• Ukraine Crisis
    I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia. — jorndoe

    The term "existential threat" in geopolitics means that a country feels one of their core strategic interests is being threatened. In the case of Russia, what is being threatened are Crimea and Sevastopol and the central position of power they grant in the Black Sea.

    The importance of this position cannot be stressed enough, since it is the only western port that isn't at the mercy of NATO to grant access. The Baltic Sea is completely encapsulated by NATO, and the White Sea is bottle-necked at the GIUK gap.

    With Turkey as a more or less neutral player, through the Black Sea Russia gains access to the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Gulf, etc - places that connect Russia to its strategic allies.


    This is almost certainly the reason the United States made a bid for Ukraine, since countries like Iran and Syria are adversaries to the United States and have probably played a large role in its failure to control the Middle-East.


    In 2008 NATO blatantly stated they wished to incorporate Ukraine, which would have included Crimea, which once again would have put Russia at the mercy of NATO. In 2013 the U.S. overtly supported, likely covertly orchestrated, regime-change in Ukraine. The 2014 invasion of Crimea was a direct reaction to that.

    The 2014 invasion was only a temporary solution for Russia however, since Crimea was in a precarious strategic position, being pretty much undefendable in a future conflict.

    My view is that the main strategic objective of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the establishment of land access to Crimea, which seems a very logical conclusion based on the areas Russia now occupies.

    Whatever that may be (if any) would be put in context with the observed bombing killing destroying shamming threats re-culturation efforts. — jorndoe

    That's war, unfortunately. When countries wage war, and especially when vital interests are at stake, all semblance of humanity goes out of the window. Threatening, intimidation, destruction, nothing new under the sun - for the record, the United States never shied away from any of these practices either.

    Re-culturation (or "westernization", if you want the American equivalent) is essentially the modern "solution" to insurgency threats, which are always on the mind of any nation seeking to occupy others.

    It also serves as a method to make the Russian annexation of parts of Ukraine a foregone conclusion. When the primary culture of the people living there is Ukrainian, a future war over it could be framed as a liberation. When the primary culture is Russian, it can only be framed as a reconquest.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    The head of state stating any attempt at NATO expansion to Russian borders is seen as a direct threat is crystal clear language. You asked for evidence for Russia's perception of NATO as a threat, and I've provided it.

    Your entire argument is based on taking snippets and tying them together into a construed narrative, while you're ignoring or denying what is blatantly obvious.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    What were the evidence to support the perceived threat from NATO expansion by Putin prior 2014? — neomac

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/04/nato.russia
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    Tying this in to modern society. Is there really room for Bobs? — schopenhauer1

    I'm not sure what you mean. Your dilemma presupposes Bobs are part of modern society, so seemingly there is room.

    If you're asking if Bob can contribute somehow, I would say of course. Bob is the one who gets it, and instead of working in some place where his success is measured by productivity, he might find some way to share his wisdom so that others might not fall into the trap of becoming a Larry.

    Aren't Larrys more prized? — schopenhauer1

    In terms of the opinions of other Larrys? Well, who cares about those?

    In terms of material wealth? Yes, but at the expense of spiritual wealth, which is a terrible trade.
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    Larry is happy in his abilities. He goes home feeling content, even if it is with smug relish in how much of an asset he is to his company. He’s just an asshole we’ll say. He may even view himself as rightfully “efficient” to others who he feels are just not as good as him and they need to be shown that. Maybe it’s part of his personality. We can say he has narcissistic tendencies.

    Actually he’s quite friendly with management and they tacitly condone his behavior because they like that he makes them money.     — schopenhauer1

    I would classify being a "narcisisstic asshole" as failing - failing, perhaps not at his job, but at life.

    Larry is the real tragedy here, since his lack of virtue (a state of affairs that he is likely unaware of and also cannot be fully attributed to him) denies him the experience of true happiness and beauty. Whatever shallow contentedness he may find is but dressing on the wounds. He experiences limbo at best, and hell at worst.
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    Bold move picking Bob. But is he really what modern day society values? — schopenhauer1

    I don't think modern society's values are all that relevant.

    Besides, modern society is made up of individuals making choices in pursuit of their own happiness, and Bob is simply doing the same, but succeeding while Larry is failing.
  • Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?
    Bob is clearly the more productive one, having cultivated a strong and virtuous character, which ultimately is the only thing that can lead to happiness, and thus the only thing worth pursuing in this life.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The point I was making is simply that as long as the existential threats are generically formulated, the only thing that remains to address is what Russian demands to restore its sense of security. While if the threat was more specific one could propose solutions (other than the ones proposed by Russia) favorable to Russia. — neomac

    Ok, fair enough I suppose.

