• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:1][W:11][W:368] Russia invades Ukraine: Live Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rexedgar said:
I missed a few words, methinks. What I am asking is, if Ukraine becomes an EU member, how long do you think it will be before they become a NATO member, as well?
Click to expand...
It's a problem here. EU and NATO are totally different associations. It is like comparing FN and TTIP, it makes no sense. NATO is solely a defense act. EU is a is a political and economic union. Ukraine does not fulfill the membership requirements for the EU as it is today. The demands are:
  • Stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities (the political criterion).
  • A functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with the competitive pressure and market forces prevailing within the Union (the economic criterion).
The requirements have already been heavily watered down since the 1990th. To accept the Ukraine as a member would be to watering them down even more. Brexit is in fact a result of this down playing of the requirements.

Until 2014 the Ukraine was a oligarchy just like Russia. They have since then worked against corruption and to stabilize their institutions, but they are nowhere near fulfilling the requirements

In 2004 we did take in several eastern Europe countries that did not fulfill the criteria’s from earlier. The thought was that a membership would work favorable in lessen corruption, respecting human rights and would also strengthen their economy. In half it has worked for the other half the only one thing out of these that has happened is that it has strengthen their economy, but it has been on the expense of the former EU countries economy and every year they need more and more money from other EU countries, the political and economic corruption is in fact increasing in many of those countries not the opposite. EU as a whole has become a much less stable and a much weaker institution than it was before.

I am not in favor of making the same mistake again and rushing memberships into the EU for countries like the Ukraine to keep Russia at bay militarily. I don't even think it would work (and yes there is a clause in the EU treaty about military support that Sweden now have dug up and are evoking, but I think al and every EU country was unaware of it and that when push comes to shove it means nothing. )



A rushed membership in the EU would change nothing in the current aggression from Russia.
Edit: I also feel that it is partly to buy into the Russian way of looking at the different countries, were it is either west or Russia and that every country is part of one of those. Russia feels their "cut" has been unfavorable.
 
Last edited:
Juin said:
I have difficulty with these rumours. It makes for a fantastic thriller. But a closer examination as to its successful application, in reasonable time and producing even minimal results, only raises doubts.

I believe it is on a par with the other Afghan thriller. The one that had Russia paying bounties for dead American soldiers. That one was a top seller as well. It was vouched for by sources purpoted to be from top intelligence organizations. But as with most thrillers they buckle on scrutiny. Why pay an Afghan to do something he is chomping at the bits to do?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't recommend hanging an argument on the logic of "this is just as ridiculous as the Russian bounties" (or the Iranian ones).

To answer your question about why they would pay for it:

- Attacks against Americans at that time were more difficult and expensive than attacks against the Afghan government, which is who the Taliban actually needed to destroy.

- Attacks against Americans were also more dangerous - both during, and after the fact, when U.S. targeting was sure to come after you.

- Paying bounties on said attacks not only motivates them, but also allows intelligence services to brag back to their respective administrations that they are "doing something" to/about the Americans.

Whether the bounties created new attacks that otherwise would not have occurred is probably debatable (though Afghans respond to financial incentives like everyone else, was, I wouldn't bet against it), but that they were paid is less so.
 
Antiwar said:
There's a lot more than concern about "being invaded" (by an Eastern European country), if Putin/Russia even said that was a concern. There are issues that stem from the Soviet breakup. Plus it's said that 14,000 Russian-speaking Ukrainians have been killed. So, with the USG/NATO still being a military organization, which still seems to see Russia as a pariah, Russia's interests (not including aggression) were/are being ignored and/or pressured.
Click to expand...

I was never particularly impressed with Trump's "Many People Are Saying" standard; I wouldn't recommend it when repeating Russian propaganda.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
What do you mean by La Raza? Do you mean the philosophical conception that there is a Hispanic people who are distinct from other peoples? My position is that is absolutely true. Hispinidad created by a mix of the Spanish empire and the assimilated Indian civilizations, has created a new ethnicity. Do you mean my position on the left wing political advocacy group? Because that is just a regular quasi socialist American political group with a brown wrapper.
Click to expand...
I mean the political movement. Does the existence of large numbers of ethnically hispanic spanish-speakers in areas of SoCal and Texas justify the separation of those areas from the United States, or their return to being ruled by Mexico? Do national borders count truly so little?
 
