Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

swiftdrifter8 said:I get that it’s hard for people to believe I’m not picking sides here, but look at the facts: the Russian military managed to seize four Ukrainian provinces in just six months. Meanwhile, the US spent over a decade playing games in Muslim countries, which mostly ended with them retreating empty-handed. Whether intentional or not, those are just my observations.

The moment Russia starts truly losing, China will make its move on Taiwan.
History shows us that communists don't value human life at all; if they need to sacrifice 5 million Russians or Chinese citizens to keep the communist machine running, they'll do it without blinking.

...Except the people in power in Russia aren't Communists.

velvetbadger11 said:I suspect that isn't quite the case; it seems to be limited to the United Kingdom, the USA, and Russia. I find myself in agreement with that sentiment.

https://www.nytimes.com/news/world/war-updates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_security_assurances
Both China and France provided security assurances for Ukraine through separate documents. That statement from the Chinese government back on December 4, 1994, didn't actually demand mandatory consultations if issues arose—it only called for "fair consultations." Encyclopedia site👋en.wikipedia.org

velvetbadger11 said:I suspect that isn't quite the case; it seems to be limited to the United Kingdom, the USA, and Russia. I find myself in agreement with that sentiment.

https://www.nytimes.com/news/world/war-updates

Ukraine isn't going to join, just like Stalin wasn't going to drop the nuke.
Essentially, Ukraine won't be joining while they're still at war. It’s obvious to Zelenska, too; it serves as a symbolic rebuttal to Stalin's equally pointless attempt at an Anschluss.

Grace Jones86 said:Are you really trying to force me to say that one is just getting splashed with lukewarm water (and seeing a slight dip in already massive GDPs), while the other is watching Western civilization be destroyed? ☕
Is this how we’re going to discuss things? By stripping everything out of context?

I stated clearly that the West certainly wouldn't sacrifice itself for some Ukraine, regardless of whatever symbolic value this conflict supposedly holds for the West itself.
That is an... axiom. I don't see what there is to debate here. 🤦

edit: if we're using the COVID comparison... that's like saying the mandates were excessive.
When you wrote that back in the spring of 2020, you were risking having the mob show up at your door via your IP address. That was a proven fact then, and it remains true today.
Just like today, there is clearly panic and madness surrounding free thought regarding Ukraine.

But hysteria is one thing, and rational thought is another. Hysteria ruins everything.

This isn't merely about Ukraine or some abstract "symbolic values." This is about the fundamental principles required for a modern civilization and a developed West, for an America or a Europe as we know it, to even exist. It is the principle of respecting the sovereignty of a nation whose territorial integrity you affirmed just yesterday. (In reality, it is the principle of honoring a signed agreement). Modern nations don't go to war every time a government changes or because a new administration decides to cast an eye toward its neighbors. Furthermore, anyone who ignores the rules of the game must face consequences. If there are no consequences, then tomorrow—aside from those geniuses in The Kremlin—you will find five or ten more nations in Europe suddenly adopting the same ideology. It is much easier to discipline a single transgressor than to try and enforce order when there are dozens of them. It is far simpler for those who lack vision or the ability to govern effectively (think of leadership similar to what we deal with in certain parts of the US) to instigate a war rather than actually building a functional state, which would involve interfering with deeply entrenched private interests. That is the principle being insisted upon; otherwise, the West will be forced to dump 20% of its budget into defense, when right now it's hard to scrape together even 2%. At the end of the day, it all comes down to minimizing costs by fostering stable relations between nations. What you save can be reinvested into development or education—or stolen through corruption. If everything is swallowed by defense spending (while productivity inevitably drops during wartime), there is no surplus left, and there is no money left for anything else.

Matthew Young35 said:...Except the people in power in Russia aren't Communists.

More like Bolsheviks.😬

Walking into the Russian Consulate in New York City (video)
https://twitter.com/ATTSELVAGGIA/sta...oBtdndC_W7-Ztw

Jamie Watson4 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_security_assurances
Both China and France provided security assurances for Ukraine through separate documents. That statement from the Chinese government back on December 4, 1994, didn't actually demand mandatory consultations if issues arose—it only called for "fair consultations." Encyclopedia site👋en.wikipedia.org

So, independence and sovereignty are respected, but they also hold back on threats and economic pressure. What were those US sanctions against Belarus when they signed a military pact with Russia if not a threat? ☕.

It was signed ages ago. Nobody cares about it anymore—not even 5% of people. Some get their independence guaranteed by force, while others just endure massacres and oppression because they lack the weapons to fight back. It all comes down to whether you fall within the sphere of interest of a major superpower.

James Chavez91 said:There’s this idea floating around about who actually needs nuclear weapons

a) Everyone
b) Absolutely nobody
c) Only certain people—if we're talking about someone like the Dalai Lama or that guy Xi Jinping from "Gods Fell on Their Heads"

There is really only one way to find an equilibrium in this game: either everyone has them, or we group together into alliances that hold the nukes. Think about it—the collapse of the bipolar world back in the 90s created this massive period of instability. The world then tried to drift back toward balance when most of those former Eastern Bloc nations joined NATO. And now, we’ve arrived at Ukraine.

rowdyraven112 said:So, independence and sovereignty are respected, but they also hold back on threats and economic pressure. What were those US sanctions against Belarus when they signed a military pact with Russia if not a threat? ☕.

It was signed ages ago. Nobody cares about it anymore—not even 5% of people. Some get their independence guaranteed by force, while others just endure massacres and oppression because they lack the weapons to fight back. It all comes down to whether you fall within the sphere of interest of a major superpower.

Look, regarding the vote in the UN Security Council: if China acted as a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by providing security assurances to Ukraine, then as a member of the Security Council, they can't exactly claim neutrality.

Nice caricature.
https://twitter.com/hk2019freehk/sta...969920/photo/1

rowdyraven112 said:So, independence and sovereignty are respected, but they also hold back on threats and economic pressure. What were those US sanctions against Belarus when they signed a military pact with Russia if not a threat? ☕.

It was signed ages ago. Nobody cares about it anymore—not even 5% of people. Some get their independence guaranteed by force, while others just endure massacres and oppression because they lack the weapons to fight back. It all comes down to whether you fall within the sphere of interest of a major superpower.

And what is the lesson here?
If you possess nuclear weapons, guard them and don't let anyone take them... if you don't have them, build them as soon as possible so you don't become easy prey one day.
I suspect that following this whole mess with Russia, the number of nuclear powers in the world will begin to increase.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:More like Bolsheviks.😬

More like Bolshevik oligarchs! At the end of the day, their entire political philosophy boils down to one simple rule: "Give everyone else just enough to shut them up, while we keep everything else for ourselves."

Gerald Torres84 said:And what is the lesson here?
If you possess nuclear weapons, guard them and don't let anyone take them... if you don't have them, build them as soon as possible so you don't become easy prey one day.
I suspect that following this whole mess with Russia, the number of nuclear powers in the world will begin to increase.

Exactly. That’s why Iran wants them. Since when do they not have the right? Look at India and Pakistan—they did the same thing.

I’m with you on that. After this mess, any nation outside the European Union looking out for its own interests is probably going to jump at the chance to grab some nuclear weapons. It’s honestly one of those things I didn't see coming; I truly harbored this naive hope that owning them would eventually become obsolete and that we'd actually see global stockpiles start to dwindle.

Chloe Jackson15 said:More like Bolshevik oligarchs! At the end of the day, their entire political philosophy boils down to one simple rule: "Give everyone else just enough to shut them up, while we keep everything else for ourselves."

The Bolsheviks have always been nothing more than oligarchs. The only real shift is that today they have the audacity to flaunt their wealth openly, whereas before, they maintained the charade of absolute equality. In reality, this faction is simply that segment of society that considers itself perpetually 'more equal' than the rest.

Kenya, just another example of the decaying and warped West:

If you’re going to listen to any speech regarding Ukraine, make sure it’s this one. The Kenyan ambassador at VS UN lays out perfectly how people across Africa view the situation in Ukraine and what the aggression from the White House actually signifies within our post-colonial world.

https://twitter.com/ThomasVLinge/sta...UosA2uGuFUxwQQ

rowdyraven112 said:Exactly. That’s why Iran wants them. Since when do they not have the right? Look at India and Pakistan—they did the same thing.

In my view, they do have that right. Why shouldn't they? The Israelis are trying to block it, though I am not entirely certain of their reasoning. Regardless, we are drifting away from the main subject here.

rowdyraven112 said:Exactly. That’s why Iran wants them. Since when do they not have the right? Look at India and Pakistan—they did the same thing.

Mdaa, I'm sure even Vučić would want one; does he have the right to it too?

Russian terrorists have kidnapped Ihor Murashov, the director of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
https://twitter.com/mhmck/status/157...JW3Tl-06jW8YUA

Gerald Torres84 said:In my view, they do have that right. Why shouldn't they? The Israelis are trying to block it, though I am not entirely certain of their reasoning. Regardless, we are drifting away from the main subject here.

The Israelis are 'stalling' because Iranians (on more than one occasion) have explicitly stated that once they manufacture, acquire, or obtain nuclear weapons, they will strike Israel immediately. They make these declarations knowing full well that Israel possesses nuclear capabilities and the ability to reach any target within Iran—whereas the Iranians currently lack both the weaponry and the delivery systems. What becomes of the Iranian strategy once they possess such power? Does it serve Israel's interests to strike Iran before they reach that threshold? I would argue it does. If Iran secures those weapons, the situation for Israel becomes untenable; acting now might result in nothing more than the destruction of the Iranian regime. When dealing with an irrational faction, one is forced to adopt this kind of logic. It isn't the fault of the Israelis that the ruling class in Iran has convinced itself it is the most enlightened and advanced entity on the planet.

Nancy Gomez26 said:The Israelis are 'stalling' because Iranians (on more than one occasion) have explicitly stated that once they manufacture, acquire, or obtain nuclear weapons, they will strike Israel immediately. They make these declarations knowing full well that Israel possesses nuclear capabilities and the ability to reach any target within Iran—whereas the Iranians currently lack both the weaponry and the delivery systems. What becomes of the Iranian strategy once they possess such power? Does it serve Israel's interests to strike Iran before they reach that threshold? I would argue it does. If Iran secures those weapons, the situation for Israel becomes untenable; acting now might result in nothing more than the destruction of the Iranian regime. When dealing with an irrational faction, one is forced to adopt this kind of logic. It isn't the fault of the Israelis that the ruling class in Iran has convinced itself it is the most enlightened and advanced entity on the planet.

Then it’s obvious. But let's not wander further off-topic.