221–230 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a really good way to end up embroiled in another pointless war which ruins yet another country
The pride of the Russian navy is at all times accompanied by a tugboat. Their forces are a joke and we need to stop them before they do something stupid.
The bigger question is "why now". Ukraine is not joining NATO or the EU any time soon. Russia has de facto annexed Crimea and its ongoing support for separatists in Donbas keeps the region unstable to its advantage. I suspect two reasons: Putin's flagging domestic support and Russia's (and to be honest, the world's) perception that America is currently so divided and weak it will be unable to offer much resistance th…
I'm wondering if this all about the NordStream 2 pipeline, though I'm not sure how threatening Ukraine helps Russia's case... maybe just to show that you don't want pipelines through an unstable region. Also, who benefits when natural gas prices go higher?
Russia doesn't need Nord Stream 2 as much because they could sell it to China just as well. For such ventures long term stability is important, but the EU already announced they will move away from fossil fuels which adds insecurity.
Countries with a lot of resources profit the most from high prices, but Russia might not want them too high because then the US could viably support the EU with gas too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess that's sarcasm? Because I honestly cannot tell. Yes, the U.S used its imperialist power to annex Hawai'i in 1897. That was before most of the modern foundations of international law - in particular article 2(4) of Chapter 1 of the United Nations Articles[0] - were put in place. No excuse, but still - different times. There are many aspects of U.S. foreign policy I positively abhor. But I'm not alone; the coup…
While you're technically correct in that the age of colonialism is over, I'm not so sure if the US covertly and overtly overthrowing governments they don't like is much better than the plain and simple invasion Russia executed in Ukraine. Either would be worse for the victims if Russia did it, but I'd much rather "just" become American or Russian than have foreign sponsors set up religious extremists to stage a rebel…
Neither am I and I detest what the U.S. did to South America. The pain and suffering cause by the US's actions there will continue to reverberate for decades to come.
There was a time in the 90s when the West promised Russia not to expand the NATO closer towards its borders. Later the West forgot about it. As much as I’m critical about most things Russia, I believe it’s understandable and legitimate for Russia to push back. In my eyes, there should be room for an agreement which indeed maintains some kind a “buffer zone” between both blocks. And the West needs to stop pretending i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pride of the Russian navy is at all times accompanied by a tugboat. Their forces are a joke and we need to stop them before they do something stupid.
That line of thinking worked well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's hope we have a nice quick, clean war like we did there
I feel that these articles rarely give any perspective on Russia's issue which is that Ukraine joining NATO would be a violation of prior agreements and would result in armaments being placed at their boarder which they view as a risk and security breach. The US is basically saying we don't care and we are going to do it despite your objections and then pretending Russia threatening military action is unilateral host…
> The US is basically saying we don't care and we are going to do it despite your objections By framing this whole thing as a hostility by the US towards Russia, you're saying that Ukraine isn't a sovereign nation, which can choose to ally with whomever and join whichever organization they want. So yeah that's Putin's narrative: Ukraine is a part of Russia and doesn't get to make those choices. That's the Russian per…
It's akin to arguing that Cuba joining a Russian military alliance and re-installing ICBMs on their territory is totally fine because Cuba is a sovereign nation and can do whatever they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The US is basically saying we don't care and we are going to do it despite your objections By framing this whole thing as a hostility by the US towards Russia, you're saying that Ukraine isn't a sovereign nation, which can choose to ally with whomever and join whichever organization they want. So yeah that's Putin's narrative: Ukraine is a part of Russia and doesn't get to make those choices. That's the Russian per…
Yes Ukraine is a sovereign nation but NATO is not. The US and Russia have an agreement that NATO will not encroach onto Russias border which allowing Ukraine to join (a US decision) would be a violation of. It's akin to arguing that Cuba joining a Russian military alliance and re-installing ICBMs on their territory is totally fine because Cuba is a sovereign nation and can do whatever they want.
Also the Russian demands (per their 2 'treaty' proposals) is for restoration of geopolitical map to 1997. It is true (and interesting) that Western press tries to formulate this as "about Ukraine" but the documents (which are plain English) clearly demand a strategic retreat and restoration of spheres of influence between great powers.
From the Russian perspective, it is certainly true that having forward nuclear capable installations bordering Russia renders Russian options for nuclear retaliation null and void. This is something Putin spent a great deal of time explaining a few years ago: it disrupts the Russia MAD protocols and thus is "dangerous" (per Putin) in that Russians seeing (nuclear capable) stuff flying over from across the border have no way to determine if the attack is conventional or nuclear. So what Russians want is really a long enough window for the MAD protocols to be meaningful. TLDR: Russia believes these installations create the opportunity for decapitating Nuclear First Strike by NATO on Russia.
I think this is the biggest failing of the reporting class regarding this (imho fairly serious) development: framing this as about Ukraine whereas it is strictly about great power balance. The subtext here is that our chattering classes no longer consider Russia a "great power" and thus dismiss those concerns. The most sensible approach for Russians is to place equivalent hardware in Cuba and Venezuela, and equalize the "first strike" insecurities. If West then smashes the Russian installations, then I suppose Russians can go ahead and do the same to everything NATO "post 1997" in "former Warsaw Pact" nations.
I don't blame Russia's stance. I blame the cold war and the US's two pronged approach to most diplomacy matters. NATO was formed to halt the power of the soviet union. once the soviet union fell. NATO should've been disbanded. anyone with a pea of a brain would've seen the consequences of not abandoning nato, and now we're about to pay for those mistakes.
>I don't blame Russia's stance. As a Russian I say you are completely wrong. The current crisis is entirely manufactured by Putin and his authoritarian needs, which are contrary to the actual needs of the Russian people. The Baltic states joined NATO in 2004, and there isn't much difference in nuke flight time between a launch from Latvia or from Kharkiv, so the entire premise that Ukraine potentially joining NATO so…
This is true and Russia demands include ALL such installations after "1997". It is the Western press that has been formulating this as "about Ukraine". The documents btw are publicly published, in English, and very straight forwrd.
Russia is demanding a strategic retreat to "1997". (See "already deployed" below)
"Article 7: The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Remember that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea "to save Russian citizens".
> Russia invaded and annexed Crimea Russia invaded Crimea back when British red coats were stationed in New York City. The Russian military has been there ever since. When did the US invade the Guantanamo section of Cuba?
Does YCombinator ban trolls, these days?