Thoughts on Ukraine

[Hestia]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is very true, and undeniable. But the rest of your narrative outside this post breaks down. As I've pointed out for three posts, and in two previous threads, Ukraine is not helpless, and does not have a weak or small or poorly-trained military, and Russia, by nature, is severely hamstrung in what resources they can bring to bear. Also, Ukraine, has prepared for this war for almost eight years - AT LEAST - they are not flat-footed, and do not lack a plan of defense. Plus, you seem, along with a few others, here, seem to support a, "mandate," (from some mysterious, nebulous provinence) to use military power constantly to end tyranny, invasions, and atrocities, or so it would seem. But such a mandate is impossible to fulfill, especially when the U.S. government picks and chooses based on politics, even back, arms, and funds certain nations guilty of doing the same, and does the same from time to time themselves, and all the, "national security acts," due to this policy create a, "creeping tyranny," at home. Can't you understand why I am dubious of Western government motives here, and cynical of the resolution of this incident, like so many others before it?

Ukraine is not helpless. I've been one of them that is consistently saying that Ukraine is going to give Russia a bloodier nose than they think they will. 40 Million people is not insignificant, their army has vastly improved from 2014. That does not negate the fact that Russia has 3x the population of Ukraine and has been obviously preparing for war in ways that Ukraine hasn't. Russian forces are pooling inside Belarus that leave Kiev vulnerable. That said, the Ukrainian people are motivated and are clearly willing to fight for their country.

You continue to put words in my mouth. I never said that we should get involved militarily in Ukraine. In my response to jvikings, I said that the US should provide as much lethal aid as possible to Ukraine (anti-aircraft, missile defense systems, ammunition, etc.), as well as diplomatic and economic heft to back them up. 

In the end, this is about Ukraine's right to choose what future they want. In 2014, they chose the direction they wanted to take. Russia wants to stop them from making their own choices because they know that Ukraine won't bend to their whims anymore. 

Please do not patronize me by saying my narrative breaks down and I will reply courteously to you and reason my point - you had misinterpreted my point and assumed a lot out of what I was saying. Break that, and I'm not going to be polite. 

[The Blood]

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

But you're still assuming, it seems, that it would be a guaranteed Russian victory, and an easy one, without Western intervention.

I'm not at all. I think it would be an extremely bloody ordeal, but that making any gains past the Dnieper would be a major challenge for Russia, and that they would have to hope for an easy coup against the Ukrainian government(As intelligence has suggested is their plan) with little resistance to establish their rule in the nation, something extremely unlikely.

Edited January 25, 2022 by The Blood

[Rezi]

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

But you're still assuming, it seems, that it would be a guaranteed Russian victory, and an easy one, without Western intervention.

It is not a guaranteed Russian victory. But it also isn’t a guaranteed Ukrainian victory, which is what it needs to be.

[Hestia]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

And as I've said, would have two-thirds of it's military and resources likely tied up elsewhere. Although, other than that detail that often gets overlooked, I concede I have been somewhat presumptuous with a number of your views you haven't clearly articulated yet, and I apologize for that. But I still stand on the issue that Russia will be involuntarily, "fighting with one hand tied behind it's back," just by the nature of it being Russia, as a country.

It is possible they would have significant resources elsewhere, but they do have quite a bit more resources to begin with. They already have 120k there, so Ukraine's is about that size-ish (depending on the report I see online). I don't think Putin would accept anything less than victory - whatever victory in his mind means. That could be land secured east of the Dneiper, could be total destruction of Ukraine and a new government set up, could be annexation. He can't afford to lose. He's really selling it to his domestic audience, so I think he will push as hard as he can. Thank you for your clarifications and apology, I appreciate it. 

[Timur]

 

4 hours ago, carbonmonoxide321 said:

bro i just told you to run for president lol

He's Canadian and adheres to the William Sherman Rule.

[pilight]

13 hours ago, The Blood said:

we should not be abandoning our responsibility to support Ukraine with as much as we can.

How is the US responsible for Ukraine's defense?

[The Blood]

5 hours ago, pilight said:

How is the US responsible for Ukraine's defense?

The US, as the world's leading superpower, has a unique obligation to maintain global order and peace with the immense power and influence we hold. Now, I don't consider myself a hawk or staunch interventionist, I think our foreign policy should be cautious and I have opposed the worst of US foreign policy over the last two decades. However, right now an autocratic regime is posturing for war against a weaker democratic state, with intelligence from both the US and UK indicating the potential of a coup against Ukraine's democratic government. We have the influence, the materials, and the power to step in and deter Russia from action, and to punish it severely if it acts. It is a moral fault of our own if we do not use our influence to at least lead Russia away from the potential of war.

Edited January 25, 2022 by The Blood

[carbonmonoxide321]

19 hours ago, Patine said:

I don't fear credit cards. But I won't debate or try to explain my avoidance of either to someone with your toxic viewpoint, nor do I have to to validate my choices of lifestyle.

I don't fear credit cards. But I won't debate or try to explain my avoidance of either to someone with your toxic viewpoint, nor do I have to to validate my choices of lifestyle.