Todays thought about the war is about a membership in NATO for Sweden and Finland. Both countries seem to be making the same analyses of the situation and that is that Russia is not going to stop with the Ukraine and that one of our countries are next. I believe that our countries now are moving in separate directions due to this. Finland is making the assessment that it is now they have to apply while Russia is occupied in the Ukraine. Finland wants to put in an application as soon as possible. Sweden seems to be making the assessment that the Ukraine war will be much shorter than we can expect and that an application to NATO will not have moved far enough down the lines for us to expect help. The Swedish government also seem to have made the same assessment as I have done. That after the Ukraine it is Gotland that is the target. So Sweden wants to negotiate defense deals outside NATO and on the same time hoping that Russia will be to exhausted to continue the war right away, unless provoked. But while we (the Swedes) are respecting Finland’s sovereign rights to make their own decisions, (And it is interesting to see that Finland in this very situation is not only moving faster than Sweden, they do remember The war with Russia,) but they also adopt the views on Sweden from WW2 from Denmark and Norway. Finland has now started to join in in the bashing of Sweden that is the common thing for Norway and Denmark.

Our differences is based on our different fates during WW2. Up to now Finland have had a very different view than the other 2 Scandinavian countries and our relationships have been based on a harsh picture of reality. What the Norwegians and the Danish seems to forget is that when Russia declared war against Finland during the non- aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin, Norway and Denmark took an active decision together with Sweden not to help Finland. (There was a meeting about it in Stockholm). It is never talked about in Norway or Denmark. The Danes also downplay that they in fact surrendered without a fight and that the invasion took just hours. And while Norway remember clearly how the German troops was allowed by Sweden to be transported through Sweden for fights in Norway, the Finnish remember how the Swedes took in their children, how Swedish volunteers joined their forces and how the Swedish military, that had cracked both the German and the Russian communication systems, informed them on the movements and strategy off the Russian forces. While the Swedish military was spares with the information to the allies and only gave it to them when it was big things happening and when the source for information could have been received in other ways than that we was listen in to their communication (since we where afraid of leeks), we trusted the Finns implicitly and gave them everything we had the moment we had it.

Well, convenience makes history and I guess the Finns recognizes the risks with an application and don’t want to take it on their own, since they also know that at the moment Sweden (Gotland) is target number 2 and they don’t want that to change…

Each one closest to himself
 
cpwill said:
I mean the political movement. Does the existence of large numbers of ethnically hispanic spanish-speakers in areas of SoCal and Texas justify the separation of those areas from the United States, or their return to being ruled by Mexico? Do national borders count truly so little?
Click to expand...
Is there a La Raza political movement that calls for retrocession of the American Southwest to Mexico?

And I mean, you are kind of arguing yourself into a box because if you are going to take the territorial integrity line of state hood, then over a quarter of the landmass of the United States is illegitimate. We don’t even have to discuss the impact of the presence of Hispanics in the United States, that land should simply be returned to Mexico because it was a violation of Mexico’s territorial integrity to seize it in the first place.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Is there a La Raza political movement that calls for retrocession of the American Southwest to Mexico?

And I mean, you are kind of arguing yourself into a box because if you are going to take the territorial integrity line of state hood, then over a quarter of the landmass of the United States is illegitimate. We don’t even have to discuss the impact of the presence of Hispanics in the United States, that land should simply be returned to Mexico because it was a violation of Mexico’s territorial integrity to seize it in the first place.
Click to expand...
So, to be clear, you do think that current U.S. borders are not particularly important, and that the existence of large numbers of ethnic Mexican spanish-speakers means that large swathes of Texas, Southern California, etc., should be returned to Mexico?
 
cpwill said:
So, to be clear, you do think that current U.S. borders are not particularly important, and that the existence of large numbers of ethnic Mexican spanish-speakers means that large swathes of Texas, Southern California, etc., should be returned to Mexico?
Click to expand...
Well what do you think? Do you think it was immoral and gravely wrong to force Mexico to sign away half their territory?

