Ukraine Thread

[Gilrandir]

although he wasn't the aggressor the war with Georgia was during the Beijing Olympics.

If you mean that Putin wasn't Russian president then, you are right.

If you mean Russia wasn't the aggressor, you are wrong.

[spmetla]

If you mean that Putin wasn't Russian president then, you are right.

If you mean Russia wasn't the aggressor, you are wrong.

If I recall correctly Georgia tried to take South Ossetia and killed Russian 'peacekeepers' in the process prompting the massive Russian attack/invasion. I'm no fan of Russia but you don't go poking the big bear like that, he will retaliate. Granted that South Ossetia and Abkazia were Russian puppet pseudo-states in one of the many frozen conflicts following the cold war but Georgia tried to change that status quo via force making it the aggressor.
I understand that the Ossetians had been attacking the Georgians (possibly Russian saboteurs to prompt a war?) but the size of the Georgian counter attack was not small and looking at the state of the subsequent operations they certainly had not been prepared for the Russian involvement in such a large scale.

Looking at it now, Saakashvili seemed to have vastly overestimated Bush Jrs. support and willingness to go toe to toe with the Russians as repayment for Georgian support in Iraq. He blundered, badly, and showed the limits to what NATO and the US were willing to protect thereby gifting Putin with a foreign policy coup. Up to that point Putin had not been Mr. RUssiaStrong foreign policy but after that war it became his new policy in the face of US/NATO/EU impotence which is something he certainly sees now and intends to exploit, same as the Chinese in the S. China Sea. Short of force or risking WW3 like during the Cuban missile crisis those two powers are piece by piece building up what they want for a sphere of influence.

I am very worried though that with Trump's recent remarks essentially saying Estonia wasn't worth defending despite being a NATO ally that Putin will try some similar nonsense to save poor oppressed Russians in the Ukraine, Baltic States(especially Lativia), or even something out of left field like weaken Azerbaijan via Armenia to kill another island of US influence in the Caucasus.

[Gilrandir]

If I recall correctly Georgia tried to take South Ossetia and killed Russian 'peacekeepers' in the process prompting the massive Russian attack/invasion. I'm no fan of Russia but you don't go poking the big bear like that, he will retaliate. Granted that South Ossetia and Abkazia were Russian puppet pseudo-states in one of the many frozen conflicts following the cold war but Georgia tried to change that status quo via force making it the aggressor.
I understand that the Ossetians had been attacking the Georgians (possibly Russian saboteurs to prompt a war?) but the size of the Georgian counter attack was not small and looking at the state of the subsequent operations they certainly had not been prepared for the Russian involvement in such a large scale.

You picture the events correctly, but the bolded should be "retake" since South Ossetia was and is ostensibly a part of Georgia which is acknowledged by all countries (except few Russia's satellites).

But is it an aggression if you try to take back your property, and after being repeatedly shelled by those who stole it, too?

And as for Saakashvili's vain hopes for American support - it only whetted Putin's appetite and he ventured to annex Crimea seeing that the West can only express deep concerns at his iniquities.

[spmetla]

True that by all legal means it was part of Georgia but that doesn't make it any better. Using force to retake your property is still aggression. China considers Taiwan its own territory even though its defacto independent, changing that status quo by force is aggression. If the Ukraine were to be foolish enough right now to try and retake the Crimea by force they would certainly be the aggressors even though no one outside the Russia sphere recognizes their annexation of it. It's one of the unfortunate realities that Western Europe has tried to forget but might does make right when it comes to nation-states.

I agree entirely that it only whetted Putin's appetite. Once he started messing with the Crimea NATO should have essentially done a mass mobilization and threatened WW3 if Russia didn't back down. No Western leader has the stones to stand up to him because he's playing politics like it's the 20th century and the West likes to pretend that its evolved beyond having to do that. Unfortunately the only people that would threaten force to defend democracy are idiots like Trump who would discredit and wreck whatever cause they stand behind. Need a few more Kennedy like people in power who can mix soft and hard power while making the West still fill on the morally correct side.

[Gilrandir]

True that by all legal means it was part of Georgia but that doesn't make it any better. Using force to retake your property is still aggression. China considers Taiwan its own territory even though its defacto independent, changing that status quo by force is aggression. If the Ukraine were to be foolish enough right now to try and retake the Crimea by force they would certainly be the aggressors even though no one outside the Russia sphere recognizes their annexation of it.

So Allies' landing in Normandy in 1944 was aggression? Evidently, our understanding of what aggression is are different.

[spmetla]

Starting or escalating tensions into a war versus fighting a battle in a war are not the same.

I understand that the Ukraine is in a low intensity war with Russia's proxies and occasionally Russian troops but not in outright war. Escalating that low intensity war into a proper war in my mind is aggression. Please don't mistake me though, aggression can at times be the right thing to do and I'm pro Ukrainian for sure at least in regards to its eastern Rebel provinces versus Crimea.

I think you and I actually are closer in opinion than you may think but what I'm stating is more or less how the international community will treat any escalation of the war. I far too much of a hawk to decry all aggression but I will not shirk from calling it such.

[Gilrandir]

Starting or escalating tensions into a war versus fighting a battle in a war are not the same.

I understand that the Ukraine is in a low intensity war with Russia's proxies and occasionally Russian troops but not in outright war. Escalating that low intensity war into a proper war in my mind is aggression.

One may claim that by 1944 Normandy had been a scene of low intensity war for 4 years when it was escalated by the Allies' landing.

Please don't mistake me though, aggression can at times be the right thing to do and I'm pro Ukrainian for sure at least in regards to its eastern Rebel provinces versus Crimea.

I think you and I actually are closer in opinion than you may think but what I'm stating is more or less how the international community will treat any escalation of the war. I far too much of a hawk to decry all aggression but I will not shirk from calling it such.

Being close in views doesn't exclude being at variance in understanding some terms. By definition, any war is an aggression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression
Aggression is overt, often harmful, social interaction with the intention of inflicting damage or other unpleasantness upon another individual.

So it doesn't matter what is the intensity of this war - aggression it stays.
Moreover, aggressor is the one who started the war.

A possible escalation of the war/aggression is to be called "escalation" and as it can be both undertaken by the aggressor and the victim. The same with Normandy landing.