War

If America is upset at Russians on Ukraine's 'doorstep' maybe now they'll understand the feelings of North Koreans while Americans on their doorstep. And playing naval war games right next to their waters.

America could leave South Korea and the North won't invade. Actually, America would get quite annoyed if the North and South reunified and became friends

America needs perpetual wars.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 08, 2022, 12:54:56 PM

Australia stands ready to sell our gas. 

Dangerous talk.  If Russia suspects you might be joining NATO then you might see a massive troop buildup at your borders which is totally nothing to worry about.

Norway is trying to sell it.  We're already NATO And border Russia. 
Sadly, the EU is very against it.  They want to get away from all natural gas.

We are sad.

If it's such a threat to Russia for NATO to bring troops near the border, wouldn't it make sense that it is a threat to Ukraine for Russia to bring troops to the border?  What country's leadership wants to lose territory to another country while receiving nothing in return?  Instead of Russia annexing Ukraine's territory, it could instead try diplomacy and offer Ukraine something in return for the land that it wants.  But here we are, talking about how America and NATO are the bad guys for responding to Russia's instigations.

If America is upset at Russians on Ukraine's 'doorstep' maybe now they'll understand the feelings of North Koreans while Americans on their doorstep. And playing naval war games right next to their waters.

America could leave South Korea and the North won't invade. Actually, America would get quite annoyed if the North and South reunified and became friends

America needs perpetual wars.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

Quote from: Crouton on February 08, 2022, 12:35:42 PM

Quote from: Pezevenk on February 08, 2022, 11:23:37 AM

It's not particularly more serious than previous buildups. It may well become now because now NATO is also doing the same thing in response and Russia will obviously not tolerate being outnumbered and outpressured.

Well if troop buildups are nothing to be concerned about then I'm sure it's not a problem if NATO does a similar troop buildup.

Quote from: Pezevenk on February 08, 2022, 11:23:37 AM

Russia is not North Korea, this will very likely never happen. Russia is a massive country with good relations with many other countries in the region, including China. It also supplies the entire Europe with natural gas. It's gonna be really hard to convince others to get on board with completely isolating Russia, and even if you try, Russia will not back down because it is in a position to tolerate a lot when it comes to defending what is strategically very important for them. Strategically Ukraine and eastern Europe in general is far more important for Russia than it is for the US. It doesn't make sense to do that.

Yes and invading Ukraine will annihilate most of those good relationships.  Russia has some advantages with the natural gas but they're not the only country with a lot of natural gas.  Additionally NATO has 28 times the gdp that Russia does.  I don't think their position to withstand isolation is as good as you think it is.

Strategically I'm sure it's very important to Russia.  On the flip side knocking over a country tends to send millions of immigrants fleeing everywhere which sends the rich countries into a paranoid anti-immigrant frenzy which leads to leaders who'll promise to keep out the foreigners if they'll just temporarily suspend some human rights.  Western Europe probably has the strongest incentive to keep the peace.

Invading Ukraine will absolutely not annihilate most of these relations. Did it annihilate them when they invaded Crimea? It didn't, and it won't do it now either. China won't give a shit. India won't give a shit. Iran won't give a shit. A bunch of smaller countries in the area that don't run a similar risk won't care at all either. Europe will care a lot if they lose the natural gas. Yeah, they're not the only country with a lot of natural gas. But the ONLY other way Europe can get a lot of natural gas is stupid expensive tanker shipments. Many European countries massively rely on natural gas shipments from Russia. If it was shut off tomorrow, it would be a long time before things got even remotely close to normal again. For instance, Greece requires gas not only for heating but also power production. The price of electricity went way up, not to talk about our heating budget, which was literally more than 7 times higher than last year, despite intentionally trying to waste less gas. Russia provides almost half the natural gas imports to Europe, way more for specific countries. The prices would go way up and it would be very hard to recover from. It would also be hard for Russia to recover from the damage of the sanctions but you know what the difference is? That Russia really really cares about maintaining its power in that area, while it's not as crucially important for anyone else. Russia clearly does not care about taking over the entire Ukraine anyways. IF they invaded, it would be to annex some small eastern part of Ukraine where they would receive almost no resistance after the annexation. They're not stupid.

