Ukraine Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Meh, why does half of South America and the Middle East hate the USA? Does that make the USA just as evil and aggressive or even more so?

Because America acted like a Tyrant to those countries? I mooted this when we were arguing over Libya, that a major reason for negative developments in those regions is the xternal tyranny of interally democratic countries.

I.e. If we are dicks to them they won't wants to be like us.

If he doesn't occupy our reality then war is not even necessary, but either way it is not inevitable.

A year ago I didn't think he'd annex Crimea, then he did. Going to war, actual war, would be insane but given that everything else he's done this year also seems insane to me I'm just following the pattern. Putin has shown that we have exactly two choices - war or let him have what he wants.

I don't intend to fight the Russians.
And there's a chance that you will just make a peaceful solution impossible by attacking right now. But apparently you have absolutely no doubt about your conclusions.

We won't be attacking - eventually Putin will attack something NATO troops are standing on. It's the "fight him over there or fight him here" gambit.

[Hax]

Everyone hates America until they get a green card.

[Montmorency]

Putin has shown that we have exactly two choices - war or let him have what he wants.

Trust me, everyone involved is looking for a convenient pretext to de-escalate. As I said, the problem lies in actually finding one before someone's population gets frenzied enough to force some "gambit".

[Gilrandir]

Gilrandir will not agree, but this is a fact. No resistance at all was even tried, really.

If you mean military resistance, then I do agree with you. Why I shoudn't?
But there is an essential "but": many people here who are of the like mind with you were keeping their fingers crossed hoping that it would not come to blows. And it didn't - for many reasons, primarily because such an attack from "strategic partners and brehtren" was incredible in the eyes of Ukrianian soldiers, because many of those soldiers were locals from the Crimea, because everyone didn't wish for any "fratricidal" bloodshed... You had what you prayed for. And now you sound contemptuous that the Ukrainians didn't offer any (military) resistance. Would it make you happier if they had?

How can someone or something be "most lethal" out of a group then?
Wouldn't the most lethal thing be more lethal than the others?

Lethal means "bringing/causing death". You can't bring more death - a human dies only once. You can speak of something causing more casualties.

Yes, how is demonizing Putin going to get us there? In my opinion all the Hitler-comparisons suggest that we can only stop him through all-out war, by bringing Russia to its knees and then making it bend over backwards.

Putin himself now and again adds to this much-hated (by you) comparison. About a week ago in Russia a film was released to celebrate the Crimea's annexation - I'm sure you are aware of it. It is called "The Crimea: the road to Motherland". Do you know the name of the film released in 1941 to justify/celebrate Danzig's annexation? - "Heimkehr". Deliberately or involuntarily Putin - both by his actions and by his propaganda techniques and devices - follows the pattern set eighty years ago. So it is natural for people to draw the comparison mentioned.

Do you know something we don't?

I see the pattern of the EU reactions to events in Ukraine and make conclusions.

Nah - Putin is, as you say, a fascist. He's posturing out of a position of weakness. The more he loses, the more he has to commit, or else its international humiliation, domestic privation, and potentially his own ouster.

I would say the opposite - the more he is allowed to do, the more it whets his appetite. But at the same time he is aware that he can't vomit out what he has already swallowed - because of the reputational damage. So it is a dead end for him - he can't digest the piece he has in his stomach, but he can't get it out without being ridiculed and despised by his electors.

Meh, why does half of South America and the Middle East hate the USA? Does that make the USA just as evil and aggressive or even more so?

People who live in the close vicinity to a superpower are likely to hate it. The Middle East hates the USA by proxy - as the country supporting their local superpower - Israel.

Trust me, everyone involved is looking for a convenient pretext to de-escalate.

Putin had plenty of chances to, yet he didn't use any of them, and I'm afraid he will not.

[Montmorency]

Putin had plenty of chances to, yet he didn't use any of them, and I'm afraid he will not.

Though as pointed out it isn't up to just him, there is an important cautionary tale here.

In 1969, everyone (in power) wanted the Vietnam War to end. However, Nixon and Kissinger escalated military activity and at various points rejected overtures for peace from the North Vietnamese.

Why? Because they wanted to negotiate from a more advantageous strategic position at the inevitable peace conference.

What happened? In 1973, both sides came to the table with basically the same cards as in 1969 - but with hundreds of thousands more in dead.

So of course there are risks like that in international relations. But in this particular situation, there are hopefully many more factors encouraging the players to end the game (i.e. the "active" crisis), cut the losses, and plan for future strategic maneuvers (i.e. economic, political, and, yes, military development and policy tweaking).

