10 ms·

This reminds me of each time people criticises the European Union for "condemning" something. Big organizations do things step by step. First you talk, then you

This reminds me of each time people criticises the European Union for "condemning" something. Big organizations do things step by step. First you talk, then you act. Even Russia prepared a prerecorded pantomime of a discussion before acting. This are the gears moving and is no small thing, it sends a message and prepares for the worse.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CodeArtisan 5y ago
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 to "enforce peace". Same with Crimea in 2014. Then Luhansk and Donetsk a few days ago. Now the rest of Ukraine. Discussion with Putin is futile. When Russia started sending troops next to the Ukraine borders, NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev. It's too late now.
- publicola1990 5y ago
  Many NATO members have strong enconomic links with Russia. For example Russia is building nuclear power plants in Turkey and Hungary, which are in very advanced state of construction for example.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    The condemnation by Turkey sounded very diplomatic.
    - blaser-waffle 5y ago
      Turkey is only in NATO as a legacy play. They gave up on EU membership a while ago, and have been mostly pushing their own agenda, stepping into the middle east power vacuums left empty by Syria and Iraq falling apart. They'll lean on NATO when they need to, but they also live next to Russia and don't want to pick fights if they don't need to.
- 2143 5y ago
  > NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev And Russia would've been scared and retreated. Sarcasm aside, all that would've done is accelerate the whole invasion procedure. And then the 2000 troops would be killed by Russia. Then America/NATO will retaliate. That'll be the endgame.
  - CodeArtisan 5y ago
    It was the only way to tell Putin to stop and to prevent an invasion; you send troops at the border, we will do the same on our side and they will stay as long as yours stay there.
  - mopsi 5y ago
    > And Russia would've been scared and retreated. Yes. Without sarcasm. This happened several times with Trump, who despite all his faults, was a master bullshitter and master at seeing through other bullshitters. A notable episode was an attack by Russian Wagner group on a small outpost held by 30-something US special forces soldiers guarding a gas plant in Syria. Signals intelligence was later able to capture a few phone calls of survivors describing what had happened[1]. Russians were used to fighting poorly trained rebels, but now fell under combined arms fire from a modern army and it was a total massacre. They got hit from drones, artillery, Apaches and F-22s. Russian casualties: some 300 dead out of 600, American losses: 0. After that, Russians were much less eager to provoke the US. They test every president like this. Obama failed ("red lines" in Syria), Trump succeeded, Biden... depends on what he does next. [1] https://www.polygraph.info/a/29044452.html https://www.polygraph.info/a/29044452.html
    - creato 5y ago
      You're omitting a critical detail: Russia denied that those forces were Russian, effectively green lighting the US response. That's not a useful "test". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
      - mopsi 5y ago
- sofixa 5y ago
  > When Russia started sending troops next to the Ukraine borders, NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev. It's too late now. That would have escalated the situation further and would have helped Putin's narrative, like the Russian mobilisation in WWI which only pushed things over the edge.
  - catlikesshrimp 5y ago
    What would have been the difference to what Ukranians have now? More material support. I understand for politicians in other countries that would have been very expensive
- gambiting 5y ago
  >> NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia, and we basically all die? Because like....there is no other good option out of this you know. By placing American(or NATO) troops and assets in the harms way, you need to be prepared for what you are going to do if those troops get attacked - and the current strategy is to attack back, which again = end of the world. Arming Ukraine to the teeth and letting them fight back was the second best option and that's exactly what the west has done. Also, there was a meme recently - it's all fun and games being an expert on the internet, but then you remember you are an able bodied male who would absolutely be drafted in to actually fight. "West should do something" - great, you first. I have kids and family, as a Pole the risk of actually being involved in military operations is making me extremely uncomfortable right now.
  - bobsmooth 5y ago
    I guess we let Putin have Ukraine then.
    - 314 5y ago
      There are more than options, as the post that you are replying to explained. This kind of cheap response does not add anything.
    - newaccount2021 5y ago
  - d3ckard 5y ago
    Otherwise you let Putin have Ukraine and basically show your ass. We’re all afraid of nukes, but that fear can’t make us allow for everything. I am a Pole as well and also very uncomfortable. I also believe Nato should intervene in Ukraine. Otherwise, we just wait until it’s our turn.