    What is non-specific about no NATO membership for Ukraine?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    That doesn't answer any of my questions.

    You claimed Russia made no attempts at negotiating about their red line, despite the fact that Ukraine has been a hot topic for decades.

    How do you know there have been no negotiations? Countries contact each other through unofficial, non-public channels all the time. The fact that you claim this implies you have some insight into these.

    Second, you blame the Russians for a lack of negotiations (if such a lack there is). Do you not see a clear role for the United States, in the fact that they have made statements and carried out actions that imply they have no desire to negotiate?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Olivier5
    :rofl:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    There was no Russian imperialist threat before the 2008 summit. No one claimed that. — Mikie

    I quite precisely claimed that, otherwise you would not be arguing against it. — Olivier5

    Then you'll have to prove it.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The red line was the actual nuclear threat, and the solution was focused on finding an agreement about the nuclear threat. Russia could have proposed the same to the US. But it didn't. — neomac

    How do you know this?

    The Russians have spoken about this red line for decades - you believe no talks happened between the United States and Russia about this situation?

    And what good are talks when the United States blatantly states it wishes to cross the mentioned red line, and supports regime change just to prove its intentions?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    They attempted all the things you named.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The US didn't annex parts of Cuba nor obtained Cuban neutrality/Cuban demilitarization/regime change. And US reaction was against an actual nuclear threat. — neomac

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#U.S._Government_personnel
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So what exactly do you disagree with? — Olivier5

    Your classification of a decades old, complex geopolitical situation as "a simple landgrab", obviously.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So we agree that this is just a land grab. — Olivier5

    No, clearly we don't agree.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Of course the US doesn't have pure intentions, but this discussion was about are the intentions of Russia, not the US. And evidently those intentions are about land and people grabbing. — Olivier5

    No, they were about power - like virtually ever other geopolitical decision that was ever made, western or otherwise.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Did you believed Bush Junior when he said Iraq had WMD? — Olivier5

    No, so why would you believe a US president when they say Ukraine is about Russian expansionism?

    Speaking of Bush, you understand that what we're looking at today is a direct result of his administration's policy, starting in 2008? Since you don't seem to hold a high opinion of the man, perhaps it is time to reconsider this idea of the United States' pure intentions surrounding Ukraine.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Just because a guy said something to another in a 2008 meeting, ... — Olivier5

    Except that these are official statements made directly in an international context on behalf of NATO, and thus on behalf of the United States, and thus reflect official policy.

    If you want anyone to take you seriously here, you'll need to take into consideration the historical facts and context, instead of trying to ignore or downplay them.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. — Christoffer

    Except when someone with insight into NATO and Russian affairs argues that Russia does perceive NATO expansion as a threat.

    But I suppose when expert opinions don't say what we like to hear they are better left ignored.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    After years of searching, I regret to inform that there is apparently no perfect paradise on earth. — Olivier5

    Nothing but hypocrisy. Not that I expected anything different.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Olivier5


    Constant destructive, genocidal wars all over the world, domestic human rights violations (bodily autonomy, freedom of speech, right to property, right to privacy, to name a few), utter political corruption, etc.

    That Westerners criticize the West is normal: we do it because we can, because we are free to do it. — Olivier5

    That doesn't excuse any of these things, nor does the excuse that it's worse in other places of the world, nor does it make someone who seeks to flee these things anything less than a political refugee.

    Some beautiful Western hypocrisy on display here - when other countries do it you cry for war and regime change. When the West does it, well, you can leave if you don't like it. :vomit:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I thought you as an avg Westerner were comparing your fate in the West with the fate of the refugees from non-Western country, which I find laughable. — neomac

    Yes, this is exactly your problem.

    You look at the West through pink-coloured glasses, apparently unable to acknowledge political malpractice when it is carried out by the West.

    Tell me, would you have asked poor Americans that were drafted to commit a de facto genocide in Vietnam why they didn't just flee the country if they didn't like it?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    Don't try to change the subject.

    You tried to imply that being "free" to become a political refugee means one is not being forced - a truly vile statement.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪neomac
    The fact that I have lived here all my life and people should not be forced to flee their home as a result of political malpractice? Hello?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Why forced? Westerners are free to migrate to Russia, China, Iran and live there. — neomac

    Being free to flee from political malpractice somehow means one was never forced to undergo it? Interesting logic.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So if you are a Westerner, it's a bit puzzling to see you spit on the dish where you are eating forced to eat from. — neomac
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. — ssu

    Five years later, in 2013, the United States proved its willingness to follow through on its 2008 promises, when it supported regime change in Ukraine during the Maidan protests.

