Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

matherto said:
There was an agreement to provide Ukraine with support but it wasn't like Article 5 was it? It wasn't necessary.

I agree if you want to get into the semantics of it that we're helping Ukraine but we're absolutely fighting a proxy war in the process. To say that we aren't is quite naive IMO. Tell me how what we're doing in Ukraine is any different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past? ...
Click to expand...

It's not "semantics" - it's plain distinction between two very different things. NATO did not want Russia to invade Ukraine, but you are implying that they did in order to fight a proxy war. NATO would obviously have much preferred the unmolested development of Ukraine as a free and democratic nation, moving down a pathway to eventual EU membership, and as an example to what is possible to the Russian people.

This is what's "different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past": (a) Ukraine is a democracy looking Westward; (b) Ukraine borders NATO countries; and (c) this is the first time since the end of WWII that Russia/USSR has invaded an independent European nation.

Russia is the aggressor here, not NATO.
 
matherto said:
There was an agreement to provide Ukraine with support but it wasn't like Article 5 was it? It wasn't necessary.

I agree if you want to get into the semantics of it that we're helping Ukraine but we're absolutely fighting a proxy war in the process. To say that we aren't is quite naive IMO. Tell me how what we're doing in Ukraine is any different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past?
Click to expand...

No, it's not naïve, it's just factual. We aren't fighting a proxy war because Russia isn't using a proxy. Hence it's not a proxy war. It's quite a simple concept, really.

If separatist Russians were fighting Ukrainians with one side being armed by Russia and the other by the West, then it would be a proxy war.

Definition of proxy war:
A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors which act on the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities.[wiki]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MadMike said:
No, it's just factual. We aren't fighting a proxy war because Russia isn't using a proxy. Hence it's not a proxy war. It's quite a simple concept, really.

If separatist Russians were fighting Ukrainians with one side being armed by Russia and the other by the West, then it would be a proxy war.

Definition of proxy war:
Click to expand...

Fair enough, my mistake.
 
MadMike said:
It totally makes sense, because nukes don't change the basic premise that leads to war. Unless you use some perverted version of "logic" that is, which says that when a madman has nukes then you must bend over and let them feck you every time they threaten to use them and turn a blind eye to anything they do. What kind of spinelessness is that?

There just comes a time when you say it's preferable to fight and die than live in a world shaped by such people. Liberty or death is a foundational motto of many nations who had to fight a bloody rebellion with huge human toll for their freedom and independence. Why would I want to live in a Europe ruled by Nazis? How is that preferable?

So yes, even if Hitler had nukes you'd fight back. And if he used nukes, you'd use them back. And if that caused MAD then it's still better than a Nazi world. The survivors would rebuild.
Click to expand...

Try selling that to the population in a referendum and see how many want to die because the Nazis are killing Jews in mainland Europe.

We'd all say it's horrible but when push comes to shove we'd let them do it.

People protect themselves first.

It's admirable to want to fight and die rather than live in a world of intolerable actors but we manage to do it every day so why would we draw an arbitrary line?

I don't see you protesting that we should go into China to save the Uyghurs? They're being wiped out just like Jewish people were. In concentration camps too. How about Israel over Palestine or Saudi Arabia over Yemen?
 
MadMike said:
No, it's not naïve, it's just factual. We aren't fighting a proxy war because Russia isn't using a proxy. Hence it's not a proxy war. It's quite a simple concept, really.

If separatist Russians were fighting Ukrainians with one side being armed by Russia and the other by the West, then it would be a proxy war.

Definition of proxy war:
Click to expand...
That definition would exclude some of the most famous proxy wars of all time. It's a technical qualifier but in reality this is a proxy war (Russia is fighting both Ukraine and NATO; NATO is fighting Russia through Ukraine and Ukraine is fighting Russia with help from NATO, then you also have other institutional factors like the EU involved in information wars, and also the role of states like China in the grand scheme of things). You might say it isn't a proxy war for Russia (I think this would be wrong, as Russia is clearly fighting NATO through Ukraine, you can't disentangle the two) but it is for NATO without qualification.

GlastonSpur said:
This is what's "different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past": (a) Ukraine is a democracy looking Westward; (b) Ukraine borders NATO countries; and (c) this is the first time since the end of WWII that Russia/USSR has invaded an independent European nation.
Click to expand...