    - elric 5y ago
- oblio 5y ago
  None of those countries are in NATO and some of them were not super friendly until the crises happened. Ukraine itself is an example. Ukraine was posturing aggressively against Romania, NATO and EU member, as recently as 2009. I feel bad for what's happening in Ukraine, but they didn't really try to make many friends before 2014.
  - simonh 5y ago
    In 2009 Ukraine was under the control of Yanukovych, a Russian stooge installed through repression and rigged elections. He was Putin’s pawn and his posturing against NATO or Romania can hardly be used as criticism of the current Ukrainian government or the will of the Ukrainian people. You’re implying that Ukraine didn’t try to make any friends before the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea. In fact it was Ukraines improving relationship with the west (including Eastern Europe, so not really even ‘the west’ anymore, really just Non-Russia and China the axis of autocracy) that lead to the Russian annexation.
    - oblio 5y ago
      It doesn't matter. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. turned around in 1991. Ukraine didn't. Its people didn't want it. Downvote all you want, that's just fact.
      - glogla 5y ago
        The downvotes are because your opinions are despicable, not because it isn't literally true that Ukraine stance changed in the last decades.
        oblio 5y ago
        I don't wish ill to the Ukrainian people. I'm sorry this is happening. And they haven't done anything to deserve what's happening to them. But their opinions only changed after aggression. Back in 2005 or so they were still pining after the Soviet Union. But yes, truth hurts.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  I’m glad you’re willing to play armchair general with other people’s blood. I served, did you? I’m 100% disabled as a result. If you didn’t wear the uniform, don’t be so quick to volunteer others for what you aren’t willing to do yourself.
- ricardobayes 5y ago
  Next up is Finland. Also not a NATO member.
  - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
    Why would Finland be the next? Because someone wants to scare them to join NATO? Finland was already able to resist Russian aggression once not so long ago (by European standards), and Russia paid a dire price for attacking in man life. Later, Finland also paid its toll, but in territory. Both sides learned their lesson. Finland is not going to provoke Russia, and Russia is not going to attach again without reason.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    But also a country with a history of coming to terms with the USSR, and notably one that didn't receive a NATO membership invitation guarantee (working of Wikipedia). Ukraine and Georgia did, both also want to join NATO. Finland has no such plans (again, working of Wikipedia).
    - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
      Having just watched the Finnish president and prime minister address the situation, the press' pressing questions about joining NATO were continually downplayed, as is customary. Finland is almost militantly neutral, since that was the original condition to independence in the first place. On the other hand, Russia just voided the Minsk agreement with Ukraine to attack, so... Imagine being Russia's border neighbor, man. It's seriously stressful. But if any country is prepared for russian invasion, it's Finland.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        Being a border nation with Russia now, without a staunch pro-Russian government, is pretty scary right now. Even if you are a NATO member, because I don't trust NATO to go to war with Russia.
        5y ago
- tarsinge 5y ago
  > Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 to "enforce peace". Same with Crimea in 2014. Then Luhansk and Donetsk a few days ago. Now the rest of Ukraine. Discussion with Putin is futile. Just remember that the USA played the same kind of playbook (maybe worse) in Syria and Iraq. It's equally condamnable, but it can give you some perspective to see through media portrayal.
  - thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
    Kosovo is a more apt comparison. There's no way of condemning annexation of the breakaway regions, while defending doing the same with Kosovo - without coming out as a hypocrite who bends the facts to fit his needs
    - eagleal 5y ago
      In a way the comparison is understandable, but in Kosovo and Bosnia there were systemic etnic persecution and genocide by the Serbian government. A more similar comparison would be the US and USSR funding of factions in Italy during the Anni di Piombo. And then say US or USSR officialy arming and sponsoring Forza Nuova (or another militant organization) for indipendence of Padania.
      - xdennis 5y ago
        And now there are Christian persecution and genocide under US protection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_heritage_in_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_heritag...
      - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
        > but in Kosovo and Bosnia there were systemic etnic persecution and genocide by the Serbian government. Which turned to be false. The Racak massacre that provoked Bosnian intervention was a lie used to make a case for an invasion. Similar to mass weapons in Iraq that were never found. The same in Bosnia, where Markale incident used to accuse one side of war crimes later appeared to be organized by Muslim paramilitary to provoke military intervention and make a press. The only thing Serbian side did wrong, is that it was ruled by socialist (ex-communist) party.
smsm42 5y ago
The problem is not condemning, the problem is just condemning and not taking the next step, or making it so weak it actually emboldens tbe agressor, who thinks "oh, that's all they got? Wasn't too bad, I guess I'll just keep on"
- trhway 5y ago
  On the main, "voice of the state", the 1st channel of Russian TV they have just discussed that the West would introduce more sanctions, yet half a year down the road the West would just get used to the situation.
  - rebuilder 5y ago
    I wonder what that reflects. Sanctions would not be very popular among the Russian population, is this just the regime calming down the populace? Or does it genuinely reflect the calculus here?
    - oleg_antonyan 5y ago
      All real opposition is imprisoned or killed. State controls all media and actively censor internet. You will get in trouble for organizing or even mentioning any kind of mass protest on social media. 60+ generation only watches TV and supports Putin, and for the rest he has massive amount on police and special forces if censorship and "regular" repressions didn't work. Many people leave the country b/c leading the revolution === getting killed regardless of outcome. Those who cannot leave are too weak, those who can but don't want to are trying to ignore all this shit and live their normal lives. The abundance of oil money helps Putin to keep most people barely above poverty level regardless of sanctions, and that's ok for many.
    - trhway 5y ago
      Realistically Russia can't occupy any significant part of Ukraine, nor Kiev in particular - tens of millions of pissed-off resisting Ukrainians with many taking up arms (on Ukrainian TV they said that they already give arms to such civilians as former police, and Zelenskiy said that they would give arms to all "willing and capable to defend the country") would shake off any army, and any such occupation attempt would be very unpopular in Russia too. Such scenario would be fiasco and catastrophe for Russia and especially for Putin's regime and would make sanctions issue a noise. On the other side if Putin goes "only" for enlarged Donbass zone - like making Donetsk unreachable for Ukraine artillery, etc. - and limits the all-Ukrainian strikes only to military objects as it was officially declared then such conflict will soon again go back to slow-burn/frozen state, and that as usual would take international attention away from it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

CodeArtisan 5y ago

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 to "enforce peace". Same with Crimea in 2014. Then Luhansk and Donetsk a few days ago. Now the rest of Ukraine. Discussion with Putin is futile. When Russia started sending troops next to the Ukraine borders, NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev. It's too late now.

publicola1990 5y ago
Many NATO members have strong enconomic links with Russia. For example Russia is building nuclear power plants in Turkey and Hungary, which are in very advanced state of construction for example.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  The condemnation by Turkey sounded very diplomatic.
  - blaser-waffle 5y ago
    Turkey is only in NATO as a legacy play. They gave up on EU membership a while ago, and have been mostly pushing their own agenda, stepping into the middle east power vacuums left empty by Syria and Iraq falling apart. They'll lean on NATO when they need to, but they also live next to Russia and don't want to pick fights if they don't need to.
2143 5y ago
> NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev And Russia would've been scared and retreated. Sarcasm aside, all that would've done is accelerate the whole invasion procedure. And then the 2000 troops would be killed by Russia. Then America/NATO will retaliate. That'll be the endgame.
- CodeArtisan 5y ago
  It was the only way to tell Putin to stop and to prevent an invasion; you send troops at the border, we will do the same on our side and they will stay as long as yours stay there.
- mopsi 5y ago
  > And Russia would've been scared and retreated. Yes. Without sarcasm. This happened several times with Trump, who despite all his faults, was a master bullshitter and master at seeing through other bullshitters. A notable episode was an attack by Russian Wagner group on a small outpost held by 30-something US special forces soldiers guarding a gas plant in Syria. Signals intelligence was later able to capture a few phone calls of survivors describing what had happened[1]. Russians were used to fighting poorly trained rebels, but now fell under combined arms fire from a modern army and it was a total massacre. They got hit from drones, artillery, Apaches and F-22s. Russian casualties: some 300 dead out of 600, American losses: 0. After that, Russians were much less eager to provoke the US. They test every president like this. Obama failed ("red lines" in Syria), Trump succeeded, Biden... depends on what he does next. [1] https://www.polygraph.info/a/29044452.html https://www.polygraph.info/a/29044452.html
  - creato 5y ago
    You're omitting a critical detail: Russia denied that those forces were Russian, effectively green lighting the US response. That's not a useful "test". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
    - mopsi 5y ago
sofixa 5y ago
> When Russia started sending troops next to the Ukraine borders, NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev. It's too late now. That would have escalated the situation further and would have helped Putin's narrative, like the Russian mobilisation in WWI which only pushed things over the edge.