I think if large portions of Hispanics in areas bordering the Mexico desired to return their land to Mexico to the point where they were willing to fight over it, then it should be considered.

Note however, that the Hispanic populations are not pushing for returning any land to Mexico, the US does not persecute them like the government of Ukraine did, local schools can, and do, educate students in Spanish in these regions with no problems from the Federal government, there is no laws banning Spanish language press or publishers in the US, and the Mexican cession happened almost 200 years ago. We don’t hire gangs of actual Nazis to keep Hispanics down.

So the practical factors that led to many Russians in Ukraine not wanting to be part of Ukraine do not exist in the US in regards to the Hispanic population in America.

You want to make this into a moral yes or no affair, In real life there is no yes or no moral principle that’s in effect at all times
 
cpwill said:
So, to be clear, you do think that current U.S. borders are not particularly important, and that the existence of large numbers of ethnic Mexican spanish-speakers means that large swathes of Texas, Southern California, etc., should be returned to Mexico?
Click to expand...
Now, I went back in the thread and realized this started in with my comments about Abkhazia in Georgia, not the Russians in Ukraine, but even then Abkhaz and Ossetians have been viciously repressed by the Georgians for 400 years and the Russians were the one influence guaranteeing their rights versus the Georgians, after the Soviet break up the autonomous republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia as soon as the Georgian SSR seceded from the Soviet Union. These people NEVER wanted to be governed by a Georgian state from the beginning. And the Georgian government openly proclaimed they were going to begin a campaign of cultural genocide against both groups, which led to civil war in the early 1990s which led to a Russian peacekeeping operation since then. Then in 2008 the idiot Georgian president decided that because Bush said nice things about Georgia and that he might put Georgia in NATO, that he had to settle the Abkhazia and S Ossetia question for good, a final solution to the Abkhaz/Ossetian question if you will, and so he invaded, killing Russian peacekeepers.

This conflict was entirely instigated by Georgia, Russia did not invade Georgia, they responded to force with force and made a treaty and left.
 
theweek.com

More Russian troops were killed in Ukraine in 2 weeks than U.S. troops in entire Iraq War, U.S. estimates

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week
theweek.com theweek.com

www.cbsnews.com

Up to 6,000 Russians may have been killed in Ukraine so far, U.S. official estimates

The official stressed that the death toll is difficult to assess in real time, but still called them "very, very significant casualties."
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

If the estimates of around 150k troops are true, that's about 4% so far.
 
Juks said:
Todays thought about the war is about a membership in NATO for Sweden and Finland. Both countries seem to be making the same analyses of the situation and that is that Russia is not going to stop with the Ukraine and that one of our countries are next. I believe that our countries now are moving in separate directions due to this. Finland is making the assessment that it is now they have to apply while Russia is occupied in the Ukraine. Finland wants to put in an application as soon as possible. Sweden seems to be making the assessment that the Ukraine war will be much shorter than we can expect and that an application to NATO will not have moved far enough down the lines for us to expect help. The Swedish government also seem to have made the same assessment as I have done. That after the Ukraine it is Gotland that is the target. So Sweden wants to negotiate defense deals outside NATO and on the same time hoping that Russia will be to exhausted to continue the war right away, unless provoked. But while we (the Swedes) are respecting Finland’s sovereign rights to make their own decisions, (And it is interesting to see that Finland in this very situation is not only moving faster than Sweden, they do remember The war with Russia,) but they also adopt the views on Sweden from WW2 from Denmark and Norway. Finland has now started to join in in the bashing of Sweden that is the common thing for Norway and Denmark.

Our differences is based on our different fates during WW2. Up to now Finland have had a very different view than the other 2 Scandinavian countries and our relationships have been based on a harsh picture of reality. What the Norwegians and the Danish seems to forget is that when Russia declared war against Finland during the non- aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin, Norway and Denmark took an active decision together with Sweden not to help Finland. (There was a meeting about it in Stockholm). It is never talked about in Norway or Denmark. The Danes also downplay that they in fact surrendered without a fight and that the invasion took just hours. And while Norway remember clearly how the German troops was allowed by Sweden to be transported through Sweden for fights in Norway, the Finnish remember how the Swedes took in their children, how Swedish volunteers joined their forces and how the Swedish military, that had cracked both the German and the Russian communication systems, informed them on the movements and strategy off the Russian forces. While the Swedish military was spares with the information to the allies and only gave it to them when it was big things happening and when the source for information could have been received in other ways than that we was listen in to their communication (since we where afraid of leeks), we trusted the Finns implicitly and gave them everything we had the moment we had it.