I think that's what many people don't understand. Russia is not going to attempt an all out invasion into Ukraine trying to get the entire thing. That would be very stupid and just completely drain all their resources and any legitimacy in the world stage. But that's not what they want to do, they want to make Ukraine deteriorate and make the eastern part of the country gravitate towards Russia more and more. Ultimately they do not want Ukraine to join NATO obviously, but if this results to a massive crisis it is not entirely obvious what the result will be, and it may well be in favor of Russia ultimately. Ukraine's neutrality was challenged once, and Crimea was instantly lost. Did anyone do anything about it? No. Did Crimea return to Ukraine? No. And it won't ever do so now.

Europe absolutely has more of an interest to avoid an invasion of Ukraine than the US. But it still hasn't got enough of a reason to care to do all that since it can actually lose way more than the US. I honestly think the US is primarily doing all that to prove their relevance more than any other very serious strategic concerns. Russia is a lesser power but it is still a sizable one, and it really, really cares about the countries of eastern Europe, especially about the ones with large ethnic Russian populations. So the best you can do here is to simply retain a balance of powers by keeping Ukraine more neutral, helping it progress economically, and stop expecting that Russia won't react if you try to just completely bring it to your orbit. Again, they really, really care about these countries, they're one of the most important issues for them strategically, when it isn't so for pretty much anyone else. And they clearly don't want to just do an all out invasion of Ukraine and deal with the aftermath because that would be stupid. It's not a good thing to try and corner Russia.

A troop buildup is usually sabre rattling. They've done it again many times. NATO is also rattling sabres now. But it's kind of weird to not expect that Russia would be pissed about that. It's like the Cuban missile crisis. The entire world almost blew up not because of a suspected invasion against the US, not even because of a troop buildup. The USSR gave nuclear missiles to Cuba to prevent an invasion after one had already happened. This was perceived as EXTREMELY threatening by the US, because here was a power from the other side of the world arming a tiny country right in America's backyard. This is how Russia perceives NATO bringing in all these troops and trying to integrate Ukraine fully into the west's orbit. Or imagine if China did an alliance with Mexico, and then brought a huge army into the country. The state department would be completely outraged, even if the army wasn't even threatening the US at all and doing something entirely unrelated.

Let me give you a hypothetical what if scenario.

Ukraine, in an effort to diffuse the situation, offers to give Russia a formal guarantee of neutrality on the condition that they withdraw their occupation of Crimea and withdraw their support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine.  Would that not be a reasonable offer given Russia's concerns?  How do you think Putin would respond?

If it's such a threat to Russia for NATO to bring troops near the border, wouldn't it make sense that it is a threat to Ukraine for Russia to bring troops to the border?  What country's leadership wants to lose territory to another country while receiving nothing in return?  Instead of Russia annexing Ukraine's territory, it could instead try diplomacy and offer Ukraine something in return for the land that it wants.  But here we are, talking about how America and NATO are the bad guys for responding to Russia's instigations.

There is no way Ukraine would ever yield land even for something in return. Any government that agreed to something like that would probably be publicly executed within the next month. In cases like these, it's next to impossible to convince a country to cede even a tiny part of its land for something in exchange. See for example Finland vs USSR in early WWII. In that case at one point Finland didn't even agree to temporarily leasing the land, let alone actually ceding it. I'm not sure why you are bringing up this scenario.

None of this has anything to do with "bad guy-good guy". These are not the rules of the game. I'm saying that 1) I don't think Russia was actually planning to invade right now and 2) I don't think this is good handling of the situation, or that it's anyone else's business other than the countries in the region.

Quote from: Pezevenk on February 08, 2022, 02:12:00 PM

Quote from: Crouton on February 08, 2022, 12:35:42 PM

Quote from: Pezevenk on February 08, 2022, 11:23:37 AM

It's not particularly more serious than previous buildups. It may well become now because now NATO is also doing the same thing in response and Russia will obviously not tolerate being outnumbered and outpressured.

Well if troop buildups are nothing to be concerned about then I'm sure it's not a problem if NATO does a similar troop buildup.