    From that point onward, the threat of US-backed regime change in Ukraine was a fact. That's what Russia reacted to in March of 2014, and the subsequent 2022 invasion of Ukraine was an unavoidable consequence.

    Again, not speaking in terms of good guys-bad guys, but these are just the facts, which you keep misrepresenting.
  • A definition of "evil"
    To me, the concept of evil has always been closely related to deceitfulness and lying or being untruthful to oneself or another.

    There is a category of harmful actions that we commit out of ignorance, which is seperate from evil.

    Then there is a category of harmful actions we knowingly and purposefully commit. That is evil. Such actions are always accompanied by some form of justification, which I regard as self-deceit.

    Evil is a denial of reality itself, and perpetrator and victim both suffer.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period. But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. — ssu

    I can't believe that 360 pages into this topic people still get historical facts wrong.

    2008 NATO Bucharest Summit:

    NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Anyway, nothing new here, ... — jorndoe

    This isn't a response to what I said, so I don't know why you even bothered to repeat it.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The phrase means: "You could anihilate my country and I don't like the idea." — Olivier5

    If that's what you believe, then how could you argue with Putin? That the United States could annihilate Russia has been a fact for well over half a century.

    So either you believe world leaders go out of their way to state the obvious, or that's not what the phrase means.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Yet, Putin's Russia is the victim here? That's the ultimate conclusion? — jorndoe

    That wouldn't be my conclusion.

    However, where two nations fight over influence in Ukraine, I see them both as part of the cause, and I am not buying any narrative that ignores the significant American role in this conflict.


    On the topic of the "existential threat"-rhetoric by Russia, I think you're not catching the meaning of that phrase.

    When a nation uses that term, they're not saying that their nation will cease to exist.
    If Ukraine were to become NATO, Russia would not cease to exist. If the Soviets managed to station nuclear missiles on Cuba, the United States would not cease to exist, If somehow a nation were to blockade the entire Chinese coastline, China would not cease to exist, etc.

    What those things will do however, is put those nations in a permanent state of strategic vulnerability. The term "existential threat" is international code language for saying "You are threatening my core strategic interests, (and I will protect those with nuclear weapons.)"
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Putin is a problem for the West beyond this war and the criminal annexations of Ukrainian territories. The authoritarian turn of his regime to grant concentration of power in his hands, the Russian growing military presence in the Mediterranean area (also through the Black Sea), in the Middle East, in North Africa, in the Baltic sea (encircling Europe), Russian attempts to corrupt the democratic life in Western countries (from state cyberwar to financing western politicians), Russian attempts to economically blackmail the West by compromising the trade of critical commodities (e.g. gas and wheat), Putin's nuclear threats, Putin's declared goal to challenge Western hegemony and his attempts to build an alliance with other countries to antagonise the West, all these facts justify the Western intervention in Ukraine. — neomac

    The irony in this is that a large part of the world views the United States in exactly the same light.

    Everything you list here the United States has done before and on a larger scale, and that includes nuclear threats.

    Are nations 'justified' (whatever that may mean) to intervene whenever the United States engages in similar behavior?

    Of course they can't, because the United States is the biggest bully of them all, but I am still curious if you're willing to follow through, or prefer to hang onto a double standard.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪jorndoe
    Russia is far from a perfect nation. So are the United States. I don't see any justification for the cartoonish super villain role the Russians been assigned in western narratives. Such labels only work to bias the mind.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Tzeentch
    , returning to your comment and my followup, did you then confirm/deny any of this...?     — jorndoe

    None of it seems all that relevant to me, but if you want to hear my thoughts anyway:

    no love lost if Putin's Russia was to remain more of a regional power than a superpower (e.g. without annexations) — jorndoe

    Sounds like a value judgement to me, which aren't very useful when trying to understand a political situation. What does it matter what you and I want? It has no impact on what is happening and why it is happening.

    straightforward that any number of nations (not just the US) are distrusting Putin's autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive leadership — here "distrusting" might be too mild a word — from what we've heard/seen, Putin is forcing it, little reconciliatory gestures, bona fides signs lacking

    Sure.

