The point is a sense of verification for your claim.... and simply reinforces my point earlier about double standards being applied.
The US is the most likely comparison to be made with Russia for all manner of reasons. In any case, I'm not going to repeat points I made earlier when you objected before to my bringing up countries other than Russia into the discussion.
Don't want to discuss it, fine.
Seen several social media posts suggesting Belarus is preparing for a move out of the swift banking system , which is odd but it was previously called for when russia originally invaded Ukraine several years ago ,it would financially strangle Russia which makes Belarus preparing for an eventually being kicked out of the swift system really odd unless they are going all in with Putin in Ukraine
The US gov didn't suffer, but plenty of veterans did. 😡 Militaristic governments are not just a threat to us and to each other, but to their own people.
The US didn't really suffer any consequences of the Iraq war. If there were consequences they certainly haven't stopped them from advocating for a similar policy of regime change by force of arms.
What would be the point of that?
Discussion is or was about Russia. It is you and others who drag the US (and I think it's mainly the US people are talking about when they refer to "the West" or to "NATO") into this to compare US actions as a world power to Russia's, and use US actions to explain or to excuse Russia's current behaviour. Now we should go even more off topic and compare US society disfavourably with this country and Germany. Maybe we should rename the thread.
I referred to US above as free and open to refute one specific point in the original post I replied to. The only kinds "freedom/openness" that mattered for that point (which allows autocratic states to interfere in public opinion, workings of democratic machinery & running of the US while reverse is far harder) do exist.
America faced plenty of consequences for its misadventure in Iraq.
Really? What? And no... not the body bags, costs, or whatever that came about from the campaign and occupation itself.
Well, it certainly hasn't done the US any good at all and they achieved very few of their original aims (Saddam and his regime is gone, that's about it), but the harm was self inflicted and even predicted by some beforehand so not consequences imposed by others.
Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, although I'd say there's a lot more of the stick involved, due to the bullying that the US has engaged in economically, and the preferential treatment in supplying weapons to various nations. The US has played due to their own interests dropping friendships when they were no longer convenient, and propping up incredibly awful regimes when it suited their agenda. They're a superpower... and most countries recognise that... They're not the good guys that Hollywood loves to show, but rather the largest economic/military power, and other countries will play ball or be squashed.
Oh.. and Russia/India have been close for a rather long time. China and Russia is more a friendship of convenience. The racism towards Asians that is common in Russia would never allow any serious friendships between these two countries, and the Chinese are never reliable.
haha... no. Comparing to Russia or China means absolutely nothing. How comparing the US to Ireland or Germany? In terms of free and open societies...
Compared to Russia and China...I do, yes. Afraid I must cry off on a discussion about it. I really don't want to get into a run down of the USs flaws here (which would no doubt follow). I want to get some sleep!
Yeah, as said I don't think US or anyone else would get involved in it militarily if it happens beyond supporting with weapons/money and so on if the govt. can survive the attack/Ukraine isn't taken entirely.
On Iraq, you are correct that it set a very bad precedent. However I don't know if these precedents or international sets of "rules" are always a good guide when it comes to how likes of Russia, China (or the US I suppose) decide to behave in the world. They will sometimes do what they believe they can get away with, and when you are a "superpower" (or even just a power like Russia?) that can be a lot. The US is weakening relatively too & maybe also absolutely given all the internal troubles it seems to have, and that could have more to do with autocrats like Putin getting somewhat more aggressive than past US actions.
America faced plenty of consequences for its misadventure in Iraq. But, the reason the US has greater latitude to do what it does is that it has built up goodwill and alliances with countries that matter for centuries - they may have slight fall outs from time to time, but American diplomacy is an excellent example of a good balance between carrot and stick; and when you hear cloying references to "enduring alliances", the American foreign policy and security establishment ain't kidding. They have invested a lot of blood and treasure in places that matter decade after decade. They get it wrong sometimes, but I'd have it they've got it more right than wrong. We all live under Pax-Americana as contradictory as that sounds, and they are ultimately the world's security guarantor in Europe and East Asia, where all the economic action outside of North America is. No one else is stepping up to the plate. That matters, and people in power in these countries (Japan, Germany, South Korea, France etc) acknowledge it, even if it is grudgingly.
Russia has very few friends that matter a damn that they can trust - some ex-Soviet republics really, and I wouldn't include China in the mix. It hasn't got over the trauma of their Empire collapsing like a deck chair.
by free and open societies like the US against them
You really believe the US to be a free and open society? Genuinely curious.
Why else did you raise these international double standards (which, as shown Russia also benefits from, because the double standards are based on power) except to paint Russia as penalised or victimised here? i.e. (unlike US and UK in Iraq) it likely won't be "allowed" to launch an(other) invasion of Ukraine without suffering consequences/punishment from the US/Europe at least.