Quote from: Pezevenk on February 08, 2022, 11:23:37 AM

Russia is not North Korea, this will very likely never happen. Russia is a massive country with good relations with many other countries in the region, including China. It also supplies the entire Europe with natural gas. It's gonna be really hard to convince others to get on board with completely isolating Russia, and even if you try, Russia will not back down because it is in a position to tolerate a lot when it comes to defending what is strategically very important for them. Strategically Ukraine and eastern Europe in general is far more important for Russia than it is for the US. It doesn't make sense to do that.

Yes and invading Ukraine will annihilate most of those good relationships.  Russia has some advantages with the natural gas but they're not the only country with a lot of natural gas.  Additionally NATO has 28 times the gdp that Russia does.  I don't think their position to withstand isolation is as good as you think it is.

Strategically I'm sure it's very important to Russia.  On the flip side knocking over a country tends to send millions of immigrants fleeing everywhere which sends the rich countries into a paranoid anti-immigrant frenzy which leads to leaders who'll promise to keep out the foreigners if they'll just temporarily suspend some human rights.  Western Europe probably has the strongest incentive to keep the peace.

Invading Ukraine will absolutely not annihilate most of these relations. Did it annihilate them when they invaded Crimea? It didn't, and it won't do it now either. China won't give a shit. India won't give a shit. Iran won't give a shit. A bunch of smaller countries in the area that don't run a similar risk won't care at all either. Europe will care a lot if they lose the natural gas. Yeah, they're not the only country with a lot of natural gas. But the ONLY other way Europe can get a lot of natural gas is stupid expensive tanker shipments. Many European countries massively rely on natural gas shipments from Russia. If it was shut off tomorrow, it would be a long time before things got even remotely close to normal again. For instance, Greece requires gas not only for heating but also power production. The price of electricity went way up, not to talk about our heating budget, which was literally more than 7 times higher than last year, despite intentionally trying to waste less gas. Russia provides almost half the natural gas imports to Europe, way more for specific countries. The prices would go way up and it would be very hard to recover from. It would also be hard for Russia to recover from the damage of the sanctions but you know what the difference is? That Russia really really cares about maintaining its power in that area, while it's not as crucially important for anyone else. Russia clearly does not care about taking over the entire Ukraine anyways. IF they invaded, it would be to annex some small eastern part of Ukraine where they would receive almost no resistance after the annexation. They're not stupid.

I think that's what many people don't understand. Russia is not going to attempt an all out invasion into Ukraine trying to get the entire thing. That would be very stupid and just completely drain all their resources and any legitimacy in the world stage. But that's not what they want to do, they want to make Ukraine deteriorate and make the eastern part of the country gravitate towards Russia more and more. Ultimately they do not want Ukraine to join NATO obviously, but if this results to a massive crisis it is not entirely obvious what the result will be, and it may well be in favor of Russia ultimately. Ukraine's neutrality was challenged once, and Crimea was instantly lost. Did anyone do anything about it? No. Did Crimea return to Ukraine? No. And it won't ever do so now.

Europe absolutely has more of an interest to avoid an invasion of Ukraine than the US. But it still hasn't got enough of a reason to care to do all that since it can actually lose way more than the US. I honestly think the US is primarily doing all that to prove their relevance more than any other very serious strategic concerns. Russia is a lesser power but it is still a sizable one, and it really, really cares about the countries of eastern Europe, especially about the ones with large ethnic Russian populations. So the best you can do here is to simply retain a balance of powers by keeping Ukraine more neutral, helping it progress economically, and stop expecting that Russia won't react if you try to just completely bring it to your orbit. Again, they really, really care about these countries, they're one of the most important issues for them strategically, when it isn't so for pretty much anyone else. And they clearly don't want to just do an all out invasion of Ukraine and deal with the aftermath because that would be stupid. It's not a good thing to try and corner Russia.