    Why would Russia be special in that regard? Isn't there distrust of the United States, or China? I don't see Russia as a nation that behaves particularly terribly when compared to others. The United States takes the cake for being the most destructively meddling nation in recent history. Unprovoked invasions, de facto genocides and indiscriminate killing, sowing chaos and destruction, we've seen it all before under the American flag, so I'm just not buying your one-sided "Russia bad" narrative.

    And for our country, this is ultimately a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a people. And this is not an exaggeration: it is true. This is a real threat not just to our interests, but to the very existence of our state, its sovereignty. — Putin · Feb 24, 2022

    ↑ Fear-mongering an alleged existential threat, that instead proved an existential threat to Ukraine, then, depending on the Ukrainian situation, subsequently Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia     — jorndoe

    The Russians have been saying that the matter of Ukraine is an existential threat to them since at least 2008, and it has been a hot topic way before. Now they've started a war over it, just like they said they would. At some point maybe you'll have to accept that they were serious when they said that, and instead of more "Russia bad", try to understand why Ukraine is so important to Russia that they were willing to start a war over it.

    But honestly, it doesn't seem like your point of view allows for a rational analysis. You seem to desire a black and white picture of good guys and bad guys, and the western propaganda narrative delivers it to you.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    your comment has that faint whiff of nefarious conspiracy theory. — jorndoe

    Sounds like your issue is that you're only able to look at this conflict through a western lens, which might be why the idea of the US actively working to keep its competitors weak sounds like a "conspiracy" to you.

    Stop being naive. The US is as cut-throat as any other nation - in terms of recent history it may be the most destructive nation on the planet.

    For example, it's more straightforward that any number of nations (not just the US) are distrusting Putin's autocratic non-democratic non-transparent authoritarian oppressive leadership — jorndoe

    Sure. But how strange that they were all holding hands and singing praises before 2008. What changed, huh?

    Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO? — jorndoe

    NATO flirting with Ukraine is what started all of this.

    What I find lacking in this discussion is the wider context. We're only looking at what is happening today, even though today's events are a direct result of things that happened 12 years ago.

    Things changed after in 2008 NATO stated they wanted to incorporate Ukraine, which means NATO took the first step in changing Ukraine's neutral status. This both threatened to remove the buffer between NATO and Russia and Russia's access to Sevastopol

    2013 was the point of no return, when the US showed it was willing to support regime change in Ukraine in order to reach its goals.

    I do say this with the power of hindsight, but war was unavoidable from that point onward.

    All the narratives, war rhetoric and propaganda is just nonsense to influence the public.

    A neutral Ukraine, again? What happened to that? — jorndoe

    Ask the Americans.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    This view overlooks the long history of NATO shedding it's Cold-War roots and focusing on "new threats" and that Russia was for a long time tried to be connected to the European security system and with Russia even being in the then G8 and having a "Partnership for Peace" relation with the US / NATO. — ssu

    Before 2008 Putin was lauded internationally as a great, reasonable leader with whom the West could do business and form partnerships, etc.

    Things were looking very good. A little too good for the Americans' taste, in fact.

    Can't have their European vassals getting cozy with a potential future peer competitor, can we? Heartland theory and all that.

    That's why they tried to ensure Russia could never rise to great power status again - by slowly encroaching on its former sphere of influence, eventually going a bridge too far with Georgia and Ukraine.

    Ukraine was the big one, with Russia's influence in the Middle-East depending for a significant part on their access to the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

    It might be worth pointing out that there is a potential link between the United States' failure in the Middle-East, Russia's likely involvement, and the United States' bid for Ukraine.
  • The Unholy Love Affair Between The Corporate and Political Elite
    ↪Bitter Crank
    Well, yes. Nothing new under the sun there.

    However, this video gives a lot of insights into the mechanisms of how that works. How economic policy that benefits countries and normal people does not benefit the powers that be, and vice versa.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    What’s holding us back from an attack on Russian Soil at the moment is the nuclear threat… — Deus

    No one sane is even considering an invasion of Russia. The last time a nation thought Russia was weak enough to invade, it didn't end so well. The difference now is that back then it was a neighboring country, and today it would be the United States who is several thousand miles and an ocean away.

    China would be the laughing third.


    Also, does anyone on this forum truly believe the United States cares enough about Ukraine to invade Russia or risk nuclear war?

    I have sad news (and I am not being facetious - I truly think this is tragic), the United States does not care about Ukraine. It cares about the political objectives it can achieve through sacrificing Ukraine in a similar vein as it did with Vietnam.

    During all of the Cold War it wasn't even clear whether the United States would respond with nuclear weapons in the case of a full-scale Soviet invasion of Europe.
Home » Tzeentch