[The Blood]

22 minutes ago, Patine said:

The problem is, the U.S. has an absolutely atrocious track record of success, selective application, choosing sides, and the disastrous aftermath of this, "mandate," (which no one has officially granted or satisfactorally defined, delineated, restricted) that it cannot really be trusted or have faith in in such a leadership position. It's leadership has proven to be incompetent, chalk full of ulterior, with unacceptable bias, and often even supporting what is supposed to oppose. The multilateral intervention under joint cooperation and coordination that the UN was built on, in theory, is what would be best, by far - but that was ruined utterly by the bloody-minded arrogance and self-serving agendas of large nations like the U.S. and Russia. So, I say again, the U.S. is an awful leadership figure in these matters, and has proven it time and again.

Yes, I totally agree that the US has struggled in its application of force abroad, that doesn't change the fact that there is a democratic nation with the might of Russian autocracy breaking down its neck right now, and that the US has the capacity to deter Russia and take swift action in the event of an invasion. That's the thing, I know we've had our failures abroad, but I'm not going to use the United States' previous actions abroad as justification for abandoning situations where the need and capacity for US involvement are clear. I'm sorry Canada has never had the capacity for serious worldwide intervention, Patine, but the US does, and even if we need substantive reforms to how we treat foreign policy, we have the capacity and responsibility to take action in the Ukraine-Russia situation. We cannot withdraw from the world, even if we can change how we treat our involvement with it.

Edited January 25, 2022 by The Blood

[carbonmonoxide321]

27 minutes ago, Patine said:

Is making a mimic post on it's own something that passes for, "funny," nowadays (disregarding @Pringles's laugh emote, because his sense of humour has proven time and again to be way off base, obtuse, inappropriate, and at times disgusting, as it is)? Do you want a cracker for parroting me? Are you even trying to sound intelligent, or deliberately sound below your education and maturity level? I'm confused as to your intentions, which are inexplicable to me.

I didn't say Canada should single-handedly lead. I meant the cooperation and coordination of many nations as a coalition without a single, "leader," nation, especially one whose proven a failure at the task and often as bad as those they oppose - the kind of coalitions the UN envisioned. U.S. leadership can't be trusted, and has more often than not been a disaster (they've been as bad in foreign intervention as Russia and the USSR, many times), and their automatic position of guidance is quickly becoming part of these problems, not the solutions. Especially given soulless, sociopathic mega-corporations are always salivating in the background at the potential spoils and pillage, which is a HUGE part of the problem.

Is making a mimic post on it's own something that passes for, "funny," nowadays (disregarding @Pringles's laugh emote, because his sense of humour has proven time and again to be way off base, obtuse, inappropriate, and at times disgusting, as it is)? Do you want a cracker for parroting me? Are you even trying to sound intelligent, or deliberately sound below your education and maturity level? I'm confused as to your intentions, which are inexplicable to me.

I didn't say Canada should single-handedly lead. I meant the cooperation and coordination of many nations as a coalition without a single, "leader," nation, especially one whose proven a failure at the task and often as bad as those they oppose - the kind of coalitions the UN envisioned. U.S. leadership can't be trusted, and has more often than not been a disaster (they've been as bad in foreign intervention as Russia and the USSR, many times), and their automatic position of guidance is quickly becoming part of these problems, not the solutions. Especially given soulless, sociopathic mega-corporations are always salivating in the background at the potential spoils and pillage, which is a HUGE part of the problem.

[carbonmonoxide321]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

@DakotaHale, I believe @carbonmonoxide321 has had his account hijacked by a mirror post bot. Please look into this. It may develop more harmful features in it's programming.

patine i got hacked just got it fixed thank you, you have saved my life

[carbonmonoxide321]

Just now, Patine said:

*raises eyebrow dubiously*

are we roleplaying 

[Rezi]

a/s/l?

[Rezi]

14 minutes ago, Patine said:

There is no situation on this forum so ridiculous, brain-numbing, or stupid that @Rezi can't make it worse...

84/F/Greenland. U?

[carbonmonoxide321]

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think I'm going to block you for a while. You've become nothing more than static.

patine it’s gonna be okay I need you to breathe 

[carbonmonoxide321]

33 minutes ago, Patine said:

Even better. You're going to be blocked for a while, too.

please mr president of cuba dont block me youre my favorite furry youtuber 

[Timur]

I do wonder what Eastern Ukraine thinks though. A lot of pro-Russia folks live there.

[Hestia]

9 hours ago, Patine said:

That, and Crimea, was where the trouble actually began. It doesn't seem that the majority of inhabitants of Crimea, Donetsk, or Luhansk were necessarily against annexation to Russia or breakaway status under Russian protection in 2014. But the Ukrainian Constitution declares the country indivisible with non-negotiable borders - borders drawn by Nikita Krushchev in the '50's - and the Western World has staunchly defended that immovability of status since.

Nor does it seem like they were necessarily for it. 

[jvikings1]

On 1/24/2022 at 6:06 PM, vcczar said:

I'm kind of afraid that Biden will use the Ukraine situation to improve is approval rating, especially among moderate independents, by getting too committed to helping Ukraine. The most I'd be willing to do is provide financial aid and weaponry. I might be okay with the US navy going into the Black Sea in a last resort if Russia seems like it's going to outright annex the entire Ukraine, but no boots on the ground. Let Ukrainians do that, support them with navy and air strikes in last resort. Obviously, best case scenario is a diplomatic solution that doesn't result in warfare. 

I don't mind selling/providing arms to Ukraine. That's probably the extent of what I would support though

I doubt Russia completely annexes Ukraine. It would seem to make more sense for them to have a pro-Russian buffer state between them and NATO. Maybe parts of the eastern part of the country (where a heavy Russian population still exists).

[Hestia]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm not so certain. Those areas were strongly ethnic and linguistic Russians (except for the Crimean Tatars, whose position, and support and loyalties, seem what's really nebulous). Most ethnic and linguistic Ukrainians in those areas prior to 2014 seemed to mostly be National Government employees. You seem reliably dismissive of any Wilsonian-style national self-determination group who feels the Government that legally and is recognized to govern their lands does not at all have their best interests in mind if they end up being backed by a nation on, "the other side," of the Global Geo-Political Neo-Cold War Divide, even if the problem started before any violence and due, in large part to the inflexibility and unwillingness to compromise of the legally and recognized Government (whom you never seem willing to give to any responsibility or fault to, even from the early stages), but have been, at many times, quite fervent in supporting such national self-determination when the legally and recognized Government is, themselves, on the other side of that divide. This is one of the viewpoints I've consistently found objectional by you.

There was no actual vote to take place in Donetsk and Luhansk (which I believe would've been closer to 50-50) to prove that they actually wanted to leave. If they are confident of victory, then they should hold a vote with international observers present. The fact they won't makes me believe they aren't actually confident that the vote would go their way. Many have left Eastern Ukraine to resettle in Mariupol and other territories in Ukraine - Russian speakers included. They aren't a monolith, which is what you're treating them as. Crimea's was a sham referendum. There was no option to remain inside of Ukraine. 

[Hestia]

Just now, Patine said:

Why do think the Ukrainian Government would have been amenable to such a vote even being held, especially right after the Maiden Revolt?

Why has such a vote not taken place since? 

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Probably because, as I told you, the Ukrainian Constitution, passed in 1993, with a significant amount of Post-Cold War knee-jerk reactionary rhetoric, states the nation as, "indivisible," and that it's borders are effective non-negotiable - borders, again, drawn by Krushchev. This was a foundational point that made peaceful resolution very, very difficult from the start, and I've brought it up several times already. Also, unlike many 20th and 21st Century National Constitutions, but more like the U.S. one, the Ukrainian Constitution wasn't voted on, it was passed by a convention and a ratification system of a supermajority of lawmakers and notables.

These independent states have not confirmed their independence with actual democratic referendums is my point which you seem to keep continually ignoring or not noticing. We've discussed this before, but if there was true desire to go independent, that would've been in place since 1993 since the fall of the Soviet Union. It seems like people just got angry that they lost an election and a President and got pissy about it....when...hmm...2014??? That seems pretty coincidental. 

[Hestia]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm trying to tell you that the legally and recognized governing nations never ALLOWED such referendums to happen before violence started (

Yes and I clearly understand that, but you don't seem to be recognizing what I'm telling you that there don't seem to have been any desire by Donetsk or Luhansk to join Russia until 2014, which is very dubious. 

[Timur]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm trying to tell you that the legally and recognized governing nations never ALLOWED such referendums to happen before violence started (violence that usually, especially in the Caucasus, arguably not as much in Ukraine and Moldova, has the legally and recognized governing nation just as responsible for pushing it to that point), and once they became de facto independent, the rotten political leaders backed by Russia have already taken over in vulture-like fashion, and the window for opportunity for this has passed. Though, to be fair, Artsakh, which is ranked as more democratic and with more respect for human rights and due process than either Azerbaijan or Armenia, has consistently shown genuine electoral support for independence from Baku, and next to no support for Heydar's Government, and there have been, "unofficial advisory," OSCE electoral observers who can attest to this, but this has been consistently ignored internationally.

This discussion reminds me of the problem with Spain and Catalonia...

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Nobody asked them. There weren't even opinion polls previously. And the strong impetus was nearly so powerful, because the issue really came to a head with the Maiden Revolt, which was EARLIER THE SAME YEAR, when the real wedge was quite suddenly driven between the ethnically Ukrainian and Russian communities in the country, who had just been previously co-existing uneasily. Whatever corruption, abuse, and wrongdoing Yanukovych and his Party of Regions Government committed, his sudden overthrow by fervent and emotion-driven protests in Kiev frightened ethnic Russian in the peripheral Oblasts. Admittedly, and unfortunately, they fell right into Putin's hand, but the source of their fear is understandable, at least, whether or not it would have ever been consummated. Does that bring some perspective, there.

It does some, but the fact that Ukraine decided to take a different political direction shows that they weren't really concerned with independence, but getting their way, which isn't really how politics should go. Got to accept when you lose and when you win.