On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced to the watching world that Russian military forces were orchestrating a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The offensive was the largest in Europe since World War II. However, this is not the first time that Vladimir Putin and the upper brass of Russian officials had invaded a neighboring nation. In 1999, the Russian Federation invaded the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria in the Northern Caucasus. While tensions between Russia and Chechnya did not begin with Putin, Putin used the conflict to establish himself as Russia’s supreme leader.
Click to expand...

Differences between national status is a fair enough distinction, though. Aside from that, the NATO operation/invasion of Serbia (though obviously that was us and not them and different in some other respects).
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
That definition would exclude some of the most famous proxy wars of all time. It's a technical qualifier but in reality this is a proxy war (Russia is fighting both Ukraine and NATO; NATO is fighting Russia through Ukraine and Ukraine is fighting Russia with help from NATO, then you also have other institutional factors like the EU involved in information wars, and also the role of states like China in the grand scheme of things). You might say it isn't a proxy war for Russia (I think this would be wrong, as Russia is clearly fighting NATO through Ukraine, you can't disentangle the two) but it is for NATO without qualification.
Click to expand...
My thoughts as well.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
That definition would exclude some of the most famous proxy wars of all time. It's a technical qualifier but in reality this is a proxy war (Russia is fighting both Ukraine and NATO; NATO is fighting Russia through Ukraine and Ukraine is fighting Russia with help from NATO, then you also have other institutional factors like the EU involved in information wars, and also the role of states like China in the grand scheme of things). You might say it isn't a proxy war for Russia (I think this would be wrong, as Russia is clearly fighting NATO through Ukraine, you can't disentangle the two) but it is for NATO without qualification.
Click to expand...

It isn't and it wouldn't be wrong to say it, because they are directly involved in the hostilities. They are not fighting through a proxy. A technical qualifier is better than a theoretical, arbitary one.
 
matherto said:
Try selling that to the population in a referendum and see how many want to die because the Nazis are killing Jews in mainland Europe.

We'd all say it's horrible but when push comes to shove we'd let them do it.

People protect themselves first.

It's admirable to want to fight and die rather than live in a world of intolerable actors but we manage to do it every day so why would we draw an arbitrary line?

I don't see you protesting that we should go into China to save the Uyghurs? They're being wiped out just like Jewish people were. In concentration camps too. How about Israel over Palestine or Saudi Arabia over Yemen?
Click to expand...

I said we would do the same as what we did. What we did is we joined the war against Germany when they started invading neighbouring sovereign nations, ones we were allied with, rather than abandon them. We didn't start the war, nor did we invade Germany to stop them from killing Jews (which we didn't even know the extend of at the time).
 
MadMike said:
It isn't and it wouldn't be wrong to say it, because they are directly involved in the hostilities. They are not fighting through a proxy. A technical qualifier is better than a theoretical, arbitary one.
Click to expand...
Ukraine is the NATO proxy for Russia. It is doing two things, fighting Ukraine directly and fighting NATO indirectly through Ukraine. Just as the Mujahideen were the proxy for America in the Soviet-Afghan war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars

One side being directly involved doesn't stop it from being a proxy war.

nimic said:
NATO bombed Serbia (oh boy did they ever bomb Serbia), but there was no invasion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's true.
 
Just found out about that video with Russian POW getting shot in their legs by supposedly Ukrainian forces. Bellingcat are going to check that out but it looks like it might be genuine.

Zelensky’s advisor, Aleksey Arestovich, also have commented on that, saying that it looks like a potentially very serious war crime and that it will be thoroughly investigated.

Looks like a godsend for Russian propaganda but, sadly, I won’t be surprised if that will turn out to be true — the longer the war goes on, the worse it’s going to get, for both sides.

Horrible.
 
matherto said:
Why is Europe your line in the sand?

This IS a proxy war. We're fighting Russia using Ukraine.

It's no different to anywhere else or any other time since nukes were invented.
Click to expand...

Actually, Ukraine is defending itself against the aggressor Russia, using NATO material.

Ukraine is not trying to gain Russian lands, Ukraine is not bombing Russia, it is really dishonest to imply that the two are about the same and they are having a war because they have some contested areas.

Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine. Ukraine it trying to defend itself. It is very simple.
 
