Where do you draw the line?

[shemp]

Well, where?

 

[theprestige]

Russia. Wherever Russia has a border, that's where I draw the line. Sorrynotsorry.

 

[SteveAitch]

In the sand. That way it gets washed away by the tide twice a day and can be re-drawn somewhere more convenient.

 

[wobs]

I'll tell you where I don't want to draw the line- On snow/ice:

 

[jimbob]

Russia. Wherever Russia has a border, that's where I draw the line. Sorrynotsorry.

Good point

 

[Oystein]

Russia. Wherever Russia has a border, that's where I draw the line. Sorrynotsorry.

Well, what if Russia invades China? Wouldn't that be swell?

 

[theprestige]

Well, what if Russia invades China? Wouldn't that be swell?

No. That would suck. China quite rightly draws a line on their border with Russia. The world would be quite right to repudiate Russia and support China, if Russia invaded.

Kind of a stupid question, really. What would be "swell" is if Russia didn't invade anyone.

 

[Michel H]

Well, where?

I believe there should be a tolerance (also valid for other countries) when Russia annexes relatively small regions where Russian is the main language, and which have voted for joining Russia.

This is the principle of self-determination, a precious guide for avoiding potential conflicts.

Displaying zero-tolerance for Russia, and constantly imposing ferocious sanctions can unfortunately lead to bad consequences, as we are seeing now, when the Bear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Bear) has had enough and becomes angry.

 

[Hans]

Well, what if Russia invades China? Wouldn't that be swell?

That would be short term good (in a bad sort of way) tending to terrible when one side went nuclear.

 

[Stellafane]

I believe there should be a tolerance (also valid for other countries) when Russia annexes relatively small regions where Russian is the main language, and which have voted for joining Russia.

This is the principle of self-determination, a precious guide for avoiding potential conflicts.

Displaying zero-tolerance for Russia, and constantly imposing ferocious sanctions can unfortunately lead to bad consequences, as we are seeing now, when the Bear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Bear) has had enough and becomes angry.

By that yardstick, I must assume you would support the independence of those regions throughout Russia who would like to be independent but are prevented from doing so. Until Russia extends that courtesy to their own people, they have no grounds to use that excuse to justify incursions into other countries.

 

[Oystein]

No. That would suck. China quite rightly draws a line on their border with Russia. The world would be quite right to repudiate Russia and support China, if Russia invaded.

Kind of a stupid question, really. What would be "swell" is if Russia didn't invade anyone.

That was easy.

 

[theprestige]

That was easy.

You're not making any sense. I look forward to your argument, should you have one.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"At NATO" is where we kept getting told it is at.

 

[theprestige]

"At NATO" is where we kept getting told it is at.

Yes, and where do you draw the line?

 

[Oystein]

You're not making any sense. I look forward to your argument, should you have one.

I had none

 

[theprestige]

I had none : D

Then yeah, you're not making any sense.

 

[crescent]

Do I draw my line at a place or at an action?

(unconfirmed reports of Russian use of chemical weapons in Mariupol today)

 

[theprestige]

I guess since this is in Politics and not Community, it's probably worthwhile to ask, what happens if Russia does appear to be using chemical weapons in Ukraine? Would that be enough of a transgression to prompt NATO intervention in the name of mutual defense? Or to prompt "NATO" intervention on UN peackeeping letterhead?

 

[Lothian]

No Belgium option?




Ok, fair point.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I guess since this is in Politics and not Community, it's probably worthwhile to ask, what happens if Russia does appear to be using chemical weapons in Ukraine? Would that be enough of a transgression to prompt NATO intervention in the name of mutual defense? Or to prompt "NATO" intervention on UN peackeeping letterhead?

I fail to see how the invasion of a non-NATO country is NATO's problem at all. NATO is a narrowly defined mutual defense organization with clearly defined trigger conditions that have not been met.

Whether or not a NATO member, or multiple NATO countries in coordination, decide to intervene seems meaningfully different than NATO itself intervening. Unless we're using NATO in the more colloquial sense that means "Mostly the United States with some help from friends".