A troop buildup is usually sabre rattling. They've done it again many times. NATO is also rattling sabres now. But it's kind of weird to not expect that Russia would be pissed about that. It's like the Cuban missile crisis. The entire world almost blew up not because of a suspected invasion against the US, not even because of a troop buildup. The USSR gave nuclear missiles to Cuba to prevent an invasion after one had already happened. This was perceived as EXTREMELY threatening by the US, because here was a power from the other side of the world arming a tiny country right in America's backyard. This is how Russia perceives NATO bringing in all these troops and trying to integrate Ukraine fully into the west's orbit. Or imagine if China did an alliance with Mexico, and then brought a huge army into the country. The state department would be completely outraged, even if the army wasn't even threatening the US at all and doing something entirely unrelated.

Let me give you a hypothetical what if scenario.

Ukraine, in an effort to diffuse the situation, offers to give Russia a formal guarantee of neutrality on the condition that they withdraw their occupation of Crimea and withdraw their support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine.  Would that not be a reasonable offer given Russia's concerns?  How do you think Putin would respond?

Crimea would not accept that at this point even if Russia did. Crimea is goooooone. Long gone. No turning back. If it didn't include Crimea then I don't know how they would respond for sure, they'd definitely try to drive a hard bargain but it's not unlikely they would agree to some condition like that, if Ukraine was to completely cede Crimea.

Crimea would not accept that at this point even if Russia did. Crimea is goooooone. Long gone. No turning back. If it didn't include Crimea then I don't know how they would respond for sure, they'd definitely try to drive a hard bargain but it's not unlikely they would agree to some condition like that, if Ukraine was to completely cede Crimea.

Crimea is not a sovereign nation.  They have about as much of a say in this as Hong Kong does regarding if they want to be a part of China or the UK.

Quote from: Pezevenk on February 10, 2022, 08:52:08 AM

Crimea would not accept that at this point even if Russia did. Crimea is goooooone. Long gone. No turning back. If it didn't include Crimea then I don't know how they would respond for sure, they'd definitely try to drive a hard bargain but it's not unlikely they would agree to some condition like that, if Ukraine was to completely cede Crimea.

Crimea is not a sovereign nation.  They have about as much of a say in this as Hong Kong does regarding if they want to be a part of China or the UK.

Even when Crimea was part of Ukraine, it was autonomous, and it is currently a separate federal subject of Russia. Would be kinda like the US giving Puerto Rico to Mexico or something like that. It's not that straightforward. Neither Crimea not the rest of Russia would want this at all and Russia has absolutely no reason to do it because you can't really force them. Again, as I said to duck, countries don't give territory they currently securely hold unless they have an extremely serious reason, you just can't give enough in exchange. It's not a realistic deal.

countries don't give territory they currently securely hold unless they have an extremely serious reason, you just can't give enough in exchange. It's not a realistic deal.

Russia sold Alaska to America for $7.2 million back in the day.

We picked up this little bit of land back in 1803 for fifteen million dollars from the French. Though the French didn't "own" much of it, they just claimed it. Post-purchase, given the rights from France, we decimated the indigenous people and homesteaded the shit out of it.

Dibs!

Basically, yeah. $15 million worth of dibs.

Quote from: Pezevenk on February 10, 2022, 10:50:42 AM

countries don't give territory they currently securely hold unless they have an extremely serious reason, you just can't give enough in exchange. It's not a realistic deal.

Russia sold Alaska to America for $7.2 million back in the day.

Yes, because they didn't really know what to do with it at that point, they had no real population there, and more importantly, if, say, Great Britain wanted to take Alaska from them, they could simply just do it and they would have no way to defend it. It's not at all the same in Europe. Like, trust me, if the leader of any country over here wanted to give a field of garbage to a neighboring country, especially one that is not perceived as a "sister country" for money or something like that, the government would collapse the next day. I'm not talking about colonial powers, colonies are different, although it is still extremely hard to convince a nation to hand over a colony. Ukraine will never ever hand over territory for money unless they think invasion and defeat is inevitable. Russia will never ever hand over Crimea for money or something similar unless they think the same. Neither side will hand over even a patch of dirt that simply. If some prime minister here sold a tiny rocky island that is not inhabited to Turkey, the government would immediately collapse and they'd go to prison for treason. Perhaps it's not as easy to understand for people who live in relatively isolated settler countries, but it's considered one of the reddest of red lines conceivable.