MadMike said:
I said we would do the same as what we did. What we did is we joined the war against Germany when they started invading neighbouring sovereign nations, ones we were allied with, rather than abandon them. We didn't start the war, nor did we invade Germany to stop them from killing Jews (which we didn't even know the extend of at the time).
Click to expand...

Okay, so imagine asking the population to fight Nazi Germany, with nukes. Forget the premise of the holocaust.

I honestly don't think we'd stomach it. I think we'd let them do what they want in Europe and stick to defending our skies and borders with everything if they came at us, at least until Hitler declared if we didn't stop he was going to nuke us, at which point we'd surrender. Certainly we would now, though back then perhaps more people were of the defend the motherland mentality regardless of the cost.

But it's a weird hypothetical anyway because I'd imagine the Nazis would use the nukes somewhere long before they got to us and thus the public would be shocked into submission, or even perhaps long before we could even think about responding to take us out in the first place.
 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...


There must be intense groupthink within Putin's inner circle to where all actors are incentivized to talk as tough as possible for fear of being the odd man out who is perceived as wavering. In Medvedev's case, he's about as effective at tough talk as he is at dancing.
 
Raoul said:
There must be intense groupthink within Putin's inner circle to where all actors are incentivized to talk as tough as possible for fear of being the odd man out who is perceived as wavering.
Click to expand...
No one wants to be the person to stop clapping first.
 
frostbite said:
Actually, Ukraine is defending itself against the aggressor Russia, using NATO material.

Ukraine is not trying to gain Russian lands, Ukraine is not bombing Russia, it is really dishonest to imply that the two are about the same and they are having a war because they have some contested areas.

Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine. Ukraine it trying to defend itself. It is very simple.
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians are defending themselves. Russia is the aggressor, I fully agree, I'm not saying otherwise.

However, I wouldn't be surprised that the west/NATO has gotten involved to such an extent because they want to see what fighting Russia would be like/to test our weaponry against their defences.

We had no obligation to step in and defend Ukraine and hit Russia like we did so I think there's more to it. Thus treating it as if it's a proxy war. We're using someone else's troops but they've been trained by us and are using our weapons so surely that's at least the definition of doing something by proxy, even if it isn't the literal textbook definition of a proxy war.
 
MadMike said:
No, it's not naïve, it's just factual. We aren't fighting a proxy war because Russia isn't using a proxy. Hence it's not a proxy war. It's quite a simple concept, really.

If separatist Russians were fighting Ukrainians with one side being armed by Russia and the other by the West, then it would be a proxy war.

Definition of proxy war:
Click to expand...

That definition is from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

Also from Wikipedia (and referenced on the first page): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars
Soviet–Afghan War1979–1989
Click to expand...

If the Soviet-Afghan War between the Soviet Union vs the Mujahedeen being supplied with weapons by the US was a proxy war, then the Russian-Ukraine conflict is also certainly a Proxy war between Russia and Nato.
 
matherto said:
The Ukrainians are defending themselves. Russia is the aggressor, I fully agree, I'm not saying otherwise.

However, I wouldn't be surprised that the west/NATO has gotten involved to such an extent because they want to see what fighting Russia would be like/to test our weaponry against their defences.

We had no obligation to step in and defend Ukraine and hit Russia like we did so I think there's more to it. Thus treating it as if it's a proxy war. We're using someone else's troops but they've been trained by us and are using our weapons so surely that's at least the definition of doing something by proxy, even if it isn't the literal textbook definition of a proxy war.
Click to expand...

Its great power competition. The US and NATO are far more powerful than Russia and are penalizing it for stepping out of line. Caring about the welfare of Ukrainians by not wanting them to get carpet bombed into oblivion is also factor. Both of these can be true without being in conflict with one another.
 
FO3_tGDX0AAUlvv
 
Raoul said:
If there's one thing we've learned about Putin its that everything we thought he wouldn't dare do, he did.

Click to expand...


If the Russians use (and I believe they do) something similar to the two-man rule that the American chain of command does regarding the use of strategic weapons only activated by the Nuclear Football, who in Putin's cabinet would honestly be willing to provide the second authentic code to initiate "Snap Count" and to go down to Hell with him? We have to remember that would be unchartered territory for everyone.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
No Zelensky appearance (pre-recorded or else) at the Academy Awards. :( That is just pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yeah disappointing given his theater background. Sean Penn made a big deal out of it yesterday in criticizing the Academy for not making it happen.
 