[Montmorency]

having started the offensive (accompanied by the propaganda frenzy) Putin can't just say: "Now we will stop supporting the oppressed Russian-speakers and Russians suffering from depredations of Kiev junta". He is to push it till he can report to the nation that the enemy is worsted. Until there is a halt in the propaganda, he can't hope to explain such a U-turn to his people. And right now the propaganda shows no signs of slackening. When we see the latter it may be a hint that Putin indeed wishes to de-escalate.

Well yeah, as we discussed with commitment and all. Putin's disadvantage as an autocrat is that all these risks and gambles he is taking are very personal ones.

[Gilrandir]

Though as pointed out it isn't up to just him, there is an important cautionary tale here.

In 1969, everyone (in power) wanted the Vietnam War to end. However, Nixon and Kissinger escalated military activity and at various points rejected overtures for peace from the North Vietnamese.

Why? Because they wanted to negotiate from a more advantageous strategic position at the inevitable peace conference.

What happened? In 1973, both sides came to the table with basically the same cards as in 1969 - but with hundreds of thousands more in dead.

According to the dating in your tale we still have around a couple of years of the crisis ahead of us.

[Husar]

Lethal means "bringing/causing death". You can't bring more death - a human dies only once. You can speak of something causing more casualties.

You can bring more death, by killing two humans, I thought I made that clear.
They call someone the most lethal sniper because he is the sniper who killed the most humans, not because he killed one human more than all the other snipers killed one human. Therefore making a bomb more lethal means giving it the potential to kill more humans, for example by making it more accurate so that it won't land on the periphery of the intended target.

[Montmorency]

You can bring more death, by killing two humans, I thought I made that clear.
They call someone the most lethal sniper because he is the sniper who killed the most humans, not because he killed one human more than all the other snipers killed one human. Therefore making a bomb more lethal means giving it the potential to kill more humans, for example by making it more accurate so that it won't land on the periphery of the intended target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathmatch

consecutive kills: when a player kills a combatant within 5 seconds after a previous kill, a consecutive kill occurs. The timer starts ticking anew, allowing a third kill, a fourth kill etc. Alternatively, killing several enemies with a mega weapon (such as the Redeemer, which resembles a nuclear rocket) also counts as consecutive kill. The titles of these kills are: Double Kill (2), Multi kill (3), Ultra kill (4), Megakill (5), MONSTERKILL (6; 5 in the original Unreal Tournament). For comparison, id Software's "Quake III Arena" tracks double kills, but a third kill soon after results in another double kill award.

Killtacular, Killamanjaro, etc.

Like that?

[Husar]

Not entirely, but war can be more lethal:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...=3737864&uid=2

Ebola can become more lethal:
http://consumer.healthday.com/health...ds-695692.html

And even Al Qaeda can become more lethal:
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/tm...238&no_cache=1

None of those imply that people who get killed get *more* killed, it usually means that out of a certain group of targeted people, fewer survive if something or someone becomes more lethal. Indirectly that means if someone or something kills more people, it or she is more lethal, after all the "target group" can be defined as e.g. all people of a certain city, so the more cityzens a nuke can kill, the more lethal it is. Therefore making a nuclear bomb more accurate to make it more likely to hit the point of a city where it causes the most deaths makes it more lethal. Just like Britain's most lethal sniper is the one who killed the most insurgents where the insurgents are the target group. Being the most lethal sniper implies that he is more lethal than all other snipers and therefore more lethal in the sense of killing more people is a thing, q.e.d.

[Husar]

Because America acted like a Tyrant to those countries? I mooted this when we were arguing over Libya, that a major reason for negative developments in those regions is the xternal tyranny of interally democratic countries.

I.e. If we are dicks to them they won't wants to be like us.

Yes.

A year ago I didn't think he'd annex Crimea, then he did. Going to war, actual war, would be insane but given that everything else he's done this year also seems insane to me I'm just following the pattern. Putin has shown that we have exactly two choices - war or let him have what he wants.

That still doesn't make anything inevitable, maybe I'd rather become a Russian than plop out of life in a nuclear explosion.
I'm sure that not subscribing to "better dead than red" makes me a horrible person, but we're not even close to such an option yet.

We won't be attacking - eventually Putin will attack something NATO troops are standing on. It's the "fight him over there or fight him here" gambit.

Don't you think he is going a bit slow if he wants to reach Paris during his lifetime?

Everyone hates America until they get a green card.

Oh man, I'd [do things] for a greencard!!!111

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes.

I followed that up by saying we should support all anti-tyrannical movements. Given the rise of ISIS off the back of the Syrian Civil War I feel somewhat vindicated.

That still doesn't make anything inevitable, maybe I'd rather become a Russian than plop out of life in a nuclear explosion.
I'm sure that not subscribing to "better dead than red" makes me a horrible person, but we're not even close to such an option yet.