We picked up this little bit of land back in 1803 for fifteen million dollars from the French. Though the French didn't "own" much of it, they just claimed it. Post-purchase, given the rights from France, we decimated the indigenous people and homesteaded the shit out of it.

But see, that's exactly the thing. That territory was never really part of France. There's a big difference between america and the situation in Europe, perhaps that's why you are finding it not as easy to understand. The french were like "oh look, a bunch of land. Guess it's technically ours now" despite the fact they had no real control over it. Even more importantly, the US could at any time in the future say "no it's not", completely ignore France and just take it anyways. What was France going to do, send army all the way from France or wherever deep into American territory? So obviously giving it away for some money was the best option, and even better since it was just some random newly "acquired"piece of land, it was not deeply tied into French nationalism or anything like that. Nationalism wasn't even that strong yet in general.

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 10, 2022, 11:28:42 AM

Quote from: Pezevenk on February 10, 2022, 10:50:42 AM

countries don't give territory they currently securely hold unless they have an extremely serious reason, you just can't give enough in exchange. It's not a realistic deal.

Russia sold Alaska to America for $7.2 million back in the day.

Yes, because they didn't really know what to do with it at that point, they had no real population there, and more importantly, if, say, Great Britain wanted to take Alaska from them, they could simply just do it and they would have no way to defend it. It's not at all the same in Europe. Like, trust me, if the leader of any country over here wanted to give a field of garbage to a neighboring country, especially one that is not perceived as a "sister country" for money or something like that, the government would collapse the next day. I'm not talking about colonial powers, colonies are different, although it is still extremely hard to convince a nation to hand over a colony. Ukraine will never ever hand over territory for money unless they think invasion and defeat is inevitable. Russia will never ever hand over Crimea for money or something similar unless they think the same. Neither side will hand over even a patch of dirt that simply. If some prime minister here sold a tiny rocky island that is not inhabited to Turkey, the government would immediately collapse and they'd go to prison for treason. Perhaps it's not as easy to understand for people who live in relatively isolated settler countries, but it's considered one of the reddest of red lines conceivable.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it quite like that. Turf wars in neighbor-dense Europe may have a much lower territorial/resource tolerance than, let's say, N.America. Wherein it's more like an "over my dead body" thing whereas here, it's more of, "Well if the price is right..."

Reminds me of this crazy story about some sacred burial site of a Turkish forefather that's actually in Syria. It's been moved several times and is constantly messing with the border between the two and causing massive tension, over a tomb...that's apparently mobile.

Turkey enters Syria to remove precious Suleyman Shah tomb

Quote from: Pezevenk on February 10, 2022, 02:10:19 PM

Quote from: Masalang the Torpedo on February 10, 2022, 11:28:42 AM

Quote from: Pezevenk on February 10, 2022, 10:50:42 AM

countries don't give territory they currently securely hold unless they have an extremely serious reason, you just can't give enough in exchange. It's not a realistic deal.

Russia sold Alaska to America for $7.2 million back in the day.

Yes, because they didn't really know what to do with it at that point, they had no real population there, and more importantly, if, say, Great Britain wanted to take Alaska from them, they could simply just do it and they would have no way to defend it. It's not at all the same in Europe. Like, trust me, if the leader of any country over here wanted to give a field of garbage to a neighboring country, especially one that is not perceived as a "sister country" for money or something like that, the government would collapse the next day. I'm not talking about colonial powers, colonies are different, although it is still extremely hard to convince a nation to hand over a colony. Ukraine will never ever hand over territory for money unless they think invasion and defeat is inevitable. Russia will never ever hand over Crimea for money or something similar unless they think the same. Neither side will hand over even a patch of dirt that simply. If some prime minister here sold a tiny rocky island that is not inhabited to Turkey, the government would immediately collapse and they'd go to prison for treason. Perhaps it's not as easy to understand for people who live in relatively isolated settler countries, but it's considered one of the reddest of red lines conceivable.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it quite like that. Turf wars in neighbor-dense Europe may have a much lower territorial/resource tolerance than, let's say, N.America. Wherein it's more like an "over my dead body" thing whereas here, it's more of, "Well if the price is right..."

