The Invasion of Ukraine, Russia Threatens Finland/Sweden

[TheFlyingDutchman]

The US military nows has troops permanently stationed within rifle range of Russia and its people.

[citation needed]

Rather, I’m not seeing US troop deployments in countries bordering Russia before now, where are you seeing them (except perhaps in Norway, can’t tell the border there).

The Baltics

[Lord Dominator]

[citation needed]

Rather, I’m not seeing US troop deployments in countries bordering Russia before now, where are you seeing them (except perhaps in Norway, can’t tell the border there).

The Baltics

Ah you might be right - of the 1000 NATO troops (before this showdown began) in each of the two that border Russia, some of them are American. Truly a great threat to Russia.

[Novus America]

[citation needed]

Rather, I’m not seeing US troop deployments in countries bordering Russia before now, where are you seeing them (except perhaps in Norway, can’t tell the border there).

The Baltics

The US troops there are very few in number, and not permanently stationed there, but deployed on a rotational and as needed basis.

And umm Russia has troops permanently stationed within close distance to NATO, why does only Russia get a right to declare nobody can deploy troops anywhere near it but nobody else gets that right?

What is most problematic of Russia’s demands is it demands extraordinary rights it will not acknowledge anyone else having.

[Hemakral]

Bullshit. Russia is the largest country on the planet in terms of landmass, they haven't been backed into anywhere. They're actively making moves on a smaller country in the hopes of assimilating them into Greater Ruskitopia or whatever ol' Pooty has planned, which is quite obviously not an act of self preservation

*looms ominously* "Ol' Pooty" is political nicknaming or, basically, trolling. Don't do it.

Understood, praise be to mod!

[Novus America]

Putin is just a man, who at times makes emotional and stupid decisions.
He is not nearly as smart or rational as people make him out to be. He is driven in no small part by his personal emotions and experiences. Moreover even the smartest people at some time do stupid and emotional things.

Foreign policy is only as rational as the people making it. The fact is we do not know what he plans on doing. So we need to prepare for different possibilities. It is very possible this is just a bluff. And I think it very possibly is. But then we need to call his bluff. But also be prepared in care we were wrong. You should not bet all your chips on the fact your opponent might be bluffing or you end up with a very real possibility of losing everything.

Anyways what “encirclement”? NATO only applies to the North Atlantic. The fact that Russia focuses nearly all of its forces in Eastern Europe, leaving the rest poorly defended says it is not looking at all directions and thus does not feel “encircled”. The more Russia masses to its west, the weaker Russia gets in its South and East.

On the last part, if the US treated Mexico so badly that the felt they had to join CSTO to guarantee their survival, whose fault would that be?

Russia actions are the only reason Ukraine is pushing to join NATO. Only a minority of Ukrainians supported NATO membership before Russia’s latest war on Ukraine.

If Russia wants to keep Ukraine away from NATO Russia should stop threatening it. Even if you think Russia is right to discourage Ukraine from joining NATO, this is a bad way to do it, because it is having the OPPOSITE effect.

Now even Finland is looking more at joining NATO, because of this! So how is this rational if the objective is to weaken NATO? Also proving Putin is not some genius, or even completely rational after all. The rational thing to do would be to change course, not double down on the mistakes that caused the issue in the first place.

And Ukraine as not even joined NATO! And is not going to do so any time soon!

Sure if Russia massed huge forces in Mexico the US would respond by moving forces to the border.

But the US is not doing so now, just because theoretically that MIGHT happen. Do you think the US should start waging a lower intensity war against Mexico, annex Baja, and mass forces on Mexico’s border now?
And if we did would that not increase the likelihood Mexico would want to join CSTO? Thus being completely counterproductive?

When the Cold War ended, the West promised no more NATO expansion and that both sides would respect each other's sphere of influence and national security. NATO has constantly broken that promise by expanding to Russia's borders and encircling them on east and west. The US military nows has troops permanently stationed within rifle range of Russia and its people. Russia wanted good relations with the West, but America broke its promise and also treated Russia as an enemy. They are backed into a corner and acting out of a very reasonable fear. How can they fall back when they have nowhere to fall back to?

You did not address any of my points at all.

And this is bullshit.
James Baker verbally floated that idea, apparently without authorization to Gorbachev, that was just his hypothetical musings. Obviously James Baker floating an idea that if it was a promise, he would have no authority to make, is not permanently eternally binding policy on all NATO.

Who made James Baker eternal supreme dictator of NATO? Nobody.

