretend that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the country that was supposed to secure Ukraine safety after they gave their nukes away, isn't an international conflict. This is what we know so far, apparently international laws mean nothing to Russia, they act differently from their words, and they're willing to be aggressive - how can Russia be trusted at this point in time?