Trump wanted to buy Greenland from Denmark but Denmark essentially told him to POQ 

I think these days, the

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1492203576260759561?s=20&t=is_rCRUzBptfvfsMNceDbA

NEWS: The U.S. believes Putin has decided to invade Ukraine and communicated those plans to the Russian military, three officials tell @nickschifrin. Two admin officials say they expect the invasion to begin next week—echoing what Secretary of State Blinken has said.

More via @nickschifrin: Defense officials anticipate a horrific, bloody campaign that begins with two days of bombardment and electronic warfare, followed by an invasion, with the possible goal of regime change. The North Atlantic Council was briefed on this new intel today.

Yikes.

(these are PBS News Hour journalists)

Impossible. Pez told us this won't happen.

I seriously hope Pez is right.

I do to, because we don't need another war. NO MORE WAR. imo

Impossible. Pez told us this won't happen.

I seriously hope Pez is right.

Me too.  I hope it is maskirovka.

I'm getting a bit anxious for my family now.  UK nationals have been told to leave, but he has a family and a business to manage  - he can't just up and leave like that.  His kid has a British passport, but the UK hasn't exactly welcomed his wife in the past (not easy getting visas).

He has just messaged me "let them have Donbas and we can all just get on with our lives".

If they invade again, take the length of time between Crimea and this time, and cut it in half - that's how long before they come back for more territory, at most. Hopefully the leak is bullshit and nothing happens. That sucks for your family over there, JimmyTheCrab, here's hoping they stay safe and it all blows over with no real incident. But if everyone over there takes the attitude of "just pacify the bully and he'll go away," my concern would be that they may as well just start calling themselves Russia right now.

It is possible that it's some kind of ruse or mistake from the US.

At the very least if I were in Ukraine I'd want to wait it out closer to the western side of the country.

I completely understand the urge to just let Russia grab Donbas.  It seems unrealistic to think it'll stop there though.

I think this guy, a reporter for Time, might agree with Pez https://twitter.com/shustry 

There are some interesting tweets in there.  I don't quite understand some of them.

There's these:
https://twitter.com/shustry/status/1491440754690256897
https://twitter.com/shustry/status/1491442438069964800

"The goal of massing troops is not to invade but to put a lot of fear into the West to force everyone on this side to agree."

How would this benefit Putin?

"The source also added Putin has never been more isolated, very few people speak to him now.  the world inside his head is only his own."

I don't know what that means either.

I really wish there was an easy way to embed tweets here like we embed youtube videos.

Very nice.

We must add this immediately!!!

Very nice.

We must add this immediately!!!

We needed it more from 2016-2021... But yes, would be nice.

There are some interesting tweets in there.  I don't quite understand some of them.

There's these:
https://twitter.com/shustry/status/1491440754690256897
https://twitter.com/shustry/status/1491442438069964800

"The goal of massing troops is not to invade but to put a lot of fear into the West to force everyone on this side to agree."

How would this benefit Putin?

Fear of war might get everyone on the west to agree to not let Ukraine into NATO. Or something.

"The source also added Putin has never been more isolated, very few people speak to him now.  the world inside his head is only his own."

I don't know what that means either.

It means He's Trump, on Trump media, retweeting his own tweets and calling it other opinions.
He has no outside opions.  No outside advice.  His world view is what he thinks and only what he thinks. 

Supposedly Putin authorized the invasion and now the military is in charge of how to do it. Can't really find any sources on this though.

There are some interesting tweets in there.  I don't quite understand some of them.

There's these:
https://twitter.com/shustry/status/1491440754690256897
https://twitter.com/shustry/status/1491442438069964800

"The goal of massing troops is not to invade but to put a lot of fear into the West to force everyone on this side to agree."

How would this benefit Putin?

"The source also added Putin has never been more isolated, very few people speak to him now.  the world inside his head is only his own."

I don't know what that means either.

I really wish there was an easy way to embed tweets here like we embed youtube videos.

I think the first just means that Russia wants to scare Ukraine and NATO into thinking there will be an invasion so that they have much greater leverage for negotiations. Already the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK said they are considering to drop their plans to join NATO in order to avoid war. It's very likely what is actually happening, though I'm not sure this "insider" knows much.