Ahh well... penalised is a far more reasonable take on the topic. Again, it's not about making Russia into some kind of innocent victim. They're definitely not. It's about applying some realism to the situation acknowledging the influence of the US (and the western powers) in seeking to limit Russia, while also going after their own interests. So, the double standards at play have relevance.
As for an attack on Ukraine, we'll have to wait and see... however, I don't see any serious will behind either NATO or the US to intervene directly. Plenty of talk, but if they were serious about it, we'd already be seeing a real commitment of personnel/hardware.
Now you are saying we should discuss "why the world is in the state it is" while giving another excuse for Russia (poor treatment by the US post collapse of the Soviet Union this time) even though you said it was not a victim of the West? I think we're going in circles here, there's no common ground and it's just running into the sand.
What excuse? Acknowledging the involvement of other nations doesn't excuse Russian aggression in the modern sense. Russia has it's claims on territory, just the same as China does, but the world has moved on. For any nation seeking to be a major player, they have to accept certain boundaries on aggressive behavior, otherwise face the consequences from international diplomacy. The hypocrisy is that the US faced zero consequences for their involvement with Iraq, which is why both China and Russia (and likely India too...), will seek to expand their territories. The older accepted rules (post cold war) were chucked out by the US engaging in an illegal war.. and them getting a free pass for it. It's opened things up for other countries to demand the same.
But sure, we are going in circles. I'm fine leaving the topic where it is now.
Your post(s) have alot of distortions, that's what makes it hard to take the argument seriously (or even follow it?). Anything negative you say about Russia (their "flawed" actions, very mild?) is as nothing to to the rest of it. At least you left German reunification out of it now.
The EU had nothing to do with any of the military interventions mentioned as far as I was aware so should be omitted from discussion (Yugoslavia Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).
I am no expert on the history but I think usual criticsm made of "Europe" as a collective around the events in Yugoslavia is that it was a passive spectator to largest wars and genocides in Europe since WW2 until the the US (& European NATO allies) got involved in it. Should that military intervention not have taken place?
At that time the EU had little of its own political positions or a foreign policy (which it is slowly developing over the last decade, after tools for it were created). The main driver/heavy lifter in all of the military interventions (apart from Libya perhaps) was the US. The European state most involved in all of these interventions was the UK, which is not even in the EU now of course.
Germany and France were both very opposed to the Iraq invasion and were attacked strongly over it at the time by the US/UK governments and US/UK media. There was certainly no Western or NATO unity. All that is glossed over. NATO did have a role in Afghanistan (I think US originally invoked request for assistance from NATO allies in attacking the Taliban). Do you think the US should not have attacked Afghanistan after Sept. 11th?
It seems to me more like Ukraine/Ukranians made their own sort of play to escape from Russia's influence somewhat, rather than being helpless pawns of the US/West etc. and Russia reacted very harshly and agressively to that in a way that escalated matters. The way they reacted could have been counter-productive if anything. They may have backed themselves into a corner.
On Russia/Putin "picking the USA president" you are just misrepresenting the argument about interference by authoritarian states in the democratic process in an effort to make it look absurd. The fact there is that Russia and other autocracies can and will use the modern tools provided by free and open societies like the US against them. In a tight electoral race (as US presidential election typically is) or some key referendum issue (Brexit) where it's a close run thing, a thumb on the scales giving a small boost to whatever side they back may be enough to sway it. I agree "outrage" over it happening is to an extent pointless ("why did you sting me?", said the the edit: frog to the scorpion), defending/insulating oneself against the tactic is what is important.
US /EU are signalling that they will take no military action if Russia invades so its a tempting proposition for Putin particularly as he can use gas supply as leverage, however one upside from the EU/US perspective is the sight of Russia engaging in a protracted ,damaging conflict in Ukraine.
It's never black and white. Now if Russia invades, it will be the aggressor. Until then... And whether Russia invades or not, it is not the only militaristic country/bloc small countries like Ireland need to worry about. All that said, my sympathies are with the Ukranians (those that don't want to be sucked up into Russia again that is) here, given our historical experience of being treated as a province to be plundered.
It's pretty black/white, Putin (and more than a few Russians) believe Ukraine is more a province, not a sovereign country, would like to take the country by force. However it's the 21st century, it's difficult for the Kremlin to manufacture a case to validate invading the country, or even creating border incidents. Therefore it's likely this is all a playbook act to get concessions and appease nationalists, but in either case, whether attacking Ukraine, or threatening it as they are now, Putin is the aggressor.
Almost impossible to disentangle military posturing from real intent on either side, as always. Agree it's annoying, and threatening. There is more to this world than the geopolitical ambitions of the US, UK, Russia and the other power blocs.. militaristic countries pose a threat to us all.
Russia is a European country. We owe them a massive debt for helping defeat the Germans in WW2.
