Ukraine Crisis II: Electric Boogaloo

[Constantinopolis]

As for all the incessant agonizing over the question of whether there are Russian troops in Ukraine or not (which there probably are): I fail to see why that matters.

The United States doesn't give a crap about the UN or international law when it supports friendly rebel movements around the world with supplies, weapons, airstrikes and "advisers", so why hold Russia to a different standard?

Russia is most likely supporting the Donbass rebels, Russia should support the Donbass rebels, and any person in his right mind sitting in the Kremlin would support the Donbass rebels.

Great powers always support armed movements that further their interests. Get over it.

[Shamhnan Insir]

Russia could be argued to have timed this rather well. While we've been cutting our defence budgets for the last decade or so, they have increased theirs by at least 20% (depending on your source) in just that last 6 years. Europe can't hold off a ground offensive by Russia, unless we move for some bold tactics and unilateral action.

[Respawn]

Am I too late?

[Korva]

Am I too late?

(Image)

Never too late, Russian apologists are like a cancer that never leave.

One can only hope that they all live in Russia, as they deserve to spend their lives in the last European dictatorship.

[Mefpan]

Am I too late?

(Image)

Never too late, Russian apologists are like a cancer that never leave.

One can only hope that they all live in Russia, as they deserve to spend their lives in the last European dictatorship.

I think you're confusing Russia and Belarus.

Granted, they're right next to each other and are relatively buddy-buddy far as I can tell, but eh.

[Constantinopolis]

Russia could be argued to have timed this rather well. While we've been cutting our defence budgets for the last decade or so, they have increased theirs by at least 20% (depending on your source) in just that last 6 years. Europe can't hold off a ground offensive by Russia, unless we move for some bold tactics and unilateral action.

Europe doesn't need to hold off anything. Europe should just stop getting involved in Russia's backyard and then everyone can go home happy (except the Ukrainian nationalists, but hey, you can't please them all).

[Mefpan]

Russia could be argued to have timed this rather well. While we've been cutting our defence budgets for the last decade or so, they have increased theirs by at least 20% (depending on your source) in just that last 6 years. Europe can't hold off a ground offensive by Russia, unless we move for some bold tactics and unilateral action.

Europe doesn't need to hold off anything. Europe should just stop getting involved in Russia's backyard and then everyone can go home happy (except the Ukrainian nationalists, but hey, you can't please them all).

I'm sorry, I believe Russia lost its claim to "its backyard" when the Soviet Union was dissolved. Unless, of course, all the declarations of independence of that time are faked and the Russian representative in the UN has a button that flips around his little country name sign to read Soviet Union and causes the Berlin Wall to spontaneously pop out of the ground, together with guard personnel.

[Constantinopolis]

Europe doesn't need to hold off anything. Europe should just stop getting involved in Russia's backyard and then everyone can go home happy (except the Ukrainian nationalists, but hey, you can't please them all).

I'm sorry, I believe Russia lost its claim to "its backyard" when the Soviet Union was dissolved. Unless, of course, all the declarations of independence of that time are faked and the Russian representative in the UN has a button that flips around his little country name sign to read Soviet Union and causes the Berlin Wall to spontaneously pop out of the ground, together with guard personnel.

Russia lost "its backyard" at that time and is now trying to get (some of it) back.

I fail to see any problem with this, considering how fond the Western powers are of guarding their own "backyards".

[Farnhamia]

I'm sorry, I believe Russia lost its claim to "its backyard" when the Soviet Union was dissolved. Unless, of course, all the declarations of independence of that time are faked and the Russian representative in the UN has a button that flips around his little country name sign to read Soviet Union and causes the Berlin Wall to spontaneously pop out of the ground, together with guard personnel.

Russia lost "its backyard" at that time and is now trying to get (some of it) back.

I fail to see any problem with this, considering how fond the Western powers are of guarding their own "backyards".