At best it was a gentleman’s agreement between James Baker and Gorbachev which had absolutely no legal value whatsoever and had no relevance once both were out of office. The US and other countries of NATO have laws (and the US cannot unilaterally make such decisions on behalf of NATO as they require unanimous consent). Also treaties must be public an in writing, and in the US ratified by the Senate. And treaties without an explicit exit clause are assumed to be able to be terminated by either party unilaterally at any time.

Gorbachev obviously never was the sharpest tool in the shed, but even so, he should have known that. Even if such agreement was made, it would be illegal and not binding.

So this is a ridiculous argument. I could also go through everything every US Secretary of State (or Russian foreign minister) ever said, quote mine it and try to twist it, then claim that is forever permanently biding diktat that must be obeyed for eternity.

I do not, because it is a completely shit argument. I would deservedly get mocked for doing so.

And why does Russia need to “fall back”? Russia is the largest country by landmass and no NATO troops have set foot on Russian soil. So what is this “falling back”? That would only work if we assume that Ukraine is Russian territory. It is not. Russia does not even legally claim most of it is!

Nobody is asking Russia to “fall back” from its territory! Just not commit more violations against Ukraine.

Besides again why does Russia only have these Uber special rights?

Russia can and does send ships 15 miles off the US coast before having them dock in Cuba.

Which it legally can do.

Just as NATO can legally deploy its troops on its own territory. Also those are not permanently stationed troops anyways.
But rotational and as needed.

Russia only wanted “good relations” if it got special rights it was never entitled to and no other country has, and it would never allow others to have. Making one sided demands is not a recipe for good relations and you should not be surprised when they are rejected.

[TheFlyingDutchman]

When the Cold War ended, the West promised no more NATO expansion and that both sides would respect each other's sphere of influence and national security. NATO has constantly broken that promise by expanding to Russia's borders and encircling them on east and west. The US military nows has troops permanently stationed within rifle range of Russia and its people. Russia wanted good relations with the West, but America broke its promise and also treated Russia as an enemy. They are backed into a corner and acting out of a very reasonable fear. How can they fall back when they have nowhere to fall back to?

You did not address any of my points at all.

And this is bullshit.
James Baker verbally floated that idea, apparently without authorization to Gorbachev, that was just his hypothetical musings. Obviously James Baker floating an idea that if it was a promise, he would have no authority to make, is not permanently eternally binding policy on all NATO.

Who made James Baker eternal supreme dictator of NATO? Nobody.

At best it was a gentleman’s agreement between James Baker and Gorbachev which had absolutely no legal value whatsoever and had no relevance once both were out of office. The US and other countries of NATO have laws (and the US cannot unilaterally make such decisions on behalf of NATO as they require unanimous consent). Also treaties must be public an in writing, and in the US ratified by the Senate. And treaties without an explicit exit clause are assumed to be able to be terminated by either party unilaterally at any time.

Gorbachev obviously never was the sharpest tool in the shed, but even so, he should have known that. Even if such agreement was made, it would be illegal and not binding.

So this is a ridiculous argument. I could also go through everything every US Secretary of State (or Russian foreign minister) ever said, quote mine it and try to twist it, then claim that is forever permanently biding diktat that must be obeyed for eternity.

I do not, because it is a completely shit argument. I would deservedly get mocked for doing so.

And why does Russia need to “fall back”? Russia is the largest country by landmass and no NATO troops have set foot on Russian soil. So what is this “falling back”? That would only work if we assume that Ukraine is Russian territory. It is not. Russia does not even legally claim most of it is!

Nobody is asking Russia to “fall back” from its territory! Just not commit more violations against Ukraine.

Besides again why does Russia only have these Uber special rights?

Russia can and does send ships 15 miles off the US coast before having them dock in Cuba.

Which it legally can do.

Just as NATO can legally deploy its troops on its own territory. Also those are not permanently stationed troops anyways.
But rotational and as needed.

Russia only wanted “good relations” if it got special rights it was never entitled to and no other country has, and it would never allow others to have. Making one sided demands is not a recipe for good relations and you should not be surprised when they are rejected.

Russia's military actions are for its national security. Unlike the USA, Russia has genuine national security interests in Europe. It has never needlessly attacked another country like the USA did thousands of miles from its borders with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. It is the US that everyone should be wary of, not Russia. Russia is the victim here, and all they want is a promise of a peaceful future in which they will not be threatened.

[New haven america]

You did not address any of my points at all.

And this is bullshit.
James Baker verbally floated that idea, apparently without authorization to Gorbachev, that was just his hypothetical musings. Obviously James Baker floating an idea that if it was a promise, he would have no authority to make, is not permanently eternally binding policy on all NATO.

Who made James Baker eternal supreme dictator of NATO? Nobody.

At best it was a gentleman’s agreement between James Baker and Gorbachev which had absolutely no legal value whatsoever and had no relevance once both were out of office. The US and other countries of NATO have laws (and the US cannot unilaterally make such decisions on behalf of NATO as they require unanimous consent). Also treaties must be public an in writing, and in the US ratified by the Senate. And treaties without an explicit exit clause are assumed to be able to be terminated by either party unilaterally at any time.

Gorbachev obviously never was the sharpest tool in the shed, but even so, he should have known that. Even if such agreement was made, it would be illegal and not binding.

So this is a ridiculous argument. I could also go through everything every US Secretary of State (or Russian foreign minister) ever said, quote mine it and try to twist it, then claim that is forever permanently biding diktat that must be obeyed for eternity.

I do not, because it is a completely shit argument. I would deservedly get mocked for doing so.

And why does Russia need to “fall back”? Russia is the largest country by landmass and no NATO troops have set foot on Russian soil. So what is this “falling back”? That would only work if we assume that Ukraine is Russian territory. It is not. Russia does not even legally claim most of it is!

Nobody is asking Russia to “fall back” from its territory! Just not commit more violations against Ukraine.

Besides again why does Russia only have these Uber special rights?

Russia can and does send ships 15 miles off the US coast before having them dock in Cuba.

Which it legally can do.

Just as NATO can legally deploy its troops on its own territory. Also those are not permanently stationed troops anyways.
But rotational and as needed.

Russia only wanted “good relations” if it got special rights it was never entitled to and no other country has, and it would never allow others to have. Making one sided demands is not a recipe for good relations and you should not be surprised when they are rejected.

Russia's military actions are for its national security. Unlike the USA, Russia has genuine national security interests in Europe. It has never needlessly attacked another country like the USA did thousands of miles from its borders with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. It is the US that everyone should be wary of, not Russia. Russia is the victim here, and all they want is a promise of a peaceful future in which they will not be threatened.

Your sarcasm's ok, but repeating things over and over just gives it away, gotta be more subtle than that. Say your piece once and be done.

[TheFlyingDutchman]

-redacted-

[Antipatros]

British defence minister backs de-escalation of Ukraine-Russia crisis

Biden says Russia to face consequences if it attacked Ukraine, keeps diplomatic option open

[Christian Confederation]

British defence minister backs de-escalation of Ukraine-Russia crisis

Biden says Russia to face consequences if it attacked Ukraine, keeps diplomatic option open

I love how European leaders understand that Russia can be talked down and a Diplomatic Result is possible. Meanwhile Biden just threatens to Sanction Russia Further and calls it a day.

[Untecna]

British defence minister backs de-escalation of Ukraine-Russia crisis

Biden says Russia to face consequences if it attacked Ukraine, keeps diplomatic option open

I love how European leaders understand that Russia can be talked down and a Diplomatic Result is possible. Meanwhile Biden just threatens to Sanction Russia Further and calls it a day.

Russia isn't as willing to work with Europe and NATO as you may believe.

[Lord Dominator]

British defence minister backs de-escalation of Ukraine-Russia crisis

Biden says Russia to face consequences if it attacked Ukraine, keeps diplomatic option open

I love how European leaders understand that Russia can be talked down and a Diplomatic Result is possible. Meanwhile Biden just threatens to Sanction Russia Further and calls it a day.

Did you not read the full sentence they provided for the second article?

[New Tryphalia]

British defence minister backs de-escalation of Ukraine-Russia crisis

Biden says Russia to face consequences if it attacked Ukraine, keeps diplomatic option open

I love how European leaders understand that Russia can be talked down and a Diplomatic Result is possible. Meanwhile Biden just threatens to Sanction Russia Further and calls it a day.

American leaders have forgotten diplomacy. The rest of the governments on Earth haven’t (except for Israel and Hamas).

[Vassenor]

I love how European leaders understand that Russia can be talked down and a Diplomatic Result is possible. Meanwhile Biden just threatens to Sanction Russia Further and calls it a day.

American leaders have forgotten diplomacy. The rest of the governments on Earth haven’t (except for Israel and Hamas).

>headline literally says US still hoping for a diplomatic solution

>American leaders have forgotten diplomacy

Not sure how you got from one to the other.

[Hemakral]

American leaders have forgotten diplomacy. The rest of the governments on Earth haven’t (except for Israel and Hamas).

>headline literally says US still hoping for a diplomatic solution

>American leaders have forgotten diplomacy

Not sure how you got from one to the other.

Russian bots. I'm calling it.

[New Tryphalia]

American leaders have forgotten diplomacy. The rest of the governments on Earth haven’t (except for Israel and Hamas).

>headline literally says US still hoping for a diplomatic solution

>American leaders have forgotten diplomacy

Not sure how you got from one to the other.

Phony diplomatic offers don’t count.

[Vassenor]

>headline literally says US still hoping for a diplomatic solution

>American leaders have forgotten diplomacy

Not sure how you got from one to the other.

Phony diplomatic offers don’t count.

So explain what makes these phony and what a genuine diplomatic offer is.

[New Tryphalia]

>headline literally says US still hoping for a diplomatic solution

>American leaders have forgotten diplomacy

Not sure how you got from one to the other.

Russian bots. I'm calling it.

My IP address is in Phoenix, Arizona, man. I just don’t approve of the increasingly unilateral and aggressive foreign policy of the corporate Western regimes.

[New Tryphalia]

Phony diplomatic offers don’t count.

So explain what makes these phony and what a genuine diplomatic offer is.

No effort to take seriously the threat posed by NATO expansion in breach of Western promises.

[-Astoria-]

I love how European leaders understand that Russia can be talked down and a Diplomatic Result is possible. Meanwhile Biden just threatens to Sanction Russia Further and calls it a day.

American leaders have forgotten diplomacy. The rest of the governments on Earth haven’t (except for Israel and Hamas).

The Palestinian Authority exists, but that's beside the point.

[Saiwania]

I love how European leaders understand that Russia can be talked down and a Diplomatic Result is possible. Meanwhile Biden just threatens to Sanction Russia Further and calls it a day.

The US isn't reliant on fossil fuels from Russia to the extent that most of Europe is. The EU caves in because their solar/wind/renewables fails to generate enough energy to fully run their national economies. But I also don't see any importance to protecting Ukraine. This is just another Biden fault.

At least Taiwan has TSMC and has technology that the world community would be keen to prevent mainland China from directly controlling or having monopoly over.

I see benefits to a proxy war being done in Ukraine if the sole objective is to enrich defense companies and to diminish Russia's military in the near term through attrition or materiel losses. But not to intervene on Ukraine's behalf or to make any involvement too obvious. It is nothing personal, just more useful if a rival power happens to suffer a loss if it makes a wrong decision that can be turned into an advantage.

[TheFlyingDutchman]

I have said it before, and I will say it again.

Regardless of which side, if any, is right or wrong, I honestly think that America is making too big of a deal out of this. It is highly unlikely that Putin would invade Ukraine in the first place. The Ukrainian military of 2022 is far better trained, better organized, better equipped, more experienced, and better motivated than it was back in 2014. While Russia's military is still a lot larger and stronger than Ukraine's, it would suffer heavy casaulties in any new invasion. When you consider that the Ukrainian civilian population is also fairly well-armed, the Russians would have a difficult time holding and occupying any territory that they take. Furthermore, the Russian people would not like the cost of an offensive war. The Russian economy is already struggling enough and the disasterous Soviet War in Afghanistan is still somewhat fresh in Russian memory. As Russia takes casaulties and the Russian economy suffers even more, Putin would lose a lot of his popularity as his own people turn against him.

Putin is a smart man, and I am sure that he knows that any invasion would be a bad idea. Even the Ukrainian government and society know that an invasion is highly unlikely. I think that what Putin is trying do is just make a point by flexing his muscles while simultaneously airing his grievances against a military alliance that is gradually encircling Russia. Biden isn't helping the situation with his opportunistic saber-rattling to try to distract everyone from his numerous failures in office.

[Antipatros]

>headline literally says US still hoping for a diplomatic solution

>American leaders have forgotten diplomacy

Not sure how you got from one to the other.

Russian bots. I'm calling it.

[Christian Confederation]

The question is do I invest in Lockheed Martin and Raytheon now or tomorrow?

[Vassenor]

Russian bots. I'm calling it.

My IP address is in Phoenix, Arizona, man. I just don’t approve of the increasingly unilateral and aggressive foreign policy of the corporate Western regimes.

So basically Tucker Carlson said the US should be siding with Russia and you brought it.