- catlikesshrimp 5y ago
  What would have been the difference to what Ukranians have now? More material support. I understand for politicians in other countries that would have been very expensive
gambiting 5y ago
>> NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia, and we basically all die? Because like....there is no other good option out of this you know. By placing American(or NATO) troops and assets in the harms way, you need to be prepared for what you are going to do if those troops get attacked - and the current strategy is to attack back, which again = end of the world. Arming Ukraine to the teeth and letting them fight back was the second best option and that's exactly what the west has done. Also, there was a meme recently - it's all fun and games being an expert on the internet, but then you remember you are an able bodied male who would absolutely be drafted in to actually fight. "West should do something" - great, you first. I have kids and family, as a Pole the risk of actually being involved in military operations is making me extremely uncomfortable right now.
- bobsmooth 5y ago
  I guess we let Putin have Ukraine then.
  - 314 5y ago
    There are more than options, as the post that you are replying to explained. This kind of cheap response does not add anything.
  - newaccount2021 5y ago
- d3ckard 5y ago
  Otherwise you let Putin have Ukraine and basically show your ass. We’re all afraid of nukes, but that fear can’t make us allow for everything. I am a Pole as well and also very uncomfortable. I also believe Nato should intervene in Ukraine. Otherwise, we just wait until it’s our turn.
  - elric 5y ago
oblio 5y ago
None of those countries are in NATO and some of them were not super friendly until the crises happened. Ukraine itself is an example. Ukraine was posturing aggressively against Romania, NATO and EU member, as recently as 2009. I feel bad for what's happening in Ukraine, but they didn't really try to make many friends before 2014.
- simonh 5y ago
  In 2009 Ukraine was under the control of Yanukovych, a Russian stooge installed through repression and rigged elections. He was Putin’s pawn and his posturing against NATO or Romania can hardly be used as criticism of the current Ukrainian government or the will of the Ukrainian people. You’re implying that Ukraine didn’t try to make any friends before the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea. In fact it was Ukraines improving relationship with the west (including Eastern Europe, so not really even ‘the west’ anymore, really just Non-Russia and China the axis of autocracy) that lead to the Russian annexation.
  - oblio 5y ago
    It doesn't matter. Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. turned around in 1991. Ukraine didn't. Its people didn't want it. Downvote all you want, that's just fact.
    - glogla 5y ago
      The downvotes are because your opinions are despicable, not because it isn't literally true that Ukraine stance changed in the last decades.
      - oblio 5y ago
        I don't wish ill to the Ukrainian people. I'm sorry this is happening. And they haven't done anything to deserve what's happening to them. But their opinions only changed after aggression. Back in 2005 or so they were still pining after the Soviet Union. But yes, truth hurts.
imwillofficial 5y ago
I’m glad you’re willing to play armchair general with other people’s blood. I served, did you? I’m 100% disabled as a result. If you didn’t wear the uniform, don’t be so quick to volunteer others for what you aren’t willing to do yourself.
ricardobayes 5y ago
Next up is Finland. Also not a NATO member.
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  Why would Finland be the next? Because someone wants to scare them to join NATO? Finland was already able to resist Russian aggression once not so long ago (by European standards), and Russia paid a dire price for attacking in man life. Later, Finland also paid its toll, but in territory. Both sides learned their lesson. Finland is not going to provoke Russia, and Russia is not going to attach again without reason.
- hef19898 5y ago
  But also a country with a history of coming to terms with the USSR, and notably one that didn't receive a NATO membership invitation guarantee (working of Wikipedia). Ukraine and Georgia did, both also want to join NATO. Finland has no such plans (again, working of Wikipedia).