Well, convenience makes history and I guess the Finns recognizes the risks with an application and don’t want to take it on their own, since they also know that at the moment Sweden (Gotland) is target number 2 and they don’t want that to change…

Each one closest to himself
Click to expand...
Very thoughtful post. I enjoyed it and believe I will benefit from from your insights as I consider how Sweden and Finland react to ongoing changes in the world order.
 
www.telegraph.co.uk

Russia suspends foreign currency sales as sovereign default ‘imminent’

Putin makes drastic bid to steady economy and Fitch warns of risk to debt
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

Suspended until September ...

I suspect the next step will be that the Russian banks automatically convert citizen held foreign currency into rubles and try to use that to delay the inevitable for a few more days. That will subject their citizens to hyperinflation and bread lines almost immediately. That along with seizing assets from companies that have pulled out of Russia means that Russia is about to become a communist economy again.
 
multivita-man said:
It's better that we confront them now.
Click to expand...
I see, so you bought the ticket to Ukraine? They will give you the military uniform at the airport.

Remember Zelensky took out the visa, pays you a couple of thousand of dollars a month (if you make it) and bonus you get ukrainian citenzenship.

Let me play your scenario and pretend for a second Russia does NOT have nuclear weapons and "we", I am assuming that is NATO will deploy.

- > What will happen when millions of refugees will cross to Poland, Romania and further into the west? What will happen when those countries will feel the economic fallout? You think because the ukrainians are white and from Europe the local populations will not change their view once it starts hitting their pockets? Or you think they will print a picture of Zelensky and that will get them through the month in the name of the global fight?

The answer is NO. They will not print a picture, they will start pointing towards the war, NATO, refugees and you will have leaders like Marine LePen winning in France as an example. The populists/extremists are waiting for a war which might lead to issues inside the alliance.

These are all layers that we forget because we allow the emotional aspect, which I agree is horrible to see the Red Army behaving like in the the early 1900's, on video but short term solutions like engaging Russia, no fly-zone -> not realistic and will lead to more civilian deaths/humanitarian crisis and is not guaranteed that a win will be achieved, not to mention the nuclear aspect.

The big risk as I mentioned before, when Russia will take over Kyiv and if a peace agreement is not reached by then, the Russians will install their own puppet government in Kyiv.

Voice of reason:

 
Last edited:
Centrist said:
What will happen when millions of refugees will cross to Poland, Romania and further into the west?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're watching but 2 million have left Ukraine and gone into Europe and it's not even 2 weeks into the war - more than a million per week. Putin's war machine is making Ukraine uninhabitable now. This is happening because he is the one making all the bets, and we're just reacting to him. He knows we're scared of him. What would change his mind is if he suddenly got an indication that we're not scared of him, and that we're willing to take bigger risks than he assumes now. We're literally playing the game of risk, and he's winning.

Centrist said:
What will happen when those countries will feel the economic fallout?
Click to expand...

They/we are already facing economic fallout. Europe already has an Ukrainian refugee crisis. Already has an energy and inflation crisis. The world is about to have a massive food/energy inflation driven by supply disruptions. That's already in motion and I don't see how we unwind it. There's actually a non-zero chance that this actually increases Putin's leverage. As I've pointed out before, he doesn't have the pesky little problem of elections to worry about. The audience he has to impress is far smaller.

Centrist said:
The answer is NO. They will not print a picture, they will start pointing towards the war, NATO, refugees and you will have leaders like Marine LePen winning in France as an example. The populists/extremists are waiting for a war.
Click to expand...

