Re: The Invasion of Ukraine
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:05 pm
Stop taking agency away from Ukraine plodder. They had this fight thrust upon them by Russia and they chose to fight back. They aren’t puppets.
You absolutely cannot factor NATO out of this.
Where does it look like I think that? Genuine question.
Those conversations would not be happening if Russia had not invaded Ukraine. Stop pandering to Russia. They are the architects of their own misfortune. The Invasion was unprovoked.plodder wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 7:21 amYou absolutely cannot factor NATO out of this.
For example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... e-invasion
NATO is repeating statements that Ukraine will be allowed to join. You may think this is a good thing, you may not, but you also can’t pretend it doesn’t offer a backdrop to the conflict from a Russian perspective, even if it only provides internal political support to Putin.
You literally created a very popular thread where enthusiasts have for months been discussing exactly which munitions Ukraine needs from NATO countries in order to win this war.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:49 pmAbsolutely not. I suggest actually looking at what Ukrainians have to say about it. Western aid has helped them, but there's no way they wouldn't still be fighting either as an insurgency or still holding meaningful parts of the country and most of the arms they are using are ones they already had or captured from the Russians, despite the significant impact of certain Western systems.
What the actual f.cktemptar wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 7:49 amThose conversations would not be happening if Russia had not invaded Ukraine. Stop pandering to Russia. They are the architects of their own misfortune. The Invasion was unprovoked.plodder wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 7:21 amYou absolutely cannot factor NATO out of this.
For example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... e-invasion
NATO is repeating statements that Ukraine will be allowed to join. You may think this is a good thing, you may not, but you also can’t pretend it doesn’t offer a backdrop to the conflict from a Russian perspective, even if it only provides internal political support to Putin.
1) Which would suggest I know a lot more about it than you.plodder wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 7:51 amYou literally created a very popular thread where enthusiasts have for months been discussing exactly which munitions Ukraine needs from NATO countries in order to win this war.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:49 pmAbsolutely not. I suggest actually looking at what Ukrainians have to say about it. Western aid has helped them, but there's no way they wouldn't still be fighting either as an insurgency or still holding meaningful parts of the country and most of the arms they are using are ones they already had or captured from the Russians, despite the significant impact of certain Western systems.
This is sensible but Ukraine doesn’t have much choice other than to accept NATO support (and they want to join, and NATO wants them to join) so although the war may have started as a conflict between Russia and Ukraine it clearly escalated into something much more complex even if the fighting is still limited to Ukraine - and that complexity is due to the presence and strategic goals of NATO, which Ukraine is doing a great job helping with. They’re passing their entrance exam with flying colours as a bare minimum.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:29 pm
Hmm. Not sure proxy war is the right term:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_warA proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities.
Seems pretty clear to me that both Russia and Ukraine are acting primarily of their own volition, as aggressor and defender respectively. Ukraine are mostly doing it with the supplies NATO let them have, but they'd do it anyway I'm sure.
Plodder, you've got the gist of it in this post, but it doesn't make it a proxy war, as the primary driver of the conflict on the anti-Russian side is still Ukraine.plodder wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:55 amThis is sensible but Ukraine doesn’t have much choice other than to accept NATO support (and they want to join, and NATO wants them to join) so although the war may have started as a conflict between Russia and Ukraine it clearly escalated into something much more complex even if the fighting is still limited to Ukraine - and that complexity is due to the presence and strategic goals of NATO, which Ukraine is doing a great job helping with. They’re passing their entrance exam with flying colours as a bare minimum.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 2:29 pm
Hmm. Not sure proxy war is the right term:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_warA proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities.
Seems pretty clear to me that both Russia and Ukraine are acting primarily of their own volition, as aggressor and defender respectively. Ukraine are mostly doing it with the supplies NATO let them have, but they'd do it anyway I'm sure.
Sending sufficient arms still wouldn't make it a proxy war.
Russia invaded first. This is why most of Eastern Europe wants membership of NATO. They do not like being invaded and occupied. When Russia stops being a threat, no one will need NATO. If this is a proxy war, it is one caused by Russia alone.plodder wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 7:51 amWhat the actual f.cktemptar wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 7:49 amThose conversations would not be happening if Russia had not invaded Ukraine. Stop pandering to Russia. They are the architects of their own misfortune. The Invasion was unprovoked.plodder wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 7:21 am
You absolutely cannot factor NATO out of this.
For example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... e-invasion
NATO is repeating statements that Ukraine will be allowed to join. You may think this is a good thing, you may not, but you also can’t pretend it doesn’t offer a backdrop to the conflict from a Russian perspective, even if it only provides internal political support to Putin.
eta temptar can you see how possibly you are wildly exaggerating my stance here? Read what I wrote please. Go back to the bit before you decided to be outraged and check you understood it.
Just want to say that this is spot on. All of it.temptar wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 10:09 amRussia invaded first. This is why most of Eastern Europe wants membership of NATO. They do not like being invaded and occupied. When Russia stops being a threat, no one will need NATO. If this is a proxy war, it is one caused by Russia alone.
The alternative to a bunch of countries manning up and giving Ukraine some weapons is Ukraine being invaded by Russia and Russia getting to win. And given how Russia has behaved, I am not sure that is an attractive proposition. You must be aware of what happened in Bucha, in Mariopol, what is happening every goddamn day in Ukraine with the anti- civilian bombing campaign carried out by Russia. Where the hell do you think Ukraine is going to get enough weaponry to defend themselves? If people like you complain about NATO countries helping out? Who is allowed help Ukraine?
They had a treaty which Russia has broken.
Hot does Ukraine get out of this Russia can invade but countries who are members of NATO should not help? This is not a proxy war. It is a war of aggression against one country.
Because the follow through of your posts if that view is shared is that Ukraine is wiped out. They need arms. Russia breaks treaties. Talking is not an option.
I literally just linked to an article in the guardian of all places where NATO is saying Ukraine will be allowed to join which references how that is seen as sabre rattling.Martin Y wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:28 amIt's not clear that NATO is even indirectly a belligerent here. Remember that the roots of this are Russia's hostility to Ukraine seeking to join the EU and *possibly* NATO. And all of the weapons and training are being supplied by individual countries in their own right, not by NATO, and not required by any NATO commitment by those countries.
All the talk of NATO expansion I've seen has been about Sweden and Finland. I couldn't blame Ukraine for wanting to join but that couldn't happen until this war is settled and needs the acceptance of the current member countries, not of some political body called NATO.
Ah! There’s only one true proxy war, and that’s the one that can’t happen in your head. Gotcha.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:22 amSending sufficient arms still wouldn't make it a proxy war.
Sending sufficient arms, however, is the best way to get the war over, which is first and foremost a moral imperative, and also pays for itself in terms of preventing economic damage and increasing security.
Just because you don't know what terms mean doesn't mean other people don't, you complete plank.plodder wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:17 amAh! There’s only one true proxy war, and that’s the one that can’t happen in your head. Gotcha.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:22 amSending sufficient arms still wouldn't make it a proxy war.
Sending sufficient arms, however, is the best way to get the war over, which is first and foremost a moral imperative, and also pays for itself in terms of preventing economic damage and increasing security.
I tend to think NATO accepted new members such as the Baltic states mainly out of a sense of responsibility rather than enthusiasm, precisely because an incursion by Russia would put them in a costly and difficult position. It also seemed to be getting increasingly unenthusiastic about having Turkey as a member, with Turkey cosying up to Russia in recent times. Though that might also be reassessed now.
well, ok, but that doesn't really square with things like this:IvanV wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:08 pmI tend to think NATO accepted new members such as the Baltic states mainly out of a sense of responsibility rather than enthusiasm, precisely because an incursion by Russia would put them in a costly and difficult position. It also seemed to be getting increasingly unenthusiastic about having Turkey as a member, with Turkey cosying up to Russia in recent times. Though that might also be reassessed now.
I think it was rather unenthusiastic about Ukraine until just now. I think until recently they would be been thinking, "phew, imagine if the annexation of Crimea and Donetsk happened while they were a member". Though, in retrospect, it would seem much better if that had been a member before that happened.
If the definition of proxy in your minds relates to how much agency Ukraine has then consider that they don't currently have any agency at all. Any time an ally supports another ally militarily they are working towards common goals.jimbob wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 11:54 am
Spoiler:
If everyone is misinterpreting your point, maybe you are not being clear, possibly because your point is not clear in your own head.
That is the closest I have come to condescension in this thread.
Also, there's a fair bit of condescension in the spoiler, I'd say.
Also your idea that a meaningful discussion about the war can involve avoiding discussion of what form aid to Ukraine can take or at least avoiding the requirements and capabilities.
As for the proxy war claim.
The US supplied better air to air missiles to the UK for the Falklands War, and also supplied satellite intelligence. It wasn't a proxy war between the US and Argentina though.
Remember also that Russia has been waging a hybrid war against the West since at least 2008, with Cyberattacks on Estonia, kidnapping of an Estonian border guard, bombings in Bulgaria, shootings in Germany and attacks with WMDs in the UK and Bulgaria.