If push came to shove and you had to see your children grow up in a copy of Communist Russia, or WORSE Communist Romania, you would probably fight. It's not like we went off to World War II laughing - we spent years trying not to fight Germany, but once we recognised it was impossible to avoid without giving up on all our principles we fought your country to the (very) bitter end.

Don't you think he is going a bit slow if he wants to reach Paris during his lifetime?

He only has to get to Bucharest - that's why those countries wanted to join NATO, because Russians elect men like Putin.

[Montmorency]

PVC, I'm afraid it takes a fanatical ideologist to imagine one.

Lean back and take a sober look at the picture. From my view, the only thing informing your hawkishness is delusions of glory and grandeur.

There is little evidence that significant national leaders have your mindset.

Also, Hitler is irrelevant to the conversation as external factors had already determined Germany's path to war in the context of that time. Germany as a state had no option other than to fight. Likewise with France, the UK, the US, the USSR, Japan, and all the rest.

In the contemporary context, Russia has nothing to fight for such as was driving states in the 1930s. War now would be a desperate last resort for Russia's very survival as a unified political entity, or at least Putin's own survival, as it were.

And even if we were to imagine Putin as equal to you in war-lust, you still must acknowledge that even the highest King-of-Kings, let alone some two-bit modern authoritarian, must answer not just to his own subjects, but to his 'vassals'.

[Montmorency]

To be clear on where I'm coming from:

Political Realism - "Reason" = Behaviorism

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, I'm afraid it takes a fanatical ideologist to imagine one.

Lean back and take a sober look at the picture. From my view, the only thing informing your hawkishness is delusions of glory and grandeur.

There is little evidence that significant national leaders have your mindset.

No, I don't think they do agree with me. Like I said, I didn't think he'd annex Crimea, I didn't think he'd instigate a war in the Donbas but there you go.

Also, Hitler is irrelevant to the conversation as external factors had already determined Germany's path to war in the context of that time. Germany as a state had no option other than to fight. Likewise with France, the UK, the US, the USSR, Japan, and all the rest.

In the contemporary context, Russia has nothing to fight for such as was driving states in the 1930s. War now would be a desperate last resort for Russia's very survival as a unified political entity, or at least Putin's own survival, as it were.

Germany didn't HAVE to go to war, it didn't benefit the country in the slightest. Germans just believed they had to go to war. I'm surprised you can make the comparison and not see that, increasingly, Russians believe they need to go to war. We must fight for Donbas, we must recover Russia's honour, fatherland this and that.

Putin and his ilk look at a map of the former USSR and see it overlaid in one colour, must like a Byzantine looked at a map and saw SQPR overlaid.

[Montmorency]

Germany didn't HAVE to go to war, it didn't benefit the country in the slightest.

In hindsight, obviously not, but if Germany didn't go to war at the time then it would rapidly have undergone Finlandization towards either the USSR or the old couple.

increasingly, Russians believe they need to go to war. We must fight for Donbas, we must recover Russia's honour, fatherland this and that.

Do you have any idea how many Americans supported war as a general path to solving perceived problems just over a decade ago?

What's at issue here is your insistence on treating snapshots of sentiment in segments of populations and fleeting positions of leadership as fixed states of affairs, when in reality they are fluctuating constantly and wildly - this should be obvious to anyone who has lived as a human being, let alone someone with political experience or historical knowledge.

Also, Germany is again waking up to its status as one of the major European powers. So far, they're trying to use that power to indirectly keep themselves in check (through economic entanglements), but if it finds itself first among equals in Europe but still unable to effect the international policy outcomes it desires (e.g. brokering a solution to disputes over Ukraine), then it may come to see accumulating more power as the best option -

again.

But because this is possible, by your logic 'DEAR GOD THE EAGLE IS STIRRING ONCE MORE WE MUST PRE-EMPTIVELY CRUSH THE JERRIES FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY THE ENGLISH NEVER NEVER NEVER SHALL BE SLAVES"

Putin and his ilk look at a map of the former USSR and see it overlaid in one colour

But see, inasmuch as they do you are conflating geography with ideology or megalomania.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Germany didn't HAVE to go to war, it didn't benefit the country in the slightest. Germans just believed they had to go to war. I'm surprised you can make the comparison and not see that, increasingly, Russians believe they need to go to war. We must fight for Donbas, we must recover Russia's honour, fatherland this and that.

Putin and his ilk look at a map of the former USSR and see it overlaid in one colour, must like a Byzantine looked at a map and saw SQPR overlaid.