What's going on now is annoying from both sides. Not sure how it'll pan out
It is really unfortunate that 'the West' is used as a shorthand vs Russia (done it msyelf many's the time) as though Russia is entirely other to our world. It is not. Russian contributions to what we regard as classical western culture and fine art is massive. At least in its western portion, it is very much part of our world.
Would it be more accurate to describe the situation as the Anglo-American led war machine vs the Russian war machine?
I get the impression they've upped their game significantly since, they seem to be better organised in Dornbos, Crimea and also Syria. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if this also isn't a maneuver to keep the military on their toes. It actually ticks a lot of boxes for the Kremlin without actually having to take significant military action.
Don't "shatter" yourself with all that rhetoric ;)
It would be interesting to know the make up of those troops. In the war with Georgia, iirc they used poorer quality units in the initial push. I haven't read much analysis of Russia's ability to supply and sustain operations from it's borders. They certainly don't have the capacity that the US does by any stretch.
They certainly are. The question is "why"?
That's not a cheap movement, and it won't do the morale of the troops any wonders to be living in field conditions for months on end. They are either there to be used, or to signal that they are there to be used, the question of 'which' must be resolved in a month or two before something 'breaks'. We generally hope the latter case holds, but if so why send the signal?
To give you an idea of the scale, the largest annual NATO maneuver (Defender Europe) is under 30,000 men from 26 countries. Even the largest Russian exercise in decades, Zapad 2021, was under 20,000 men. They used less than 100,000 men in the actual war against Georgia in 2008.
One can understand why the Russian military build-up is an attention-getter.
I can't wait for the Russian invasion. I've been waiting for them to storm across the border into Lithuania for 20 years. I've been waiting for Iran to have the "bomb" since 2005 and wipe Israel off the map (as they said back then)
Once the Venezuelans stop eating flamingos because there's nothing else to eat (I had no problem finding a boccadillo when I was in Caracas 8 months ago).
SO!
The Russians have massed 100,000 soldiers on the border with Ukraine? Really? Aren't they allowed to do that?
All this crap is to do with nothing more than Putin's increasing sociopathy and delusion that the Russian Federation is somehow entitled to claim the former Soviet republics as vassals and buffers.
Every year we see evidence of his paranoia and his growing extremism to hold on to power within Russia at all costs in a filthy, rotten and corrupt structure, more than a bit of his own making.
These foreign excursions are just a distraction attempt, trying to fool his own people into looking anywhere but at his failings and the condition of Russia because of him.
The only thing to be done with Russia at the moment is to stomp on their nonsense at every hands turn. Just like Britain and Brexit, Russia doesn't actually hold any cards and the longer this goes on, the more stupid and impotent Moscow looks.
I wonder who in Moscow is thinking of life after Putin. Cos someone should be.
Russia will not invade Ukraine.
Russia doesn't need to. America wants to gobble up Ukraine and use it as a dump site.
US/UK could not give a toss about the people of Ukraine OR Crimea,
So bitch, NATO, bitch all you want
Really?
So now the Ukrainians have to ask permission to traverse waters that are not theirs. How dreadful.
And the Russians are not allowed to move a regiment in their own land?
It's not about being a victim of the west... that's simply pushing things to extremes as a way of dismissing it. This is about what's been done to place the world in the position it currently is... and why that is. Russia isn't any kind of victim. At the same time though, they have been pushed and pushed over the decades by the West and/or the US.
I have my own negative views of the Russian government. I would have thought that would have been clear when I summarised Russia's intervention in Crimea and the Donbass as a flawed/desperate reaction to events. That is even aside from the very real prospect that Putin and the Russian government bombed their own people to create a casus belli in Chechnya. Putin is ice cold.
But forgive me for being cynical when it comes to EU/NATO (or "western" if it helps you accept my view as genuine) suddenly considering national borders to be sacred above any other principle given recent history. As I pointed to, the argument seems to be that might makes right. When EU/NATO interests are in play, then national sovereignty can and must be violated. Whereas if Russia considers its own interests to be in play, then it is an evil monster for violating national sovereignty. By contrast, lets go through some of the more recent western/EU/NATO interventions across national borders: The re-introduction of slave markets to Libya. The total atrocity of ISIS rule in Syria. The frozen conflict that is the former Yugoslavia. As for Iraq and Afghanistan....
I can assure you, I'm not a paid agent of the Russian government ( though I will accept donations if they do want to pay me). I'm just a realist calling bullshit on the emperors wearing no clothes. Clearly the EU and NATO (including the US) tried to make a play for Ukraine to threaten Russia. Russia responded in a predictable fashion when national security is on the line. Geopolitics is a big boys game. How else should Russia react to a "western" mindset which is so virulently hostile to Russia that it was seriously entertained that a country with an economy smaller than South Korea or Canada picked the president of the USA? People need to grow up and realise that actions lead to reactions. The fake outrage only indicates incompetency in my eyes.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a08d55691d6f78a042612a7aa18ff3ab.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8078e6b81295c08b3df3e770f66e931c.svg)
