Russian army under equipped?

[hattori]

Okay, let me try again.  I am a fiscal conservative, but socially left leaning.  I think it was a great humanitarian thing for Canada to accept some Syrian refuges (and also economically it is good to me to grow our tax base, and Canada needs immigration anyways to grow our population).  I do understand almost a third of Canadians were really opposed to this policy.  I think they are wrong, I don't support them, I will fight them, but I can respect they have their own opinions, and I can see why they have that opinion -- fear of terrorism, fear of Islamification, fear of losing jobs to foreigners, not wanting to pay with their tax money for someone for a year, etc.  I understand why they are doing what they are doing, and because I know their concerns, I can attempt to address them.

I'm a huge believer in know your enemy, even to the point where can empathize with them so you can figure out what they might do.

Does that make sense at all?

[A Canadian Cat]

31 minutes ago, hattori said:

I understand why they are doing what they are doing, and because I know their concerns, I can attempt to address them.

Good idea.

 

31 minutes ago, hattori said:

Does that make sense at all?

Yep.  Totally.

[Erwin]

"I'm a huge believer in know your enemy, even to the point where can empathize with them so you can figure out what they might do."  That makes total sense, hattori.

What is only just starting to be discussed are the implications of immigration by cultures that are antithetical to the "native" culture.  As an immigrant and child of immigrants we tried very hard to assimilate.  We would never have even thought about waving our old flag around, trying to change the existing system, or claiming some sort of special treatment. 

However, when I return to my childhood haunts they are now dominated by more recent waves of immigrants and there is very little if any evidence of attempts at assimilation - the opposite in fact.  We have allowed in cultures which don't agree with "our way of life" and are trying to change our cultural and religious heritage as well as our laws. 

 

[hattori]

Please, please, please, I am already in enough trouble to taking us off topic.  Immigration is something we should avoid, I really should have thought of a better example.

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, hattori said:

Wow, you are going way off here.  

No, I'm pointing out significant flaws in your arguments.

Quote

Not putting a missile defense system in Russia and not inviting Poland into NATO are in no way whatsoever letting a husband beat a wife and standing idly by.  Come on.  Even you should see the ridiculousness of that statement.

It's called an analogy   And I stand by what I said.  Ukraine is absolutely a victim of unilateral Russian aggression.  NATO and the West's alleged activities, as perceived by Russia, are fully and totally irrelevant.  Any argument trying to in any way justify or excuse Russia's full responsibility for this war is an apologist line of thinking at best.  It is no different than saying it's understandable that daddy's little girl got raped by the guy across the street because daddy was mean to him.

Poland (and other states) were in an incredibly vulnerable position in the early 1990s.  They were suddenly independent of Russian control and were trying to get their feet under themselves.  #1 priority was to make sure Russia didn't come back, yet again, to dominate them as has happened so many times in the past.  Fortunately for the Baltics and former Warsaw Pact countries, at the time Russia was busy slaughtering it's own people in the Caucuses and taking chunks of some of the break away Stans, so it was clearly demonstrating that it was not seriously deviating from its historical behavior patterns.  To think that the Baltics and Poland, in particular, had nothing to fear from Russia is not supported by the facts.  Therefore, quite understandably they sought protection from yet another round of repressive governance by a foreign power.

They had ever legal and moral right to ask for protection.  NATO, whose mission is to promote and ensure the security and stability of Europe, had a moral and political obligation to provide that support.  If Russia had shown that it was repentant and changed to be a cooperative power instead of a destructive one, then the situation would have been different.

And as events have proven over the last few years, Eastern Europe was right to ask for protection and NATO was right to provide it.

Quote

You also keep thinking I'm defending Russia's actions.  I'm not.

You are, whether you know it or not.  To the battered wife analogy...
"Your honor, you see my client grew up in an environment where it was permissible to beat ones wife and nobody was supposed to say anything about it.  The plaintiff should have known better than to call the police on him, therefore you have to understand that in my client's mind he was right to threaten him with violence and then to take it out on his wife.  You see, your honor, there are two sides to this story".

Quote

What I am trying to provide is there are reasons why Russia is acting the way it is.

Yes, I know how Russia views things.  Yes, I know that they behave based on their point of view.  I've discussed their motivations and perspectives in many of my posts here.  In fact, I am pretty sure I understand the Russian point of view far better than you do.  But there is a big difference between understanding a point of view and going out of your way to give it credibility.

Apologist lines of thinking are dangerous and intellectually dishonest.  If you don't think a country is acting in a way that is justifiable, then don't try and say it's not their fault for behaving as they do.

Quote

Russia isn't some evil entity that is just messing with Ukraine for the fun of it.  They have their own concerns and priorities, and as much as we don't like it, are perfectly valid for them.  It seems most people here completely dismiss them, if they acknowledge them at all.

I've acknowledged the reasons for Russia being in Ukraine time and time again.  What I don't do is excuse it, justify it, or defend it.  What Russia is doing is both logical and necessary from it's perspective.  A man who can't get a date because he's too obnoxious and unbecoming has to make choices too.  Raping a woman who won't have sex with him is not an option that is defendable in my view.

Quote

Since to me this is a Russia-U.S. geo political issue (do you think the average Indian or Chinese citizen really cares what happens to Ukraine?  Is this even on the radar in Africa?), if we are going to criticize Russia (which is what this thread has turned into), criticizing the other half of the equation is totally fair game, whether you like it or not.

And there you go with the apologist route again.  In regards to Russia's current activities of murder, plunder, and destruction in Ukraine... the activities of the West are irrelevant completely and utterly.  Any attempts to deflect sole responsibility for Russia's voluntary choices is, in effect, defending Russia.  You can not have it both ways in this particular circumstance.  In other circumstances, perhaps.  But not this one.

Quote

And come on!  Are you really naive enough to believe we invited those countries into NATO and put up the missile shields in those locations because of the goodness of our hearts, that we were only concerned that those people could vote?  You're as bad as Vlad for buying into government propoganda lol.

Of course it is not that simple.  For sure there are economic, political, and military rivalries between the West and Russia.  Of course those factors were taken into account.  However, if Russia had reformed itself there would have been neither the justification nor the impitus to continue those rivalries.  Even with Russia not changing course and, in fact, getting more aggressive, NATO was in a process of becoming irrelevant and abandoned by most of its member states.  Right up until, and even a little after, Russia invaded Ukraine.

And again I see you leave out the part about the countries in question ASKING to be a part of NATO.  NATO didn't immediately ask these countries to join and didn't lower the bar for their acceptance.  If NATO were simply interested increasing its own power it would have accepted them starting in 1991 not in 1999.  Instead it waited until it was clear Russia had not changed (the evidence started with the 1993 coup and became blatant with the First Chechen War) and the countries asking for membership had shown a fundamental commitment to basic principles of democratic governance.

The bottom line is, no matter how you try to avoid it, is that the countries asked for protection based on very solid, very rational fears that Russia would once again try to put them under its oppressive thumb.  You might think the West should have let them sink or swim on their own, I do not.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, cool breeze said:

As a patriot on a wargame forum, I was NOT arguing we should stop having a strong military or even by far the best in the world, just that I think the time for us having SO MUCH nukes and covert operations should be past.

Of course it should be.  In fact, it never should have started in the first place.  But if only unstable, despotic regimes (and I include Pakistan in this mix) have nukes then someone more stable and less despotic should also have nukes to balance the equation.  Sucks that it has to be that way, but reality sucks sometimes.

1 hour ago, cool breeze said:

Edit to add:  And sure, yeah, AFTER we go somewhere and destroy the established power structure, and then fill the void ourselves, and then leave the area, leaving a power void, things get worse.  shouldn't be a surprise.  Doesn't really mean we should be intervening everywhere in the first place.

And if the West tries to stay and straighten out the messes they make, they are called Imperialists. Aside from that, the fact is the world produces power vacuums all the time with little to no help from the West.  Usually they are quickly filled by ruthless regimes who, at best, continue the same level of destabilizing misery as the ones they replaced.  Often, too often, they turn out to be a lot worse.  And when the West doesn't intervene they are labeled all kinds of negative things because they "let it happen" (at best) or "want it to happen" (at worse).

The West, especially the US, is in a position where it is never right and can never be right.

Now, if the West, in particular the US, were better at nation building... maybe things would be different.  Sadly, the West, and the US in particular, absolutely sucks at it.  Though in its defense, the only right way to nation build is to completely and utterly remove all local control from the native population and only hand it back in 10-30 years (depending on circumstances) when the locals are capable of maintaining a new way of life.  Try and tell me that's something that the West, especially the US, would be allowed to do

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

42 minutes ago, hattori said:

Please, please, please, I am already in enough trouble to taking us off topic.  Immigration is something we should avoid, I really should have thought of a better example.

Yes, immigration issues are not relevant and almost definitely prone to inflamed discussion.  That's going to get this thread locked up.  I think that would be a shame, so let's not let that happen.

Steve

[hattori]

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And as events have proven over the last few years, Eastern Europe was right to ask for protection and NATO was right to provide it.

You say things like it's a statement of fact, when it's not.  I actually disagree with this.  I think part of Putin's appeal to the Russians was the fact that he stood up to what the Russians perceived as constant disrespect from the West.  They are proud, and don't particularly like to be told what to do.  Change doesn't come quickly.  The Russians were used to being a top dog, and then they weren't overnight.  I actually think we blew an ENORMOUS opportunity to extend our soft power by not pushing Russia, but by demonstrating how awesome the west is and how right they were to get rid of their old government.  

Sometimes it is difficult to be the bigger person.

20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What Russia is doing is both logical and necessary from it's perspective.

Exactly!  So why are you so obsessed with getting Vlad to say you are right, and he is wrong?  From his point of view, he is right, you will never convince him otherwise. 

Your constant battered wife analogies are getting ridiculous as well (and I imagine downright insulting to any Russian reading this).  It's utterly simplistic and I expect better of you.

40 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

the activities of the West are irrelevant completely and utterly.

Again, I believe you to be totally wrong in this.  That would be ignoring all of cold war history.  The west is constantly reacting to the east's actions and vice versa.

Perhaps an analogy that works for me is giving your kid a ton of candy.  While there is no excuse for the likely ensuing hyper temper tantrum, I do have to realize had I not given the candy, there likely would not have been a temper tantrum in the first place.  We are not responsible for Ukraine, but we did have a hand in ratcheting up tensions and making Russia feel it's back was against the wall.

I dunno.  To use your examples, if I go up to the drunk wife beater and say, "hey your wife is cheating on you", I certainly don't have any responsibility for the assault itself, but in a way, I did contribute to it happening.

 

[hattori]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And if the West tries to stay and straighten out the messes they make, they are called Imperialists.

Well yes, obviously.  Put yourself in their shoes.  They are really, really, really pissed about the mess in the first place.

 

22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And when the West doesn't intervene they are labeled all kinds of negative things because they "let it happen" (at best) or "want it to happen" (at worse).

I think I would need an example where a population was angry America didn't send their army over.  Perhaps I'm just thick today.  I could see maybe ... not contributing enough to U.N. peacekeeping missions maybe?  Not getting involved in Rwanda?  A lot of people in the world see America as saying they stand for freedom and democracy and rights for places that mean something to them, but not backing up the talk if they are in places that America has no interest in -- I could totally see people being mad at "you did X for that country, why not me too?"  

 

[cool breeze]

6 minutes ago, hattori said:

Again, I believe you to be totally wrong in this.  That would be ignoring all of cold war history.  The west is constantly reacting to the east's actions and vice versa.

Perhaps an analogy that works for me is giving your kid a ton of candy.  While there is no excuse for the likely ensuing hyper temper tantrum, I do have to realize had I not given the candy, there likely would not have been a temper tantrum in the first place.  We are not responsible for Ukraine, but we did have a hand in ratcheting up tensions and making Russia feel it's back was against the wall.

 

 

 

Yup.

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Of course it should be.  In fact, it never should have started in the first place.  But if only unstable, despotic regimes (and I include Pakistan in this mix) have nukes then someone more stable and less despotic should also have nukes to balance the equation.  Sucks that it has to be that way, but reality sucks sometimes.

Steve

I believe strongly in the right to self defense.  And that means to me the right to defend ones selves with the weapons of the age, modern weapons.  For individuals that means guns, for nations that means tanks, and planes, and ships, and submarines,.... and namely Nukes.  But just like an individual doesn't need a whole closet full of guns and thousands of rounds for self defense (although there is nothing wrong with having it!  feel free to invite me out shooting )  a nation doesn't normally need 10s of nation destroying salvos of nuclear missiles for self defense. 

But the cold war was different.  As I said people have a right to self defense, and the American people were faced with the existential threat of both world wide communism, and nuclear annihilation.  So right or wrong we were justified to make such a huge armament of nukes, and sort of even justified to make the CIA the huge out of control beast sowing chaos and destruction world wide.  We had to fight the commies all over the world by any means necessary.  But once the USSR collapsed and we won it was no longer justified to keep those things going.  The fact that we did keep them going basically full throttle gives the Russian populace very legitimate reason to feel like we are still going for that unconditional surrender we always wanted. 

[cool breeze]

Ok this is a little silly but has anyone here read Dune?  They have a very stable seeming system for nuclear control.  Every Great House (basically nation)  has a secret stash of nuclear missiles.  The Houses war with each other regularly, but the wars never go nuclear because the Houses all have an agreement that if anyone shoots any nukes at anyone, everyone nukes them to glassify their planet/ all their planets.  But non of the houses have enough nukes to individually nuke the planets of ALL of the Houses.  No reason for them to even be able to glassify a single planet by themselves.  There is nothing wrong with needing multiple countries to use their nukes together in order to wipe out most of the populace of just one nation.

[VladimirTarasov]

Nukes are not going anywhere for a while, I don't think one should be worried about Russia's or America's nuclear arsenal but more so of countries like North Korea, but even then I highly doubt they would ever use nukes. Russia wont use nukes unless her territories are in grave danger, or for retaliation purposes. Same reasons with the USA. Considering the fact Russia is not going to threat US land or vice versa there shouldn't be too much worries about nukes.

I'd say what has to be worried about is the fairness of incorporating MAD. Placing ABM shields in other territories close to Russia for example kind of threatens MAD, and offers other capabilities to NATO for example. There isn't much Russia can do against this but it still isn't pleasant and it just adds more tension. Not that strategic nukes will IMO ever be used after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

41 minutes ago, hattori said:

You say things like it's a statement of fact, when it's not.  I actually disagree with this.  I think part of Putin's appeal to the Russians was the fact that he stood up to what the Russians perceived as constant disrespect from the West.  They are proud, and don't particularly like to be told what to do.  Change doesn't come quickly.  The Russians were used to being a top dog, and then they weren't overnight.  I actually think we blew an ENORMOUS opportunity to extend our soft power by not pushing Russia, but by demonstrating how awesome the west is and how right they were to get rid of their old government.  

Sometimes it is difficult to be the bigger person.

This is extremely naive.  For the most part the West DID try these things.  The Rest that Obama is much criticized for now happened after Russia invaded Georgia, for example.  Germany's industries invested HEAVILY in Russia.  All of NATO's countries decreased their spending and the US even withdrew all of its armor from Europe.  And what happened?  Russia shut of gas in the middle of winter to Europe, it cyber attacked Estonia, it took a chunk of Georgia for its own, it increased funding of far right and left political parties in Europe, it bought Snowden, etc.

When someone is repeatedly confronted by a bully, backing down isn't being the "bigger person" it is being foolish.

41 minutes ago, hattori said:

Exactly!  So why are you so obsessed with getting Vlad to say you are right, and he is wrong?

I am also obsessed with the notion that a man doesn't have the right to abuse his wife.  Should I stop taking that position because the wife beater isn't interested?

With Vald we are mostly arguing about facts.  Facts, not opinions.  Vlad is wrong about so many facts, yet he feels it's fine to keep repeating them.  They need to be challenged.  I've had "interesting" debates in person with people like the two guys who thought that Clinton was going to hand the US over to the UN when the Millennium Bug hit in 2000.  They had "papers to prove it" and one of the guy's wife at one point in the 1970s worked with computers, so he knew what was happening.  I suppose I should have just walked away from that one, eh?

41 minutes ago, hattori said:

Your constant battered wife analogies are getting ridiculous as well (and I imagine downright insulting to any Russian reading this).  It's utterly simplistic and I expect better of you.

 I posit the reason you don't like it is because it is effective.  Therefore, I will continue to use it until you take the time to show me the error of my analogy instead of just dismissing it.

41 minutes ago, hattori said:

Again, I believe you to be totally wrong in this.  That would be ignoring all of cold war history.  The west is constantly reacting to the east's actions and vice versa.

Of course, but the West's actions in now way shape or form forced/obligated Russia to attack Ukraine, annex its territory, and lie about it.  That's 100% all on Russia.  Even why they did it has nothing directly to do with the West, but more directly to do with Putin holding onto authoritarian power. 

41 minutes ago, hattori said:

Perhaps an analogy that works for me is giving your kid a ton of candy.  While there is no excuse for the likely ensuing hyper temper tantrum, I do have to realize had I not given the candy, there likely would not have been a temper tantrum in the first place.  We are not responsible for Ukraine, but we did have a hand in ratcheting up tensions and making Russia feel it's back was against the wall.

So you are saying that Russia is childlike and has absolutely no will, no wisdom, no knowledge, or no incentive to do anything other than stuff it's face with whatever is put in front of it?  Yesh

Seriously, your analogy absolves the child of responsibility because it is a child and the one handing him the candy is an adult.  Do you really think that Russia is a child or do you acknowledge that it is an adult?  If you acknowledge that it is an adult, then you should not expect it to behave like a child, should you?  In legal terms we would say that's not a very strong defense.

41 minutes ago, hattori said:

I dunno.  To use your examples, if I go up to the drunk wife beater and say, "hey your wife is cheating on you", I certainly don't have any responsibility for the assault itself, but in a way, I did contribute to it happening.

Sure, but how is that relevant?  A more relevant example would be going to the wife and saying "you know you don't have to put up with him.  You can leave him and get help, but you do have to leave."  Yes, to a degree there is some responsibility when the husband comes back, hears she's going to leave, and beats the snot out of her.  But morally, it's right to tell her she can leave and that she doesn't have to be a punching bag.  You seem to think nobody should lift a finger to help her.  That's not the world I want to live in.

28 minutes ago, hattori said:

Well yes, obviously.  Put yourself in their shoes.  They are really, really, really pissed about the mess in the first place.

Yup, they sure are.  However, they don't seem to be doing a very good job of righting those wrongs on their own, are they now?  In some people's thinking the West has a moral obligation to straighten things out since it was largely responsible for creating the mess.  Which is why the West can't just sit around and do nothing without taking a lot of heat.

28 minutes ago, hattori said:

I think I would need an example where a population was angry America didn't send their army over.  Perhaps I'm just thick today.  I could see maybe ... not contributing enough to U.N. peacekeeping missions maybe?  Not getting involved in Rwanda?

Yup, those are just some that come to mind.  But there's tons more where OTHER people got mad at the US for not doing something earlier.  That's the point I'm making.  The people getting oppressed by regimes look to the US (and others) to help them, or do you not think that is the case?

28 minutes ago, hattori said:

A lot of people in the world see America as saying they stand for freedom and democracy and rights for places that mean something to them, but not backing up the talk if they are in places that America has no interest in -- I could totally see people being mad at "you did X for that country, why not me too?"  

Which is why the US is always damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.  If it doesn't get involved it gets blamed, if it does get involved it gets blamed.  If it tries and fails it gets blamed.   There is absolutely no way the US, or the West in general, can behave that won't come with significant amount of criticism.

Steve

[VladimirTarasov]

22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is extremely naive.  For the most part the West DID try these things.  The Rest that Obama is much criticized for now happened after Russia invaded Georgia, for example. 

Georgia did not attack Russian peacekeepers in the region? And invade South Osettia first? Let's mention those minor details first. Seriously it's as if you ignore anything Russian and go by that countries claims. I'm well versed with the conflict in Georgia. Our peacekeepers were attacked first, and in response Russia invaded Georgia. 

22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

it cyber attacked Estonia

No proof, but since Russia has lied about intervening in Donbas, of course we also cyber attacked Estonia, the same way there was a phantom submarine off the coast of Sweden.

22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Vlad is wrong about so many facts, yet he feels it's fine to keep repeating them.

I've provided many facts, and agreed to your facts. Yet you overlook obvious reasoning sometimes. But anyways we've been over that too much.

22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

They had "papers to prove it" and one of the guy's wife at one point in the 1970s worked with computers, so he knew what was happening.  I suppose I should have just walked away from that one, eh?

Jesus Christ, you're not saying I'm comparable to him now are you?

22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Of course, but the West's actions in now way shape or form forced/obligated Russia to attack Ukraine, annex its territory, and lie about it.  That's 100% all on Russia.  Even why they did it has nothing directly to do with the West, but more directly to do with Putin holding onto authoritarian power. 

Or maybe acting out of geopolitical gains, and not only limited to that, but anyways I'm getting tired of repeating the word "justified" because in your case you believe that Russians had a say in the Ukrainian crisis right up to the ousting of the government. You bring up corruption which is correct Yanukovich had a corrupt government in certain areas and it was far from perfect, but again you're still ignoring the millions of Russians (living in Ukraine) who've hadn't a say in the country they've been living in for centuries. So Russia "illegally" takes control over Crimea with the support of the people, and allows the voting process to happen, even if the voting process was rigged (let's assume it was for your case) Crimeans are totally happy with joining the Russian Federation, and this cannot be denied. Ukrainians are probably not happy with losing Crimea, but I'm very sure that Russians weren't happy for what happened in Kiev without their part in it. 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by VladimirTarasov

[JUAN DEAG]

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Georgia did not attack Russian peacekeepers in the region? And invade South Osettia first? Let's mention those minor details first. Seriously it's as if you ignore anything Russian and go by that countries claims. I'm well versed with the conflict in Georgia. Our peacekeepers were attacked first, and in response Russia invaded Georgia.

What were Russian "peacekeepers" doing on Georgian territory uninvited? Why did Russia carve of a piece of Georgia that no one but Russia recognizes? Let's mention those minor details first.

3 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Or maybe acting out of geopolitical gains, and not only limited to that, but anyways I'm getting tired of repeating the word "justified" because in your case you believe that Russians had a say in the Ukrainian crisis right up to the ousting of the government. You bring up corruption which is correct Yanukovich had a corrupt government in certain areas and it was far from perfect, but again you're still ignoring the millions of Russians (living in Ukraine) who've hadn't a say in the country they've been living in for centuries. So Russia "illegally" takes control over Crimea with the support of the people, and allows the voting process to happen, even if the voting process was rigged (let's assume it was for your case) Crimeans are totally happy with joining the Russian Federation, and this cannot be denied. Ukrainians are probably not happy with losing Crimea, but I'm very sure that Russians weren't happy for what happened in Kiev without their part in it.

So you'd be 100% chill with China just rolling in with tanks and taking Northeastern Manchuria (Amur, Khabarovsk, Primorskiy Krai, Sakhalin, and Jewish Autonomous Republic) from Russia provided that the Chinese sponsored referendum votes are only somewhat rigged and the Manchurians are fine with it?

They would only be "securing" it as you like to call it.

Edited September 17, 2016 by JUAN DEAG

[VladimirTarasov]

3 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

What were Russian "peacekeepers" doing on Georgian territory uninvited? Why did Russia carve of a piece of Georgia that no one but Russia recognizes? Let's mention those minor details first.

Carve off a piece of Georgia? You don't seem to know the history of the region. Osettians and Georgians have been at it long before we came to stabilize the region. Beside that fact, there are many evidence providing through the ethnic battles between them even when Georgia attacked that murders on behalf of the Georgians have taken place. But of course Russia automatically carves it off it comes to stabilize the region. But anyways poor understanding of the conflicts history plus ignorance does it's role. 

6 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

So you'd be 100% chill with China just rolling in with tanks and taking Northeastern Manchuria (Amur, Khabarovsk, Primorskiy Krai, Sakhalin, and Jewish Autonomous Republic) from Russia provided that the Chinese sponsored referendum votes are only somewhat rigged and the Manchurians are fine with it?

What the freak does that have to do with anything, Russia does not discriminate against any of those regions, they all get a say in the country, so there is no justification for it. Chinese have no claims in the region anyways, maybe the Chinese businessmen plus the illegals they can come to referendum lol!!!!

8 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Russia has lied about more.

Russia lies but so does the West, when Russia and the West lie on the same subject it leads to a cluster F of information that gets mixed together. It leads to false arguments, false tensions, and also supports one side for either case. I like to look at this conflict from the Russian perspective, and that being my people who've been living in Ukraine for centuries was totally ignored and the selfish majority of central Ukraine ousted the whole government system. Yes Yanukovich had many issues to solve, however that doesn't give Ukrainians the rights to install illegal governments over the night without the say of the rest of the people. Especially when John McCain like guys come and shake hands with ultra nationalists, as well as install deeply anti-Russian figures as head of state. There are countless of videos showing anti-Russian stuff going on, if only it would be against the Russian government, it's against Russian people. Soviet statues being brought down, Banderist groups, many more important issues. Russia secured its geopolitical goals, the revolts were in no way or form "free" in fact it destroyed the whole country. 

If Ukraine's government relied solely on Crimea and Donbas (they have 9% negative growth in economy) then they should have thought about it before abusing Russian rights. And that's my final case for this. What else can I say? You want me to make believe stuff? Russia annexed Crimea with majority support, the same way Ukrainians threw out their government with their support. A rebellion in Donbas started, instead of listening to the people's will, an ATO was opened. In counter to that Russia has supported the DPR/LPR. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

K.  So  I think I'm going to bounce on this one.  I'm going to leave a final bit of input, if we start talking tanks and stuff again I might swing on by, but:

1. Nothing the rest of the world has done changes the lack of legitimacy of Russia's actions.

    The Russian argument gets back to "well someone ELSE did something wrong, so we get to do wrong things too."  This usually involves stuff like comparing apples to electron flux capacitor level assessments.  The fact Russia invaded its neighbor unprovoked, illegally, lied about it, continued to lie about its role in killing hundreds if not thousands of people (including a few hundred innocent third party civilians), to serve only its own interests is reprehesible.  It is just as wrong as if the US invasion of Iraq had merely been taking everyone age 6 months through 18 and feeding them into a wood chipper, it just wouldn't have the same infamy level.  

  There is no legitimate defense of Russia's actions unless you hold strictly what's good for Russia and Russia alone is the moral imperative.  

2. The involvement of NATO and the EU in Eastern Europe is entirely by invitation, and the people of Eastern Europe have a right to choose their allegiances and orientations freely.

  The people of Eastern Europe have been trod on by literally every empire to pass through Europe, from Mongols, to Ottomen, to Tsarist Russians, Nazis, and Soviets.  They have through these nearly apocalyptic events, survived and endured with their own distinct cultures.    The Ukraine is not Russia's.  It is the Ukrainian people's.  Russia has no right to Estonia.  Equally so does Russia have the right to command its own destiny, but that right ends at its internationally recognized borders.  If you hold Iraq was wrong, then Russia is equally wrong for its crimes.  If you hold that Iraq was righteous, then Iraq was done overtly, with international review, with as much cooperation of the Iraqi people as possible.  The Russian invasion of the Ukraine involved none of these things.

3. NATO's presence in Eastern Europe is a reflection of Russia's threat to the freedom of Eastern Europe, not the Western World's threat to Russia.

  Simply and bluntly, NATO is a Europe focused defensive alliance, to ensure collective security in the event of an external attack.  NATO will only prove to be a threat to Russia, if Russia first brings violence to NATO.  

4. Russia is wasting its potential.

  Russians are not dumb.  They are not incapable of good.  They have worked wonders, and brought beauty in this world at times.  This wonder and good was smothered under the corruption of the Czars, then the false proletariat revolution of the Soviets (to a degree often exceeding the excesses of the Nazis), and now is being wasted to build more guns for a war no one wants, to bring suffering to people who SHOULD be Russia's logical allies if Russia would only treat them like actual humans instead of serfs or property.

One of the greatest tragedies of history is the industry, intelligence, and artistry of the Russian people have been wasted by Russian leaders.  Perhaps one day, there will finally be a Russian leader worthy of Russians.  But now, there is not.  And each Armata clattering to a stop at a parade is just one more bit of future stolen from the Russian people.  Each bomb sent screaming into a block full of Syrian children is a betrayal of the goodness of the Russian people.  Russia's leadership is digging the Russian people's graves, and telling them it's a fortress.  

*edited because I hit submit early

Edited September 17, 2016 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[sburke]

12 hours ago, hattori said:

I have no doubt Poland wanted it, Poland is very anti Russia, with good reason.  Again, that is irrelevant.  Poland is a minor player, the real power brokers are the U.S. and Russia, and the U.S. did not care any longer what Russia might think or how they might react.  If you remember, the U.S. did not take too kindly to Russia planting missiles in Cuba, even though Cuba wanted them there.

 

Russia was putting nuclear missiles in Cuba not an anti missile defense.  I think your example doesn't quite support what you are trying to argue.

[JUAN DEAG]

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Carve off a piece of Georgia? You don't seem to know the history of the region. Osettians and Georgians have been at it long before we came to stabilize the region. Beside that fact, there are many evidence providing through the ethnic battles between them even when Georgia attacked that murders on behalf of the Georgians have taken place. But of course Russia automatically carves it off it comes to stabilize the region. But anyways poor understanding of the conflicts history plus ignorance does it's role. 

Damn! I just got roasted!

[JUAN DEAG]

xD

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Georgia did not attack Russian peacekeepers in the region? And invade South Osettia first? Let's mention those minor details first. Seriously it's as if you ignore anything Russian and go by that countries claims. I'm well versed with the conflict in Georgia. Our peacekeepers were attacked first, and in response Russia invaded Georgia. 

I understand the conflict quite well.  Besides Russia already having "peace keepers" in place in sovereign Georgian soil to start with, Russia tried for years to provoke a war with Georgia.  There is much documentation of this happening, which is dismissed by Russians as being lies.  Except that the documentation took place BEFORE the Russian invasion.  Georgia's problem was it took the bait.  Which is why the brand new Kiev government said, as Russian forces outrlght illegally invaded their territory, that it wasn't going to be the same fools that Georgia was.  And as hard as Putin tried to get an armed conflict to start in Crimea, Ukraine did not take the bait.  This completely and utterly upset the Russian plans for a broader war with Ukraine.

We've had this discussion before, I've shown you evidence of Russia's deliberate attempts to provoke an armed conflict in Crimea, and I can dig up a link to the dozens of Russian provocations prior to the Georgian War.  I can also probably find the intelligence analysis that shows that Russian forces moved started deploying 5 days before Georgia attacked.

Quote

No proof, but since Russia has lied about intervening in Donbas, of course we also cyber attacked Estonia, the same way there was a phantom submarine off the coast of Sweden.

And here we go into the concept of "proof" again.  The attack absolutely happened, that's indisputable (unless Estonia just hit the OFF button and then blamed Russia, of course).  Proof of cyber attacks is beyond yours and my comprehension.  I'm content with the independent and governmental assessments that Russia launched the attack.  I am absolutely not impressed by Russian denials of involvement.  The Russian government has zero credibility.  That's what happens to a government that lies so boldly, so consistently, and so poorly over such a long period of time.

Quote

I've provided many facts, and agreed to your facts. Yet you overlook obvious reasoning sometimes. But anyways we've been over that too much.

I've never overlooked anything.  I've always addressed everything you've presented.  And without breaking a sweat either.

Quote

Jesus Christ, you're not saying I'm comparable to him now are you?

No, not at all!  I think you're wrong about a lot of things, but I do not think you are mentally defective like the guys I was talking about.  My point is that when presented with something that I view as false I challenge it.  The charge leveled against me (and others) is that one should not challenge things which one disagrees with, but instead ignore them.  At least that's what I perceived the suggestion to be.

Quote

Or maybe acting out of geopolitical gains, and not only limited to that, but anyways I'm getting tired of repeating the word "justified" because in your case you believe that Russians had a say in the Ukrainian crisis right up to the ousting of the government. You bring up corruption which is correct Yanukovich had a corrupt government in certain areas and it was far from perfect, but again you're still ignoring the millions of Russians (living in Ukraine) who've hadn't a say in the country they've been living in for centuries.

No, millions of Ukrainians didn't have say.  Ethnic and cultural ties were not relevant under Yanuvkovych in terms of representation.  What was relevant was not causing a problem for his regime.  It didn't matter if you were ethnic Ukrainian or ethnic Russian.  Though it is true that ethnic Russians did generally support the autocratic and corrupt leadership of Yanukovych because they bought into Moscow broadcasted fear mongering that they would otherwise be denied basic rights.  Something that I think many ethnic Russians living in Ukraine are coming to question, at least a little.

Plus, this implies that ethnic Russians living in Donbas have a say in what is going on now.  They clearly do not.  But instead of possibly having their interests ignored by Kiev, they are instead definitely suffering because of Moscow.

Quote

o Russia "illegally" takes control over Crimea with the support of the people, and allows the voting process to happen, even if the voting process was rigged (let's assume it was for your case) Crimeans are totally happy with joining the Russian Federation, and this cannot be denied.

Correction... a portion of the Crimean population is happy with joining the Russian Federation.  The Tatars are certainly not happy as a group, and they represent 20% of the population.  Which has something to do with the fact that they are now being systematically discriminated against and repressed in a way NO ethnic Russian ever was under any Ukrainian government.  And then there's the 20% or so Ukrainians who probably didn't want to join Russia, plus the (probably small) portion of the ethnic Russians that didn't want to become a part of Russia.  But yeah, besides them all Crimeans are happy to have been illegally invaded, forced to hold an illegal referendum by gunpoint, and are thrilled that their votes didn't matter because the vote was rigged.

I've said this since Russia's invasion... Russia could have played things much smarter.  It had already built up a strong pro-Russian organization in Crimea.  It had the cooperation of Crimean organized criminals (which now run Crimea, BTW), and it had the unrest in Kiev.  It could have pushed for some sort of internationally recognized referendum, possibly after provoking a stupid armed response by Ukrainian government forces, and wound up with 65% vote in favor of joining Russia.  If it had done this there's a very good chance that Crimea would be an internationally recognized part of Russia.  But no... Russia didn't have the self confidence it could pull that off, so instead it sent in is armed forces and settled things by way of force.  Which is why the annexation of Crimea is absolutely illegitimate and always will be for pretty much everybody but Russia.

Quote

Ukrainians are probably not happy with losing Crimea, but I'm very sure that Russians weren't happy for what happened in Kiev without their part in it. 

This might be true.  Crimea is a net drag on any national economy that oversees it.  The degree of criminal enterprise is significant and, now thanks to Russia, in control of the local government.  The majority of people in Crimea pretty much for sure want to be a part of Russia.  With the exception of national pride and the 30-40% of the population which are being actively persecuted, I'm guessing most Ukrainians would be glad to be rid of Crimea provided Russia pay the Ukrainian government for all the infrastructure it stole.  However, not the way Russia went about things.  Especially because of Donbas.  Now we're stuck with the understandable reality that Ukraine wants to make Russia pay for its crimes, and therefore it will contest the theft of Crimea even if it might otherwise be happy to get rid of it.  Which is, again, why Russia totally blew it by using force when it could have wound up with Crimea through other means.

Steve

[HerrTom]

I think there's also some historical mistrust and confusion arising from an agreement that may or may not have happened after the dissolution of the USSR.  Supposedly, NATO promised that further expansion Eastwards was not on the table, in order to placate Russian concerns at the time. NATO of course officially denies that this happened.  Who really knows?

We all agree that Russia is acting in her own self interest, but in the view of the Kremlin, the situation is just the latest in the string of alignments and stepping stones to surrounding Russia with an alliance specifically orientated against it.  In the world of Realpolitik, Russia's actions make total sense.  Now, I'm not condoning anything, but it's not like this was wholly unexpected.  Perhaps in all this whataboutism, a closer parallel to what happened in Ukraine is the Suez Crisis, except that Russia actually succeeded in its immediate goals and nuclear war wasn't threatened.

In the grand scheme of things, I think that pointing a finger at the Kremlin and saying that they're solely responsible for all the hardship is extreme.  Everyone has their fingers in the pie.  In broad strokes, it's hard to pretend that the EU doesn't see Ukraine as a big new market only to sell to as they struggle to retool their factories and farms to EU standards.  The Ukrainian ATO was heavyhanded at best to start, and the oligarchs forming the new government are hardly better than the old ones.  Add in a foreign sponsored uprising, and you've got quite the muddy cocktail.  In the end, Russia may have lit the match, but everyone else had already dumped the benzin everywhere.  And it certainly is clear that no one, least of all the Kremlin, expected the fire to be as big as it is.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

4. Russia is wasting its potential.

  Russians are not dumb.  They are not incapable of good.  They have worked wonders, and brought beauty in this world at times.  This wonder and good was smothered under the corruption of the Czars, then the false proletariat revolution of the Soviets (to a degree often exceeding the excesses of the Nazis), and now is being wasted to build more guns for a war no one wants, to bring suffering to people who SHOULD be Russia's logical allies if Russia would only treat them like actual humans instead of serfs or property.

One of the greatest tragedies of history is the industry, intelligence, and artistry of the Russian people have been wasted by Russian leaders.  Perhaps one day, there will finally be a Russian leader worthy of Russians.  But now, there is not.  And each Armata clattering to a stop at a parade is just one more bit of future stolen from the Russian people.  Each bomb sent screaming into a block full of Syrian children is a betrayal of the goodness of the Russian people.  Russia's leadership is digging the Russian people's graves, and telling them it's a fortress. 

I want to highlight this.  There are accusations of "Russia bashing" made here in this thread from time to time.  This is complete nonsense.  In a way some of us, me included, are in a way more pro-Russian than anything else.  What we are not is pro-Putin or pro-autocratic Russian governance.  The charges that people in the West try to keep Russia down because they don't want competition don't understand the West.  That's crap.  We LIKE competition.  The amount of stuff we Westerners own that is not made in our own countries is proof of that.

Russia holds the potential to be a massively positive part of the world's economy and, by extension, the West's.  It could produce things of high quality, it could offer higher learning institutions that Westerners would gladly pay huge amounts of money to attend, it could provide tourist destinations that would rival the best in Europe, it could produce new consumer products that no Western company even thought of, it could help make the world safer for the next generation, it could contribute to helping China continue down the road of cooperation instead of confrontation, it could help combat Islamic extremism without making it worse, it could... well, it could do a huge number of things which it isn't currently doing because it's too busy doing exactly the opposite.  It seems that Westerners are more saddened and upset by the waste of Russian talents and energy more than the Russians are.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

20 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I think there's also some historical mistrust and confusion arising from an agreement that may or may not have happened after the dissolution of the USSR.  Supposedly, NATO promised that further expansion Eastwards was not on the table, in order to placate Russian concerns at the time. NATO of course officially denies that this happened.  Who really knows?

 

I lied.  Since this keeps coming up as either gospel truth there was an agreement, or it's implied there was something said under the table.  

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

During discussing the final disposition of Germany, it was agreed to not put NATO forces into the former GDR, place limits on forces in Germany from all parties, etc, etc.  And that agreement was totally and completely followed in good faith. 

However when this agreement was made in 1990, neither the USSR, or NATO envisioned a post Soviet world, indeed the assumption was more that Germany was now sorted out, and the Warsaw Pact would motor on without the GDR and Germany on a whole would be significantly more demilitarized.  No agreement was made to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe because frankly at that time, it'd be about the same as promising to respect Byzantine Empire submarine's right of passage through the panama canal.  

There's reason to argue that NATO may have not respected the spirit of the agreement, in so many words, that the USSR was entitled to some breathing room from NATO, but that's interpreting events well after the fact.  However there was no barrier, legal or otherwise for the successor government to the former communist block nations to apply for and gain NATO membership under existing processes.  

As with many things, history is full of unforeseen consequences, and the end of the Cold War had very many of those.  

[Battlefront.com]

50 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I think there's also some historical mistrust and confusion arising from an agreement that may or may not have happened after the dissolution of the USSR.  Supposedly, NATO promised that further expansion Eastwards was not on the table, in order to placate Russian concerns at the time. NATO of course officially denies that this happened.  Who really knows?

The people that were there negotiating, including Gorbachev, know.  And they all say that such assurances were never made.  I'm not aware of Gorbachev being on the CIA payroll, so I think it's pretty safe to presume he's telling the truth.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Quote

We all agree that Russia is acting in her own self interest, but in the view of the Kremlin, the situation is just the latest in the string of alignments and stepping stones to surrounding Russia with an alliance specifically orientated against it.

No, it's an defensive alliance against any threat.  Be it a civil war in the Balkans or a terrorist haven in Afghanistan, it doesn't matter who it is it only matters if it is threatening or not.  Because Russia *IS* going out of its way to be a threat, obviously NATO is taking steps to ensure it's member states are secure from the most real threat.  Especially one that is historically proven to be a threat.  Which is why there's not some big scramble to keep NATO countries safe from Belarus or Sri Lanka.

Quote

In the world of Realpolitik, Russia's actions make total sense.  Now, I'm not condoning anything, but it's not like this was wholly unexpected.  Perhaps in all this whataboutism, a closer parallel to what happened in Ukraine is the Suez Crisis, except that Russia actually succeeded in its immediate goals and nuclear war wasn't threatened.

Nobody who has half a brain is surprised by Russia's actions and reactions.  Just like I wasn't surprised when Russia was invading Ukraine.  I understand pretty well what makes Russia tick, and what NATO does isn't very relevant to it's behavior pattern.  In fact, a few pages ago I posted some evidence that Russia doesn't even consider NATO a threat in reality because it's moving forces away from NATO confrontation and instead massing it on the Ukrainian border.

NATO is a red herring.

Quote

In the grand scheme of things, I think that pointing a finger at the Kremlin and saying that they're solely responsible for all the hardship is extreme.

No, it's accurate.  There would be no war in Ukraine if Russia hadn't invaded.  Russia supplies all the ammunition that is being shot at Ukrainian forces.  Russia provides all the weapons that are shooting those rounds of ammo.  Russia is providing a fair amount of the personnel using those weapons and that ammo.  Russia is training them how to use the ammo and weapons.  More importantly, Russia is in operational command of those forces using Russian weapons and Russian ammo to shoot at Ukrainian forces.  Oh, and it also provides Russian Armed Forces whenever it feels the "local" forces aren't good enough to kill Ukrainians.

By contrast, Nuland handed out some cookies and some NGOs informed Ukrainians about the rule of law and how to monitor elections to ensure they are fair.  Yup, I'd say Russia and the West are totally on even footing.

There is absolutely no way, none, to legally or morally excuse Russia's behavior or to shift blame to anybody other than Russia.  Realpolitik is an acknowledgement that there is no justification for something, not an excuse to murder thousands of people in another country to serve ones own goals.

Quote

Everyone has their fingers in the pie.  In broad strokes, it's hard to pretend that the EU doesn't see Ukraine as a big new market only to sell to as they struggle to retool their factories and farms to EU standards.

Of course, but so what?  Ukraine should have the option to go that direction if it wants and not have its territory stolen and destroyed for not picking to go with a different option.

Quote

The Ukrainian ATO was heavyhanded at best to start, and the oligarchs forming the new government are hardly better than the old ones.

Incorrect on both counts.  The ATO wouldn't exist without a Russian invasion.  The competency of the Ukrainian response to Russian aggression is something that can be discussed, but we have to keep in mind that the Ukrainian military was deliberately kept in a poor state of readiness to both appease Russia and to provide a means of graft for the Russian approved Ukrainian leadership.  It's not surprising that their response wasn't stellar, but it is a surprise to me that it was as good as it was.  It is also a relief that it wasn't even remotely close to the response Russia had for Chechens.  The "heavy handeded" Ukrainian response was like a light slap compared to the Russian military response to Chechnya's bid for independence.

As for political change, there is ample evidence that things are FINALLY changing in Ukraine.  Slowly, unevenly, and sometimes counter productively... however there has been more real change in the last 2 years than the past 20 years combined.  That doesn't mean there isn't still a long way to go, it just means that it's finally started down that road.

Quote

Add in a foreign sponsored uprising, and you've got quite the muddy cocktail.

I agree that the Russian sponsored takeover of Crimea and the Russian sponsored uprisings in the East do make things worse.  Oh wait, you were probably implying that the Maidan was foreign sponsored?  Well, that's simply untrue unless you mean that millions of Ukrainians were inspired by the West to stand up for themselves.  That evil West, always putting such dangerous ideas into people's heads.  They should be ashamed of themselves!

Quote

In the end, Russia may have lit the match, but everyone else had already dumped the benzin everywhere.

No.  Russia poured the benzine, lit the match, and blamed it on everybody else but itself.  In fact, Russia is saying that there was no benzine in the first place, but rather Ukraine spontaneously combusted.  And it put a green globule on a seat to prove it (yes, that is a cultural reference!).

Quote

And it certainly is clear that no one, least of all the Kremlin, expected the fire to be as big as it is.

Er... did you read the backstory to Black Sea?  We wrote that 2-3 years before Putin invaded Ukraine.  So if we expected it I'm sure others did too.  I also expected the housing bubble to collapse starting in about 2003 and I expected it to be really bad when it did. The key to not being surprised is to pay attention to what's going on while it is going on.

Russia's war of aggression towards Ukraine is both logical and predictable to anybody who understands Russian history and the current Russian government.  A Russian speaking democracy on Russia's border is more of a threat to Russia than anything else short of another major civil war in Chechnya.  Therefore, no matter what... the minute Ukraine decided it didn't want to be Russia's play thing is the minute before Russia would invade.  NATO doesn't even come into play.

Steve