I think most Russians use Rodina, other than the Fatherland-all-Russia group (who admittedly DO support Putin). Aside from such quibbling, I think you have hit on an important point. Putin's regime does seem to be looking at maps with that SPQR background thought in mind and also seems to have the "our place in the sun" chip on their shoulder. The combination does not readily lend itself to peaceful conflict management.

[Gilrandir]

In the contemporary context, Russia has nothing to fight for such as was driving states in the 1930s. War now would be a desperate last resort for Russia's very survival as a unified political entity, or at least Putin's own survival, as it were.

It may be an eye-opener, but Russia IS fighting a war. And the reasons to continue it are obvious - having started the offensive (accompanied by the propaganda frenzy) Putin can't just say: "Now we will stop supporting the oppressed Russian-speakers and Russians suffering from depredations of Kiev junta". He is to push it till he can report to the nation that the enemy is worsted. Until there is a halt in the propaganda, he can't hope to explain such a U-turn to his people. And right now the propaganda shows no signs of slackening. When we see the latter it may be a hint that Putin indeed wishes to de-escalate.

[Gilrandir]

And speaking of Nazis:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32009360
Meanwhile in France:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...elections.html
But I think it is worth a remark (although Brenus might not like it):
The Telegraph rejoices in Le Pen's defeat, yet let's face the stark truth: the French gave 26% of votes for the Nazis - the second place and only 4% behind the winners. I wouldn't call it a defeat.
Now where is the threat of nazism coming from - Ukraine or France+Russia?

[Husar]

I followed that up by saying we should support all anti-tyrannical movements. Given the rise of ISIS off the back of the Syrian Civil War I feel somewhat vindicated.

I'm a bit confused, are you saying that I somehow agreed to that follow-up as well this time even though you didn't mention it or are you trying to help me in saying that you are sometimes wrong?

If push came to shove and you had to see your children grow up in a copy of Communist Russia, or WORSE Communist Romania, you would probably fight. It's not like we went off to World War II laughing - we spent years trying not to fight Germany, but once we recognised it was impossible to avoid without giving up on all our principles we fought your country to the (very) bitter end.

Meh, hyperbole, there are still people who think the DDR was the better Germany.

He only has to get to Bucharest - that's why those countries wanted to join NATO, because Russians elect men like Putin.

And Israelis elect men like Netanyahu and Americans men like Bush and Germans men like Hitler, it's mostly due to geolocation and history that some end up as our allies and some as our enemies but that is no reason to think our enemies are somehow that much worse than our friends or even that they cannot become our friends one day. It's this attitude of irreconcilable opposition towards a certain people that I find more dangerous than the conquerous adventures of some madman.
The Russians didn't really elect Putin because he promised to conquer half of Europe, IIRC a lot of it was about his image that he was fighting corruption and bringing the country back onto a more stable track.
Most Israelis probably do not elect Netanyahu because they want him to genocide the Palestinians and take their land but because they think his toughness will protect them from more rocket attacks. Whether that's actually the case is not relevant, it's a lot about perception.
At the same time I think you perceive Putin as worse than he is because for you he represents the "arch-enemy".

[Montmorency]

no reason to think our enemies are somehow that much worse than our friends or even that they cannot become our friends one day.

irreconcilable opposition

This is why, from a realist perspective, the US should cultivate Iran as an partner (regardless of whether in such a relationship "it's not a matter of if, but when, the US screws you over") in the Middle East.

Of course Israel would protest, but if the US were to take the project seriously, then Israel would have to deal with it and play nice.

[Sarmatian]

You're welcome - from a European perspective "NATO" is a primarily defensive alliance, it's secondary function is to be a sort of club for militarily friendly nations who are also democracies. In fact in Europe NATO and the EU a less and less distinguishable.

A NATO military spending is twice the rest of the world combined.

You also have to ask, why did the Baltic Republics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria... etc want to join NATO? The answer is that they fear Russian aggression, with historical justification. This fear is currently being realised in Ukraine, which did not join NATO.

How can France and England be such strong allies then? Bitter enemies for many centuries.

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

Your reality is to keep NATO monopoly of force that keeps the rest of the world in line and anything that endangers that is a threat.

See above - the long you wait the worse it will be - like an amputation - which lots of us will probably need once we've fought the Russians. I'm hoping to only lose a foot.

Don't worry, one can usually find it in one's mouth.

Everyone hates America until they get a green card.

That's untrue.

When you get a green card, you go to work there legally. When you work, you also pay taxes, BUT, you don't get a vote. So, what is that? That's taxation without representation, which Americans hate the most, and, to fit it, you have to hate the government that taxes you without giving you representation. In fact, hating America is the most American thing you can do when you get that green card!

Everybody now!