• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michel H said:
I don't see how this could be all right, but this is not at all what happened in Crimea (as far as I know).
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be right?
We'll give the newcomers a temporary or even permanent permit to live there. That would make it all legal, wouldn't it?
 
Okay question I have zero illusions I receive a logical or indeed even coherent answer to.

The USSR broke up about 23 years ago. Why now? Why not in 1992 or 2042?
 
Michel H said:
Putin is not responsible for Ukraine's stupidity, in refusing to accept that Crimea has become part of Russia after a referendum, in agreement with the recognized right of sef-determination of peoples.
Click to expand...

Since when do we accept the results of referendum on joining Country X when Country X is occupying their territory?
 
JoeMorgue said:
War isn't rational. Every major conflict since the industrial revolution has been started by the side that lost.
Click to expand...

Separating out "minor" from "major" is a bit of a sampling problem, though. And plenty of conflicts began as minor ones and turned into major ones without the intention of the side that started it. So it can still be rational to start what you think is a minor conflict which you CAN win, only for it to spiral out of control into a larger conflict you lose because of things you didn't know or understand. And a lack of knowledge or understanding is distinct from irrationality.
 
Michel H said:
This why it is important to often remind Ukraine that it can probably stop this painful experience by making very reasonable concessions: Crimea belongs to Russia, the two republics are independant, Ukraine won't join NATO for a while and so on.

What is important in this situation isn't so much to be tough or heroic. It is more important to be smart, and to have the too rare ability to admit one's mistakes.
Click to expand...

Not seeking to join NATO might be out of the picture, now that Russia has invaded and proved the necessity of NATO membership.

I have a better idea: the Russian areas of Ukraine join Russia, the rest of Ukraine joins NATO. Sounds fair to me, both sides get what they want. Thoughts?
 
erwinl said:
Why wouldn't it be right?
We'll give the newcomers a temporary or even permanent permit to live there. That would make it all legal, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Violence is unacceptable. If some people want to immigrate to the northern part of Belgium, they should request a visa, and follow the local laws.
 
Countries are complicated. You could take any country and gerrymander a circle around some group of people and go "Lookit, lookit, they want to be a separate country so you have to let them."

"Right of Self Determination" is a lot more complicated than Michel H is making it out to be.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Just give the bad guy what he wants because it's not worth what we'll lose if we try and stop him" is being on the bad guy's side.

It's also literally what every single bad guy wants to hear, it's essentially giving them exactly what they want.

The reason you don't negotiate with terrorists is because it turns terrorism into a valid method of getting what you want.
Click to expand...

The difference is leverage. Terrorists often have pretty limited leverage. maybe they threaten to blow up a building and kill a few people, maybe they saw some heads off on livestream. Even a major attack like 9/11 isn't really that much bloodshed, relatively speaking.

The whole planet is the hostage if we're talking nuclear exchange. Whether we like it or not, being a hardliner isn't really a viable option unless you consider nuclear war an acceptable outcome.

The reason I find the Hitler appeasement arguments not very convincing in this context is that Russia has nukes, and more than a few. I suppose there's an argument to be made that taking a hardline with Hitler early would have made the resulting war easier and less bloody to win than what happened as a result of appeasing and waiting, but I fail to see how that applies to a country that is starting with a huge supply of nuclear missiles.

If war with Russia is inevitable then we're ****** no matter how it goes down.
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterFox said:
Yep. Bin Laden was much more isolated than Putin and we know how he ended up.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden was in a poorly guarded house in a poor part of the world. Once they knew where he was, it still took a team to take him out and it wasn't without issues.

Ceaușescu was captured due to a full uprising.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Hussien. Why didn't the US try to assasinate him, rather than a full invasion? How many times did the US try to kill Castro? I suspect one reason is similar to why no one is thinking the same here. The leader of a country is nearly always tricky to assasinate.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The difference is leverage. Terrorists often have pretty limited leverage. maybe they threaten to blow up a building and kill a few people, maybe they saw some heads off on livestream.

The whole planet is the hostage if we're talking nuclear exchange. Whether we like it or not, being a hardliner isn't really a viable option unless you consider nuclear war an acceptable outcome.

The reason I find the Hitler appeasement arguments not very convincing in this context is that Russia has nukes, and more than a few. I suppose there's an argument to be made that taking a hardline with Hitler early would have made the resulting war easier and less bloody to win than what happened as a result of appeasing and waiting, but I fail to see how that applies to a country that is starting with a huge supply of nuclear missiles.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how you're more comfortable with compromise with an extremists than someone who's only 95% on your side.
 
Michel H said:
You are the one who started talking about WWII:

I just replied to you, and to other members of this forum, including a moderator (Wudang).
Click to expand...

I made an on topic comparison to history. You are the one who dragged your bizarre hobby-horse into the discussion yet again.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's amazing how you're more comfortable with compromise with an extremists than someone who's only 95% on your side.
Click to expand...

it's amazing what the power to end all human life can do in a negotiation.

Come on, don't be coy. Why isn't NATO bombing the **** out of Russia right now? Why aren't the Marines pushing hard for Kiev? We would be if Putin was some tin-pot dictator in the mid-east. The difference is nukes, and it's a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Okay question I have zero illusions I receive a logical or indeed even coherent answer to.

The USSR broke up about 23 years ago. Why now? Why not in 1992 or 2042?
Click to expand...

This is Putin's bid for a legacy, would be my thought.

He's nearly 70, now. He wasn't in power in 1992.

It is somewhat interesting, though, that the Communists in the Duma were urging Putin to recognize the republics.

Maybe this is a coming together of the Communists and the Nationalists.

This is all speculation though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom