3 ms·

> "sensible" According to what idea of "sensible"? > encourage a Ukrainian surrender early on and send them some food/whatnot in a care package, then fortify

by pjc50 2mo ago

> "sensible" According to what idea of "sensible"? > encourage a Ukrainian surrender early on and send them some food/whatnot in a care package, then fortify the Polish border. This would still have resulted in millions of refugees, plus some unknown number of people killed by Russian forces exterminating any local pro-Europe political supporters. Remember Euromaidan. It also snuffs out a democracy, which is not a good precedent to set. The second motivation is the belief that the invasion, if permitted, will not stop at Ukraine. This is why Finland and Sweden joined NATO after it happened. > Keeping a conflict worthy of WWII smouldering in the area for more than 4 years now? Russia can retreat into their internationally recognized borders at any time. > Can we please be honest about our motivations here? Can we be honest about the motivations of Russia in capturing and annexing other countries, something forbidden by both the post-WW2 international order and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum (which also justifies Europe's security provision to Ukraine)?

roenxi 2mo ago
[flagged]
- pjc50 2mo ago
  > there doesn't seem to be any reason to be provoking and sustaining it. It has been disastrous policy. We shouldn't have done it, we shouldn't have continued it and we should stop it now Stopping the Iran war via total withdrawal might work like that. Western surrender in the Ukraine war (which, we need to keep reminding you, the first actual shots were in all cases fired by Russia) results in a situation far worse. The bombing runs on Moscow will continue as long as the bombing runs on Kyiv continue. It is absurd to pretend that Russia are somehow agencyless dupes of US policy because you don't like the idea that Putin doesn't care how many Russians are killed so long as he retains power.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  > Which, with 20/20 hindsight, we now know was wild paranoia. The Russians weren't even geared up to properly invade Ukraine, they were as shocked as the rest of us when the Ukrainians decided a land war in Asia was a better idea than surrender. They spent something like 2 years back in 2022-2024 retooling for a real war. They weren't preparing to take Poland, they were trying to preserve a sphere of influence in Ukraine. Them being idiots and thinking they could take Ukraine does not preclude that they were also idiots who thought they could take Poland. > we embarked on this poorly advised policy of war. We, the people who are supplying Ukraine with support, and I want to emphasise this, have not embarked on this poorly advised policy of war. We are not at war, our soldiers are not fighting. We are selling (and giving) weapons to someone who wants to defend themselves, which is a standard thing for weapon-exporting nations to do. Russia has embarked on this poorly advised policy of war. > It isn't normal for a major to break international law and it ends up in a million-casualty war where we sponsor bombing runs on their capital. Russia did bombing runs on the Ukrainian capital before Ukraine was able to respond. Can you give Ukrainians a reason why they should not develop nuclear weapons? The Polish? The Lithuanians? > We're just pushing the global centre of power towards Asia. Only if "we" is "the Russian government". The things which the rest of NATO is doing that can be described as "pushing the global centre of power towards Asia" are 75% Trump being a chaos monkey undermining both the USA itself and all the USA's alliances, and 25% the EU member-states bike-shedding union-wide economic-industrial policy.
  - pjc50 2mo ago
    > The Polish? The Lithuanians? I for one welcome the re-establishment of a nuclear armed Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Just as long as we don't get the Hapsburgs back again. (nb to audience and mods: this is a joke, which probably doesn't belong at the bottom of a serious thread about the Ukraine war and definitely not on a discussion of Japanese operating systems, yet here we are)
    - ben_w 2mo ago
      > Just as long as we don't get the Hapsburgs back again. Don't worry, if anyone can't tell their arse from their elbows long enough to gain power, it's the line so inbred that neither can anyone else.
Lumich 2mo ago
« Russia can retreat into their internationally recognized borders at any time. » The US has around 900 military bases abroad. Far more than all other countries combined. These bases are a constant source of threats and bullying, deploying and projecting a GDP largely based on death and destruction. Why don't the US retreat into their internationally recognized borders?
- pjc50 2mo ago
  The simple answer is that those bases aren't considered US territory and do not constitute annexation, and in most cases are there by invitation, such as to defend against the other, worse, hegemon. (Some exceptions apply for e.g. the Chagossians)
  - leonidasrup 2mo ago
    If those bases aren't considered US territory whose territory are they? In case of United States Army installations in Germany: " The legal status of Americans stationed in Germany is governed by special international agreements including the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. People stationed at overseas bases or posts must remember German laws apply to them, too. To protect yourself, know what rights you have as an American. Whether German authorities exercise their right of jurisdiction depends on the circumstances of the case. " https://www.ramstein.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/303721/status-of-forces-agreement/ https://www.ramstein.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Articl... In case of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base: "At the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2013, Cuba's Foreign Minister demanded the U.S. return the base to Cuba." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Cold_War_and_beyond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Cold...
    - pjc50 2mo ago
      Guantanamo is leased like Hong Kong used to be, and has been since the Spanish-American war. It is an exception because the US refuses to normalize relations with Cuba. That is not the case for Ramstein and the European bases, which are generally just there by agreement which does not convey sovereignty. Another special case is the UK sovereign bases in Cyprus, which really are UK territory; I only know about those because during Brexit they kept getting mentioned in the treaty documents. Bonus pull out sovereignty section: to whom does Transnistria belong? How about Nagorno-Karabakh?

