Jump to content

Lethaface

Members
  • Posts

    4,026
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Lethaface

  1. Ps 2 at the same time obviously everything is 'in the mix'. Russia's position on the world ladder sure has it's influence on their outlook. So perhaps it's a bit like a chicken vs egg theory framework (did JK pass away? If so may he RIP, he had a good soul imo).
  2. PS Maybe we in the West sometimes communicate to ourselves (and or others) that we have more to do with with the plot of 'as the world turns' than we actually do have influence on it.
  3. FWIW, I don't think the root interest of this war was centred on the West. The root interest was centered around the vested interest surrounding Ukraine (which also lead to CMBS), perhaps the perceived weakness of the West was instrumental in Russia going forward with the ordeal; I'll give you that.
  4. To bring the subject back to Ukraine, I still don't expect a Ukr big push and Bakhmut still seems like the most promising area. I hope I'm wrong on the big push, because I only see it happening if it's successful.
  5. Look into the fleets currently available & underway. Something with Virginia class I guess.
  6. I guess someway or somehow we can sometimes actually agree
  7. The war you speak of has been going on already for a long time, it is called geopolitics ;-). China has, probably since Desert Storm or before, came up with a doctrine to win that war. There is however difference between a full hot war right now vs a economy backed mainly sea/ocean based war of attrition later. The propaganda channels don't always present the full width of information; for example on the submarine 'front' for the USA/NATO .
  8. I guess the crux is in semantics, see my previous post. There is overlap but that isn't the 'root cause/interest' for the warring parties.
  9. Without wanting to but actually repeating myself; this is not our war. Are you dying for it?
  10. Although It's just anecdotal I've been on the MH-17 flight quite a number of times (flying to/from Malaysia) and indirectly know some people who perished on the flight (I also witnessed part of the impressive ceremony through the country). At the times I was on the flight I was more worried about it going over Afghanistan. Apart from that; the way the Russian regime handled MH-17 was rather infuriating for anyone involved. At the same 'time', our intelligence services have had quite some interactions with their Russian counterparts before and after that incident. So the way Russia behaved was not a surprise. Also on another note, as a human I'm not convinced those who shot down that airplane did intentionally destroy a civilian airplane full of passengers. But 'we' certainly didn't forget, nor forgive.
  11. I didn't perceive those comments as offensive towards the Netherlands, but I'm not really patriotically sensitive ;-). I agree though that our country has, on this subject, done a decent job. And I agree on NATO. Even for our small Baltic brothers we will do our duty (although obviously that is like everything I post my opinion and or my understanding, in this case of how our armed forces would react).
  12. This is basically how I think but phrased differently and perhaps some different opinions on the edges.
  13. And to be fully specific in my understanding if someone in Ukraine would be fighting the war on our behalf it would mean they would actually rather be part of Russia or indifferent about it, but just fighting against Russia because we want them to do so. That's a bit hyperbole perhaps, just as I like it :).
  14. Maybe it's just semantics, but another country fighting a war on 'our behalf' doesn't sound right in my vocabulary; it would mean they are fighting the war more for our interests than their own. I probably wouldn't support such a war, but I do wholeheartedly support the Ukrainians in their resolve (and our support). Perhaps a factor in this semantic/conceptual interpretation is that I've heard/read many people stating (in NL at least) that we/USA are letting the Ukrainians die for our cause, NATO/US is actually directing the war, bla bla and thus we should force ceasefire to stop the bloodshed. We are not in a position to stop it; Ukrainians are fighting for their own cause and we are helping them. And yes helping them in this case might also mean helping ourselves. I guess this perhaps is what you and @Maciej Zwolinski conclude/mean. At the same time I think that whether or not NATO's posturing in the past has facilitated Russia's behavior is a different question, on another interesting level (conceptual). As are the consequences of NATO's actual posturing during the conflict. We certainly have (vested) interests in Ukraine winning the war and Russia's means of waging war detoriating, but the complete destruction of Russia's regime isn't or shouldn't necessarily our political goal (although for Ukraine it is). The interesting question is, of course, whether Ukraine inside NATO could have prevented this war. Another one certain people will put up is whether a more constructive/cooperative posture towards Russia in the early 90's could have done more towards a better Russia. To be honest on both subjects I don't have any new great takes :D. For better or for worse, the main reason why Ukraine wasn't in NATO yet was to prevent a war such as the one which is taking place now; or a larger war. Now that ship has sailed. Whatever to think of Scholz, his 'zeitenwende' statement was rather accurate. The implications for the future are as of yet largely unknown, but they will be 'large' as compared to how 'things' were before. But we haven't arrived in the 'post' era yet. I agree that 'we' have betted enough towards this pot (the war), that we might as well go all in. But all in with the money on the table, not with the house, car and other assets. I don't get people voting for an open war between Russia and NATO. But if it comes to that, we will have to take responsibility in our own hands including doing the dying.
  15. Which is historically correct. But history != future, but then we now have NATO exactly for this reason. Also to be fair, it's not like other (European) countries have been fairies historically. For my country we don't have to go back very far, even for officially known/recognized 'mishaps'. We have our 'politionele acties' in Indonesia directly after WW2, for example. So personally I don't think history is that relevant today, I mean it is interesting but one doesn't need history to declare the facts on the ground today. As a matter of fact, extrapolating history is often a fallacy used for predicting the future.
  16. Imo you are overestimating Russia. They had the size of Italy's economy. Their economy is/was reliant on 57% raw material export, the rest largely being internal services. Yes they have a lot of resources, but not that much industrial / technological infrastructure. We (including East Europe) did indeed also f up ourselves on the security/defense spectrum, some more then others, but I believe the 'Russia can invade any minute' theory is a fallacy. I also do think that politically and strategically the non-USA assets of NATO are relevant. Perhaps not as relevant as they could be, so there is work to do.
  17. Leaving in the middle what I think about the two bob each way attitude, I don't agree applying it ONLY to West European attitude. Besides, the first Desert Storm was sort of UN sanctioned probably 'justified' intervention. The second war, OIF, was probably a petpeeve of certain USA leadership elements and based on falsified events and with a horrible endgame. But that's another topic Another twist: if Russia didn't have a bunch of Nukes laying around, there would have probably be a 'no-fly zone' in effect since Feb 2022. I don't get people happily advocating pushing into WW3. NATO troops inside Crimea have a much higher chance of attracting nuclear payloads compared to Ukrainian troops. I get war (or rather the consequences) is emotional, I also have them. While it is wise to listen to emotions, it is not wise to directly act based on emotions. But perhaps that's just my Dutch blood, with a sprinkle of east-Prussian to be fully transparent
  18. Maybe nobody is at fault and it's 'just' converged interests. If I were a German taxpayer it wouldn't make me happy if Polish (or whatever other country) industry makes good profit off my taxmoney intended for direct support to Ukraine. If I were a Polish for profit business I can understand that if I have to choose between little profit vs large profit I would choose large.
  19. I don't see it as a guarantee that there will be a war between NATO and Russia on the next couple of years. I don't have children (yet? who knows lol), but I feel that if my country would get engaged in a war I won't be happy to pay others to fight it for us/me (duty calls). Although I can perfectly and fully understand not wishing to see your son go to the front.
  20. That would mean anyone on the planet fighting against an oppressor is fighting a war on our behalf. From a philosophy pov I could see some merit in that idea, but in practical terms it becomes rather vague or result in a sort of perpetuous world war.
  21. I think we are touching upon several points here, maybe translation is a thing too (English being not our first language, although afaik we both have a rather good understanding of it). A) Without Russia invading Ukraine in 2022, there would be no full spectrum hot war between Ukraine and Russia. The destruction of Russia's armed forces in and of itself wasn't and shouldn't have been a goal without that event happening. In hindsight of course we can connect more dots and say 'we should have X', but that's only valid for the 'future' we are living today. If Russia hadn't invaded, there would be no war. There would also be no war to be fought on behalf of the West, because there would be no reason for it. So, this war happened because Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine decided to fight back against it (unlike Crimea 2014). Not because of any other reason. The primary goal of the war is to kick Russia out of Ukraine, so Ukraine can follow their own path as they see fit. Ukraine isn't trying to kick out Russia from their country because they have romantic feelings about other countries. No, they are trying to do it on their own behalf: they don't want Russia in their country. B ) Given that Russia has acted the way it did, it is now clear for all to see that the security situation in Europe isn't what we thought it was a decade ago. Russia has shown (repeatedly) it is not to be trusted and will even escalate to large scale full spectrum warfare against major countries, at the cost of many innocent lives, to get what it wants. This is turn has made obvious that Europe's largely neglected security against an 'Eastern' threat is sub par and needs to be addressed, especially given the new/current security outlook. Even if Russia won't be able to go on another adventure for the next 5-10 years whatever, there's no guarantees it won't try something again later down the line so we better prepare ourselves. C) I personally doubt Russia would have invaded Poland and or the Baltics if they would have successfully annexed Ukraine after a short war. That would mean a war against NATO, which is a whole different ballgame (never mind ballpark ). They'd probably like those territories inside the greater Russian imperium, especially Putain, they'd probably do it if they knew they'd get away with it. But that's definitely not a certainty. The Polish army already was a sizable force, no pushover. If those countries believe NATO wouldn't come to their help, well than why are they even in NATO. D) A weakened Russia is helpful to our security. Yes it (most likely) is, especially now that the West has decided to choose the Ukrainian's side Russia has become a defacto enemy like during the less friendly phases of the Cold War. That doesn't mean Ukraine is fighting it on our behalf though. There is a shared 'interest', which is why it is wise for us to support Ukraine achieving victory. Therefor I'm in favor of a 'full send' support, I don't like half measures because in the end they are more costly and time consuming. But there's always geopolitics and various interests involved so things move at the pace they move. E) Worrying has never helped anyone. I don't know if people here don't worry, I don't like to worry though. But that doesn't mean we/I think we shouldn't be properly preparing so we can prevent poor performance in the future. Maybe we have more trust in NATO given our history. It probably also helps we're not directly on the border. Hence why I think it is a fallacy to state that Ukraine is fighting the war on our behalf. They are fighting for their country, they are fighting a just war of self defense. Their victory is absolutely in our interest (for various reasons) and so we should support them win it. Now if Russia had already defacto declared war on NATO and it was a given they would attack NATO after they are done with Ukraine; then one could say Ukraine would be fighting a war on our behalf. But in that case we'd probably be fighting it alongside them.
  22. I keep reading about how Ukraine is fighting this war on the West behalf. No, they are fighting this war to stop Russia from invading/annexing their country. They are fighting it for their own behalf (fortunately). Yes we also have interests in it, but please stop the framing. Ukrainians are doing the dying, they have decided to do it, we didn't need to convince m or pay m to do it.
×
×
  • Create New...