Ukraine seems to have been under the impression that they could work out their problems on their own, without interference from their neighbors. Silly of them, I know, but there it is.

[Mefpan]

I'm sorry, I believe Russia lost its claim to "its backyard" when the Soviet Union was dissolved. Unless, of course, all the declarations of independence of that time are faked and the Russian representative in the UN has a button that flips around his little country name sign to read Soviet Union and causes the Berlin Wall to spontaneously pop out of the ground, together with guard personnel.

Russia lost "its backyard" at that time and is now trying to get (some of it) back.

I fail to see any problem with this, considering how fond the Western powers are of guarding their own "backyards".

Considering Ukraine is sandwiched right between the EU and Russia, one could declare it to be Europe's backyard as well.

So yeah, conflict of interests. Russia should stay out of Europe's business. Same difference.

[Constantinopolis]

Russia lost "its backyard" at that time and is now trying to get (some of it) back.

I fail to see any problem with this, considering how fond the Western powers are of guarding their own "backyards".

Ukraine seems to have been under the impression that they could work out their problems on their own, without interference from their neighbors. Silly of them, I know, but there it is.

It is silly. As silly as, for example, Syria being under the impression that they could work out their problems on their own. Or Libya. Or Yugoslavia.

Now to be clear, I'm not blaming anyone in those other examples. I'm just saying that, when serious political unrest happens in a country, then the neighbors, the regional powers, and (sometimes) the great powers get involved. This is normal and should be expected.

[Constantinopolis]

Russia lost "its backyard" at that time and is now trying to get (some of it) back.

I fail to see any problem with this, considering how fond the Western powers are of guarding their own "backyards".

Considering Ukraine is sandwiched right between the EU and Russia, one could declare it to be Europe's backyard as well.

So yeah, conflict of interests. Russia should stay out of Europe's business. Same difference.

I'm sure Russia would be more than happy to split Ukraine right down the middle with the EU, if only the EU were willing. It's not like they'd have any chance of holding on to Western Ukraine anyway. Lviv is a hotbed of nationalism.

[Mefpan]

Considering Ukraine is sandwiched right between the EU and Russia, one could declare it to be Europe's backyard as well.

So yeah, conflict of interests. Russia should stay out of Europe's business. Same difference.

I'm sure Russia would be more than happy to split Ukraine right down the middle with the EU, if only the EU were willing. It's not like they'd have any chance of holding on to Western Ukraine anyway. Lviv is a hotbed of nationalism.

You know, that kind of border drawing isn't all that popular with the world anymore. Take a ruler to a map and cut it up into tiny pieces to feed Great Powers with? Please, that's International Incidents material nowadays.

[Constantinopolis]

I'm sure Russia would be more than happy to split Ukraine right down the middle with the EU, if only the EU were willing. It's not like they'd have any chance of holding on to Western Ukraine anyway. Lviv is a hotbed of nationalism.

You know, that kind of border drawing isn't all that popular with the world anymore. Take a ruler to a map and cut it up into tiny pieces to feed Great Powers with? Please, that's International Incidents material nowadays.

Yeah, and as a result we're stuck with a bunch of countries with completely irrational and absurd borders (see: Syria, Iraq, several former Soviet republics, and lots of examples in Africa) that were drawn a hundred years ago and that are treated as sacrosanct despite being a continuous source of conflict and unrest. It's ridiculous how far the international community will go to maintain the existence of a country that should have been allowed to officially break up decades ago (see: Somalia).

The current borders of Ukraine were drawn up from scratch by Soviet authorities under the assumption that they were the borders of a component state of a federation, not the borders of an independent country. They include a large non-Ukrainian population, they are NOT the historic borders of any Ukrainian entity, and they should be changed.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Am I too late?

(Image)

Dammit. How long has that been a thing? Because I made reference to playing a similar game with similar squares like, 200 pages ago.

I was just keeping track in my head. The board makes it much easier.