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    Having just watched the Finnish president and prime minister address the situation, the press' pressing questions about joining NATO were continually downplayed, as is customary. Finland is almost militantly neutral, since that was the original condition to independence in the first place. On the other hand, Russia just voided the Minsk agreement with Ukraine to attack, so... Imagine being Russia's border neighbor, man. It's seriously stressful. But if any country is prepared for russian invasion, it's Finland.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Being a border nation with Russia now, without a staunch pro-Russian government, is pretty scary right now. Even if you are a NATO member, because I don't trust NATO to go to war with Russia.
      - 5y ago
tarsinge 5y ago
> Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 to "enforce peace". Same with Crimea in 2014. Then Luhansk and Donetsk a few days ago. Now the rest of Ukraine. Discussion with Putin is futile. Just remember that the USA played the same kind of playbook (maybe worse) in Syria and Iraq. It's equally condamnable, but it can give you some perspective to see through media portrayal.
- thow-58d4e8b 5y ago
  Kosovo is a more apt comparison. There's no way of condemning annexation of the breakaway regions, while defending doing the same with Kosovo - without coming out as a hypocrite who bends the facts to fit his needs
  - eagleal 5y ago
    In a way the comparison is understandable, but in Kosovo and Bosnia there were systemic etnic persecution and genocide by the Serbian government. A more similar comparison would be the US and USSR funding of factions in Italy during the Anni di Piombo. And then say US or USSR officialy arming and sponsoring Forza Nuova (or another militant organization) for indipendence of Padania.
    - xdennis 5y ago
      And now there are Christian persecution and genocide under US protection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_heritage_in_Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Serbian_heritag...
    - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
      > but in Kosovo and Bosnia there were systemic etnic persecution and genocide by the Serbian government. Which turned to be false. The Racak massacre that provoked Bosnian intervention was a lie used to make a case for an invasion. Similar to mass weapons in Iraq that were never found. The same in Bosnia, where Markale incident used to accuse one side of war crimes later appeared to be organized by Muslim paramilitary to provoke military intervention and make a press. The only thing Serbian side did wrong, is that it was ruled by socialist (ex-communist) party.

smsm42 5y ago

The problem is not condemning, the problem is just condemning and not taking the next step, or making it so weak it actually emboldens tbe agressor, who thinks "oh, that's all they got? Wasn't too bad, I guess I'll just keep on"

trhway 5y ago
On the main, "voice of the state", the 1st channel of Russian TV they have just discussed that the West would introduce more sanctions, yet half a year down the road the West would just get used to the situation.
- rebuilder 5y ago
  I wonder what that reflects. Sanctions would not be very popular among the Russian population, is this just the regime calming down the populace? Or does it genuinely reflect the calculus here?
  - oleg_antonyan 5y ago
    All real opposition is imprisoned or killed. State controls all media and actively censor internet. You will get in trouble for organizing or even mentioning any kind of mass protest on social media. 60+ generation only watches TV and supports Putin, and for the rest he has massive amount on police and special forces if censorship and "regular" repressions didn't work. Many people leave the country b/c leading the revolution === getting killed regardless of outcome. Those who cannot leave are too weak, those who can but don't want to are trying to ignore all this shit and live their normal lives. The abundance of oil money helps Putin to keep most people barely above poverty level regardless of sanctions, and that's ok for many.
  - trhway 5y ago
    Realistically Russia can't occupy any significant part of Ukraine, nor Kiev in particular - tens of millions of pissed-off resisting Ukrainians with many taking up arms (on Ukrainian TV they said that they already give arms to such civilians as former police, and Zelenskiy said that they would give arms to all "willing and capable to defend the country") would shake off any army, and any such occupation attempt would be very unpopular in Russia too. Such scenario would be fiasco and catastrophe for Russia and especially for Putin's regime and would make sanctions issue a noise. On the other side if Putin goes "only" for enlarged Donbass zone - like making Donetsk unreachable for Ukraine artillery, etc. - and limits the all-Ukrainian strikes only to military objects as it was officially declared then such conflict will soon again go back to slow-burn/frozen state, and that as usual would take international attention away from it.