Raoul said:
Yeah disappointing given his theater background. Sean Penn made a big deal out of it yesterday in criticizing the Academy for not making it happen.
Click to expand...
Even with all the fuzz around Penns behavior in the past, i really think hes a man with honour.
 
Raoul said:
Yeah disappointing given his theater background. Sean Penn made a big deal out of it yesterday in criticizing the Academy for not making it happen.
Click to expand...
I saw Penn's live interview on CNN. For all the times we've seen actors and filmmakers have been allowed to make strong statements on gun control, an illegal war, climate change and social inequity, I don't think it would have been too much to have Zelensky saying something.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
If the Russians use (and I believe they do) something similar to the two-man rule that the American chain of command does regarding the use of strategic weapons only activated by the Nuclear Football, who in Putin's cabinet would honestly be willing to provide the second authentic code to initiate "Snap Count" and to go down to Hell with him? We have to remember that would be unchartered territory for everyone.
Click to expand...
Who would be willing to day no... and how long till they are shot and replaced with somebody else
 
Raoul said:
If there's one thing we've learned about Putin its that everything we thought he wouldn't dare do, he did.



Click to expand...


There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
 
MadMike said:
Same as what we did? Why is this a question?
Click to expand...

And Hitler would be dropping a bombs just as he wanted. WW2 would be completely different.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
Click to expand...

Putin may not be mad but he is heavily influenced by Soviet sentiment for all we know. And there is more than enough evidence to this, see his essay about Ukraine, him citing fascist Russian propagandists, his talks about self-cleansing of the Russian people and so forth. Natural resources may be contributing factors but they seem to be of secondary importance.
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.
Click to expand...
You absolutely are.

God bless you for thinking that Putin’s distain of Ukraine is down to getting a more reliable water supply for his stolen peninsula. We’ve had all the “reasonable” takes for Putin’s action in this thread by now, surely?

Why would any Ukrainian leader look to unilaterally offer the use of civil infrastructure to another country that has invaded and occupied its territory, whilst continuing to foment political instability in much of the rest of it?
 
ThierryFabregas said:
There's plenty of propoganda, willful ignorance and hypocricy in this article and in much of the western media. This is a war primary about control of oil and gas in the black sea and the Ukrainian policy to starve the disputed region of Crimea 85% of it's water resources by blocking the North Crimean Canal. Much like the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya and Syria it's about natural resources. So do American commentators mention this key motivation for war? No. Why not? Because if they admit the war is over natural resources it then makes them look like massive hypocrits. If they admit Zelenski is starving Crimea of water it adds some balance and a key negotiating factor to the reporting. Did you know that Ukraine charges Russian pipelines tarrifs to send it's gas to Western Europe? That would of been an area of discussion too. So instead of discussing these issues let's pretend Putin is instead a madman who wants to re-unite all of the Soviet empire. It's a nonsense. And even if Putin was stating Russia owned half of Ukraine, which he hasn't, then guess what? The American military industrial complex claims it owns half of Syria where the US are arming ISIS to do it's bidding. Putin's objective will be to re-open the canal and take parts of south east Ukraine, such as Donbas which has a large number Russian speratists and more importantly natural resources.

I'm not defending Putin because this war is a disgusting example of ethnic cleansing and he continually murders and massacres to preserve his own interests. But there are reasons for this war that aren't mentioned and Zelenski is not an honest actor. If Zelenski wanted to avoid war he could have at least re-opened the canal, which would have been a demand for peace. But he didn't because he's using it as way to fight for the natural resources of the black sea. The first thing the Russians did when invading was re-open the canal.

That's not to mention the Russian's were in the past promised that Nato forces would not expand beyond Germany and now they're aiming to expand right up to the Russian border.
Click to expand...

1) Where is it stated by Putin that the pipeline / water issues are a principal cause of the war?
2) What are Ukraine's legal obligations to supply water to an areas taken from them and under Russian control?
3) What is illegal or wrong about Ukraine charging Russia for using its territory to transport gas?
4) Where has the American "military industrial complex" stated it owns half of Syria and who has stated it?
5) Where is the treaty agreement that NATO would not expand beyond Germany?
6) If Putin had invaded in a less murdery / ethnic cleansing way, would you defend that?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.