As for all the incessant agonizing over the question of whether there are Russian troops in Ukraine or not (which there probably are): I fail to see why that matters.
...

Y'know, I miss the good old days when Communists at least pretended to be opposed to imperialism.

The United States doesn't give a crap about the UN or international law when it supports friendly rebel movements around the world with supplies, weapons, airstrikes and "advisers", so why hold Russia to a different standard?
...

Primarily because Russia is the one who harps on the standard.

This situation would not be nearly as humorously ironic were there not Russian statements regarding Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and a smattering of other backwards dictatorships that whined about their sovereignty being more important than international actions to solve problems there.

Also because even the ebul West has the decency of being obvious about a war when they do it instead of lying through their teeth about it insisting 'No Western attacks are being conducted against the Muslimofascist Jihadis in Iraq!'.

But aside from that, *yawn*.
I'll just throw a peg on 'What about [unrelated issue] on my new BINGO game.

[Gravlen]

Russia could be argued to have timed this rather well. While we've been cutting our defence budgets for the last decade or so, they have increased theirs by at least 20% (depending on your source) in just that last 6 years. Europe can't hold off a ground offensive by Russia, unless we move for some bold tactics and unilateral action.

Europe doesn't need to hold off anything. Europe should just stop getting involved in Russia's backyard and then everyone can go home happy (except the Ukrainian nationalists, but hey, you can't please them all).

Russia is in Europe. If you want to argue that it isn't, then you'll have to take into account that Europe is, if nothing else, Russia's backyard. Hence, your analysis fails.

[Grand Britannia]

So did Russia actually invade or what?

[Crazed Pirates]

So did Russia actually invade or what?

Nah, just everyone thinking that Russia supports rebels with vehicles, supplies and military (though it's much easier just to give them money and let them buy everything, and volunteers were used even in Vietnam.).
Moreover, considering Nazism on the rise in Ukraine and Russian duty to fight it since 1934, I don't see anything bad in supporting the rebels directly(even though I doubt that direct support is present, and all captives from Russia are most likely fakes).

[Constantinopolis]

As for all the incessant agonizing over the question of whether there are Russian troops in Ukraine or not (which there probably are): I fail to see why that matters.
...

Y'know, I miss the good old days when Communists at least pretended to be opposed to imperialism.

I openly disagree with the traditional Leninist stance on imperialism. It was conceived during a time when there were several opposing and more or less equally matched imperialist powers, so that it made sense to oppose all of them at once.

Today, however, one particular imperialist camp (generally called "the West") is vastly dominant, and all its rivals are no more than regional-level powers. As such, it makes sense to support those rivals, even in some of their imperialist ambitions, in order to hopefully return to a situation with several equally-powerful camps instead of one single dominant one.

Why is it better to have several equally-powerful camps instead of one single dominant one? Because it is better to have several equally-powerful enemies that are busy fighting each other instead of one single powerful enemy that can crush you at any moment.

The United States doesn't give a crap about the UN or international law when it supports friendly rebel movements around the world with supplies, weapons, airstrikes and "advisers", so why hold Russia to a different standard?
...

Primarily because Russia is the one who harps on the standard.

I am not Russia. You are not Russia. Who cares what Russia harps on about in their propaganda? What they say is irrelevant to the question of whether we should support them or oppose them.

What matters is what they do. And currently they are trying to stop the expansion of the most powerful military alliance on the planet. Therefore they should be supported, because the most powerful military alliance on the planet needs to be taken down a notch.

[Geilinor]

Y'know, I miss the good old days when Communists at least pretended to be opposed to imperialism.

I openly disagree with the traditional Leninist stance on imperialism. It was conceived during a time when there were several opposing and more or less equally matched imperialist powers, so that it made sense to oppose all of them at once.

Today, however, one particular imperialist camp (generally called "the West") is vastly dominant, and all its rivals are no more than regional-level powers. As such, it makes sense to support those rivals, even in some of their imperialist ambitions, in order to hopefully return to a situation with several equally-powerful camps instead of one single dominant one.