by pjc50 2mo ago

roenxi 2mo ago

[flagged]

pjc50 2mo ago
> there doesn't seem to be any reason to be provoking and sustaining it. It has been disastrous policy. We shouldn't have done it, we shouldn't have continued it and we should stop it now Stopping the Iran war via total withdrawal might work like that. Western surrender in the Ukraine war (which, we need to keep reminding you, the first actual shots were in all cases fired by Russia) results in a situation far worse. The bombing runs on Moscow will continue as long as the bombing runs on Kyiv continue. It is absurd to pretend that Russia are somehow agencyless dupes of US policy because you don't like the idea that Putin doesn't care how many Russians are killed so long as he retains power.
ben_w 2mo ago
> Which, with 20/20 hindsight, we now know was wild paranoia. The Russians weren't even geared up to properly invade Ukraine, they were as shocked as the rest of us when the Ukrainians decided a land war in Asia was a better idea than surrender. They spent something like 2 years back in 2022-2024 retooling for a real war. They weren't preparing to take Poland, they were trying to preserve a sphere of influence in Ukraine. Them being idiots and thinking they could take Ukraine does not preclude that they were also idiots who thought they could take Poland. > we embarked on this poorly advised policy of war. We, the people who are supplying Ukraine with support, and I want to emphasise this, have not embarked on this poorly advised policy of war. We are not at war, our soldiers are not fighting. We are selling (and giving) weapons to someone who wants to defend themselves, which is a standard thing for weapon-exporting nations to do. Russia has embarked on this poorly advised policy of war. > It isn't normal for a major to break international law and it ends up in a million-casualty war where we sponsor bombing runs on their capital. Russia did bombing runs on the Ukrainian capital before Ukraine was able to respond. Can you give Ukrainians a reason why they should not develop nuclear weapons? The Polish? The Lithuanians? > We're just pushing the global centre of power towards Asia. Only if "we" is "the Russian government". The things which the rest of NATO is doing that can be described as "pushing the global centre of power towards Asia" are 75% Trump being a chaos monkey undermining both the USA itself and all the USA's alliances, and 25% the EU member-states bike-shedding union-wide economic-industrial policy.
- pjc50 2mo ago
  > The Polish? The Lithuanians? I for one welcome the re-establishment of a nuclear armed Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Just as long as we don't get the Hapsburgs back again. (nb to audience and mods: this is a joke, which probably doesn't belong at the bottom of a serious thread about the Ukraine war and definitely not on a discussion of Japanese operating systems, yet here we are)
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    > Just as long as we don't get the Hapsburgs back again. Don't worry, if anyone can't tell their arse from their elbows long enough to gain power, it's the line so inbred that neither can anyone else.

Lumich 2mo ago

« Russia can retreat into their internationally recognized borders at any time. » The US has around 900 military bases abroad. Far more than all other countries combined. These bases are a constant source of threats and bullying, deploying and projecting a GDP largely based on death and destruction. Why don't the US retreat into their internationally recognized borders?

pjc50 2mo ago
The simple answer is that those bases aren't considered US territory and do not constitute annexation, and in most cases are there by invitation, such as to defend against the other, worse, hegemon. (Some exceptions apply for e.g. the Chagossians)
- leonidasrup 2mo ago
  If those bases aren't considered US territory whose territory are they? In case of United States Army installations in Germany: " The legal status of Americans stationed in Germany is governed by special international agreements including the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. People stationed at overseas bases or posts must remember German laws apply to them, too. To protect yourself, know what rights you have as an American. Whether German authorities exercise their right of jurisdiction depends on the circumstances of the case. " https://www.ramstein.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/303721/status-of-forces-agreement/ https://www.ramstein.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Articl... In case of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base: "At the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2013, Cuba's Foreign Minister demanded the U.S. return the base to Cuba." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Cold_War_and_beyond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Cold...
  - pjc50 2mo ago
    Guantanamo is leased like Hong Kong used to be, and has been since the Spanish-American war. It is an exception because the US refuses to normalize relations with Cuba. That is not the case for Ramstein and the European bases, which are generally just there by agreement which does not convey sovereignty. Another special case is the UK sovereign bases in Cyprus, which really are UK territory; I only know about those because during Brexit they kept getting mentioned in the treaty documents. Bonus pull out sovereignty section: to whom does Transnistria belong? How about Nagorno-Karabakh?