The far-right extremists and Putin are working together and have been for some time. They're doing it now. Again, the way you beat both Putin and the extreme right is to confront them. Ignoring them hasn't helped in either case. They just get more emboldened. They prey on weakness and fear. It's beyond tragic that there are powers with resources to confront someone like Putin but choose not to out of fear. Putin is the aggressor, not the United States, not NATO, not Ukraine. And he's not done once he finishes with Ukraine. You're naive if you believe that. The invasion of Ukraine wasn't just about Ukraine anymore than the bombing of Aleppo was just to protect a friend in Syria. It's Putin's attempt to wreck the international democratic order.

Centrist said:
but short term solutions like engaging Russia, no fly-zone are not realistic and will lead to more civillian deaths and is not guaranteed that a win will be achieved, not to mention the nuclear aspect.
Click to expand...

Doing nothing will lead to more civilian deaths. Establishing a no-fly zone means Russia can't fly bombers. It also means they now have to think twice about launching missiles, and so does Belarus. And I'd make it clear to Belarus's Lukashenko: fire missiles from Belarus, bye-bye Belarus. Putin would then get it: we're not ****ing around here. More importantly, people around Putin would get it. They will have seen their currency crash, their armed forces in Ukrained massacred, and a puppet state crushed. It would be insane for Russia to continue prosecuting the war. They prosecute it now because Putin is trying to see what the West is and isn't willing to pay, what our vulnerabilities are, what we're afraid of. And he's probably calculated correctly: America and NATO are all afraid of Putin's war machine, and Europe is afraid of Putin cutting off the energy pipelines. That's not going to change if he decides he wants to up the ante and destabilize and disrupt governments in Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
 
multivita-man said:
I don't know what you're watching but 2 million have left Ukraine and gone into Europe and it's not even 2 weeks into the war - more than a million per week. Putin's war machine is making Ukraine uninhabitable now. This is happening because he is the one making all the bets, and we're just reacting to him. He knows we're scared of him. What would change his mind is if he suddenly got an indication that we're not scared of him, and that we're willing to take bigger risks than he assumes now. We're literally playing the game of risk, and he's winning.



They/we are already facing economic fallout. Europe already has an Ukrainian refugee crisis. Already has an energy and inflation crisis. The world is about to have a massive food/energy inflation driven by supply disruptions. That's already in motion and I don't see how we unwind it. There's actually a non-zero chance that this actually increases Putin's leverage. As I've pointed out before, he doesn't have the pesky little problem of elections to worry about. The audience he has to impress is far smaller.



The far-right extremists and Putin are working together and have been for some time. They're doing it now. Again, the way you beat both Putin and the extreme right is to confront them. Ignoring them hasn't helped in either case. They just get more emboldened. They prey on weakness and fear. It's beyond tragic that there are powers with resources to confront someone like Putin but choose not to out of fear. Putin is the aggressor, not the United States, not NATO, not Ukraine. And he's not done once he finishes with Ukraine. You're naive if you believe that. The invasion of Ukraine wasn't just about Ukraine anymore than the bombing of Aleppo was just to protect a friend in Syria. It's Putin's attempt to wreck the international democratic order.



Doing nothing will lead to more civilian deaths. Establishing a no-fly zone means Russia can't fly bombers. It also means they now have to think twice about launching missiles, and so does Belarus. And I'd make it clear to Belarus's Lukashenko: fire missiles from Belarus, bye-bye Belarus. Putin would then get it: we're not ****ing around here. More importantly, people around Putin would get it. They will have seen their currency crash, their armed forces in Ukrained massacred, and a puppet state crushed. It would be insane for Russia to continue prosecuting the war. They prosecute it now because Putin is trying to see what the West is and isn't willing to pay, what our vulnerabilities are, what we're afraid of. And he's probably calculated correctly: America and NATO are all afraid of Putin's war machine, and Europe is afraid of Putin cutting off the energy pipelines. That's not going to change if he decides he wants to up the ante and destabilize and disrupt governments in Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
Click to expand...
The truth is, western country should not be admitting Ukrainian refugees. Maybe except for people who can concretely prove they would actually be persecuted. I see no evidence that Russia is going to persecute Ukrainians broadly.
 
Talks today in Turkey have ended with no progress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom