Ukrainian War Thread III: The Horrors

[Port Caverton]

Wrong. Pulling out is what led to the insurgents

The invasion is what led to us pulling out. You can't pull out if you never invaded.

Peace keeping exist you know?

mean, why shouldn't he meet the same fate as Saddam?

Because then the insurgency stuff happens, remember?

The insurgency would have never happnened if we never pulled out. Also ISIS still held a massive amount of territory in Syria despite Assad still being alive

[Adamede]

1: That's not how NATO membership works. It can take years to be considered for membership.
2: Ukraine is way more pro-NATO than it is pro-anyone else at the moment, let alone anyone Russia would consider "neutral". Hence the entire reason Russia invaded.

It can, but it does not need to. Some former Warsaw Pact nations were admitted into NATO soon after the USSR fell apart.

The main issue is that NATO nations have long known about Russia's claims on Ukraine. They are nothing new. NATO has wanted to play it safe while, at the same time, misleading Ukraine.

How was NATO misleading Ukraine? The requirements to be eligible NATO membership are quite clear and Ukraine hasn't met them since 2014. Russia jas no claims on Ukraine either, just ethno-nationalist rhetoric lifted from mustached dictators.

[Adamede]

So is this guy going to be in Ukraine directing the forces or is he at a nice comfy desk in Moscow?

With how Russian command has worked so far I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he hand delivers his orders to each unit lol. Presumably though he won't be on the front.

Well if he's anywhere within Ukraine there's always the chance of a Ukrainian drone or artillery shell paying him a visit.

[Senkaku]

You should read some of the US government's declassified casualty projections for different nuclear exchange scenarios. I guarantee this hotheaded macho bullshit about intervening militarily would stop dead in its tracks if old NESC reports went viral.

I have. Those reports do not say that those scenarios are the outcome of any conventional conflict you know.

The idea that this would stay a conventional conflict after NATO military intervention is laughable on so many levels

So is this guy going to be in Ukraine directing the forces or is he at a nice comfy desk in Moscow?

With how Russian command has worked so far I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he hand delivers his orders to each unit lol. Presumably though he won't be on the front.

Pigeons! Or maybe they’ll just get some quadcopters with little envelope boxes, that would be cute

[Umeria]

The invasion is what led to us pulling out. You can't pull out if you never invaded.

Peace keeping exist you know?

Because then the insurgency stuff happens, remember?

The insurgency would have never happnened if we never pulled out. Also ISIS still held a massive amount of territory in Syria despite Assad still being alive

Putin's using this exact same logic, you know. "We're just keeping the peace, the nazis will take over if we leave"

[Democratic Communist Federation]

How was NATO misleading Ukraine? The requirements to be eligible NATO membership are quite clear and Ukraine hasn't met them since 2014. Russia jas no claims on Ukraine either, just ethno-nationalist rhetoric lifted from mustached dictators.

“Ukraine has not entered NATO — essentially because of Russia's opposition to it and the conflict that its admission would cause.”

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/27/1088683957/what-is-nato-ukraine-russia-putin

[Spirit of Hope]

I have. Those reports do not say that those scenarios are the outcome of any conventional conflict you know.

The idea that this would stay a conventional conflict after NATO military intervention is laughable on so many levels

It would depend a lot on how the conflict played out, I could certainly see some forms of NATO intervention into Ukraine remaining conventional. The idea that such an intervention would quickly end the fighting or not result in an expansion of the fighting is rather problematic though.

[UGD]

If nukes almost always end up being used (despite only being used twice in all history) that would actually make war predictable…

Along with global devastation.

and global deaths..

[Port Caverton]

Peace keeping exist you know?

The insurgency would have never happnened if we never pulled out. Also ISIS still held a massive amount of territory in Syria despite Assad still being alive

Putin's using this exact same logic, you know. "We're just keeping the peace, the nazis will take over if we leave"

1) "but what about?" is not an argument
2) Preventing jihadists from taking over is different from invading a country to commit genocide

[Democratic Communist Federation]

and global deaths..

That is the problem with not having a global system of collective security. Instead, we have had to rely on the Warsaw Pact and NATO which have been little more than old boy's clubs.

[Antipatros]

One thing I've been wondering:

What will be the impact of this war on the Belt and Road Initiative, especially on infrastructure projects/routes that go through Russian territory?

[Thermodolia]

If nuclear weapons weren't involved, I probably would support an intervention (with the goal of ejecting Russia from Ukraine, which would then be added to NATO)

That's not the world we live in, though. We should do what we can: provide support to Ukraine, decouple our economies from Russia, assess/boost our military readiness, and keep lines of communication open with the Kremlin.

I’ve said it before, if nukes didn’t exist I’d fully support intervention by now.

If Russia didn’t have nukes we’d be shelling the Kremlin right now

[Thermodolia]

I’ve said it before, if nukes didn’t exist I’d fully support intervention by now.

The problem, IMO, is that there are no neutral parties to do the intervention. Certainly not NATO.

NATO clearly isn’t the one committing war crimes right now so I’d say NATO is more than capable of intervention if Russia suddenly had all of its nuclear weapons disappear

[Thermodolia]

There's some reporting going around on Twitter that Russia has finally consolidated command under a single general. I can't remember his name atm but he served in Syria and helped Assad's government.

While having a consolidated command structure will help the Russian's I'm not sure this guy was the right call. He does have combat experience but he spent his days fighting asymmetric light infantry in the desert and I'm not sure how much of that is going to transfer over to full conventional warfare between modern nations.

The brutality will increase though.

Cities are going to get leveled. Sure they pulled back from Kyiv but the east is going to get flattened

[Novus America]

I have. Those reports do not say that those scenarios are the outcome of any conventional conflict you know.

The idea that this would stay a conventional conflict after NATO military intervention is laughable on so many levels

With how Russian command has worked so far I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he hand delivers his orders to each unit lol. Presumably though he won't be on the front.

Pigeons! Or maybe they’ll just get some quadcopters with little envelope boxes, that would be cute

It actually is not, just because you claim it is, but we just go back and forth with something that cannot be proven.
Repeat the same things, then the insults get thrown at me.
It is pointless.

[Thermodolia]

One thing I've been wondering:

What will be the impact of this war on the Belt and Road Initiative, especially on infrastructure projects/routes that go through Russian territory?

Those are dead in the water

[Novus America]

If nukes almost always end up being used (despite only being used twice in all history) that would actually make war predictable…

Along with global devastation.

But see you just completely contradicted yourself. You are now claiming war is extremely predictable!
Which is it? Predictable or not?

[Umeria]

Putin's using this exact same logic, you know. "We're just keeping the peace, the nazis will take over if we leave"

1) "but what about?" is not an argument
2) Preventing jihadists from taking over is different from invading a country to commit genocide

The words what and about weren't in that post. My point was that either both your argument and Putin's is right, or both of you are wrong, because you're using the same reasoning for invasion.

If you think we were in Iraq to stop terrorism then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[Port Caverton]

1) "but what about?" is not an argument
2) Preventing jihadists from taking over is different from invading a country to commit genocide

The words what and about weren't in that post. My point was that either both your argument and Putin's is right, or both of you are wrong, because you're using the same reasoning for invasion.

The US ousting Saddam in Iraq is not comparable to Russia trying to commit genocide.

If you think we were in Iraq to stop terrorism then I've got a bridge to sell you.

1) I never claimed such thing
2) Regardless, not letting ISIS gain territory is a good thing

[Adamede]

How was NATO misleading Ukraine? The requirements to be eligible NATO membership are quite clear and Ukraine hasn't met them since 2014. Russia jas no claims on Ukraine either, just ethno-nationalist rhetoric lifted from mustached dictators.

“Ukraine has not entered NATO — essentially because of Russia's opposition to it and the conflict that its admission would cause.”

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/27/1088683957/what-is-nato-ukraine-russia-putin

Yah and that's not misleading Ukraine.

[Umeria]

The words what and about weren't in that post. My point was that either both your argument and Putin's is right, or both of you are wrong, because you're using the same reasoning for invasion.

The US ousting Saddam in Iraq is not comparable to Russia trying to commit genocide.

If you think we were in Iraq to stop terrorism then I've got a bridge to sell you.

1) I never claimed such thing
2) Regardless, not letting ISIS gain territory is a good thing

I'm not comparing the invasions, I'm comparing the reasoning that was used to justify the invasions.

When you say "preventing terrorism is different from committing genocide" the implication is that there was an effort to prevent terrorism.

[Sordhau]

The US ousting Saddam in Iraq is not comparable to Russia trying to commit genocide.

1) I never claimed such thing
2) Regardless, not letting ISIS gain territory is a good thing

I'm not comparing the invasions, I'm comparing the reasoning that was used to justify the invasions.

When you say "preventing terrorism is different from committing genocide" the implication is that there was an effort to prevent terrorism.

We went to Iraq to secure their oil fields so Dick Cheney and his friends in the State Department and the CIA could become oil execs.

Anybody who believes otherwise is a Kool-Aid addict.

[Port Caverton]

The US ousting Saddam in Iraq is not comparable to Russia trying to commit genocide.

1) I never claimed such thing
2) Regardless, not letting ISIS gain territory is a good thing

I'm not comparing the invasions, I'm comparing the reasoning that was used to justify the invasions.

We never used peace as a reason to justify the invasion.

When you say "preventing terrorism is different from committing genocide" the implication is that there was an effort to prevent terrorism.

We weren't even there to stop jihadists. I said that pulling out was a mistake because it caused jihadists to use the situation to gain territory

[Umeria]

I'm not comparing the invasions, I'm comparing the reasoning that was used to justify the invasions.

We never used peace as a reason to justify the invasion.

You used it to justify continuing the invasion. Same logic Putin is using.

When you say "preventing terrorism is different from committing genocide" the implication is that there was an effort to prevent terrorism.

We weren't even there to stop jihadists. I said that pulling out was a mistake because it caused jihadists to use the situation to gain territory

We would've had to pull out eventually. There was no way to avoid pulling out other than making Iraq the 51st state. No wait there was another way, not invading in the first place.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Yah and that's not misleading Ukraine.

I only cited a source which referred to the influence of Russia on NATO. On misleading Ukraine:

>>During the early 2000s, President George W. Bush pushed for Ukraine to become a NATO member. France and Germany opposed it, fearing escalation with Russia.

The result was a "worst of all worlds" compromise in 2008, Goldgeier said: a promise that Ukraine would eventually join NATO, but without any concrete timeline or pathway to do so.<<

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

That is just the result of a two-minute search. There is a lot more information on this subject. NATO did lie to, or mislead if one chooses to be a bit more generous, Ukraine.