Why is it better to have several equally-powerful camps instead of one single dominant one? Because it is better to have several equally-powerful enemies that are busy fighting each other instead of one single powerful enemy that can crush you at any moment.

Do you know what happened when there were equally-powerful camps? The Scramble for Africa and World War I happened. You'll send us back to the age of blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism.

[Constantinopolis]

I openly disagree with the traditional Leninist stance on imperialism. It was conceived during a time when there were several opposing and more or less equally matched imperialist powers, so that it made sense to oppose all of them at once.

Today, however, one particular imperialist camp (generally called "the West") is vastly dominant, and all its rivals are no more than regional-level powers. As such, it makes sense to support those rivals, even in some of their imperialist ambitions, in order to hopefully return to a situation with several equally-powerful camps instead of one single dominant one.

Why is it better to have several equally-powerful camps instead of one single dominant one? Because it is better to have several equally-powerful enemies that are busy fighting each other instead of one single powerful enemy that can crush you at any moment.

Do you know what happened when there were equally-powerful camps? The Scramble for Africa and World War I happened. You'll send us back to the age of blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism.

And you want to solve the problem of "blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism" by having a single all-powerful bloc in control of almost the entire world, and able to do anything it wants with impunity, which is what the West currently is (or aims to be)? Yeah, no thanks.

It's true that an all-powerful empire can bring peace. That's what Pax Romana was all about, for example. But I do not want that kind of peace.

[Geilinor]

Do you know what happened when there were equally-powerful camps? The Scramble for Africa and World War I happened. You'll send us back to the age of blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism.

And you want to solve the problem of "blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism" by having a single all-powerful bloc in control of almost the entire world, and able to do anything it wants with impunity, which is what the West currently is (or aims to be)? Yeah, no thanks.

The side that's attempting to do anything it wants with impunity right now is Russia. The West can't do what it wants. If it could, it would have showed more than weak, half-hearted resistance.

[Thellonya]

Do you know what happened when there were equally-powerful camps? The Scramble for Africa and World War I happened. You'll send us back to the age of blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism.

And you want to solve the problem of "blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism" by having a single all-powerful bloc in control of almost the entire world, and able to do anything it wants with impunity, which is what the West currently is (or aims to be)? Yeah, no thanks.

It's true that an all-powerful empire can bring peace. That's what Pax Romana was all about, for example. But I do not want that kind of peace.

So youre invading my country cause hurr durr fuck EU? so we have no right to join what organisations we want to cause, *gasp* the Ukrainians are doing something you disprove of?

[Mefpan]

Do you know what happened when there were equally-powerful camps? The Scramble for Africa and World War I happened. You'll send us back to the age of blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism.

And you want to solve the problem of "blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism" by having a single all-powerful bloc in control of almost the entire world, and able to do anything it wants with impunity, which is what the West currently is (or aims to be)? Yeah, no thanks.

It's true that an all-powerful empire can bring peace. That's what Pax Romana was all about, for example. But I do not want that kind of peace.

Contrary to popular opinion, "the West" is not a singular, evil entity run by an Illuminato-Freemasonric Reptilian Communazi conspiracy bent on turning the world into 1984 according to the clever guidelines laid out in George Orwell's 1984.

We still do have our petty bitchfests and squabbles among each other - it just doesn't look that way because we don't flaunt our military-industrial penises at each other's borders every time one of the governments makes a decision one of the nations of "the West" doesn't like.

We just take turns screwing each other over by making it known we're actually spying on each other all the sodding time.

[Shamhnan Insir]

So did Russia actually invade or what?

NATO has satellite images of Russian units mobilised within Ukraine. And the T-72MBs seen in action on Ukrainian soil can only be Russian, with their version of Kontakt explosive reactive armour.