Ukraine
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
Yeah, it's working out well for them.
Sorry, but if a country wants to join NATO, the EU or whatever then it's up to them to ask - and there's no justification for other country to invade and cause mass civilian casualties.
Just because they ask doesn't mean their request should be entertained.
I did't argue that it should. I argued that threats of violence and actual violence if they did make a request were totally unjustifiable
And it certainly isn't up to any country - Western or Eastern - to arbitrarily decide whether a country is a neutral buffer zone or not
Of course it is - by mutual agreement neither side will let them join their own private club.
Actually it isn't. I think you're confusing the right of an independent country to decide it's own foreign & security policies with that of other states agreeing to alliances with them.
-
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
Yeah, it's working out well for them.
Sorry, but if a country wants to join NATO, the EU or whatever then it's up to them to ask - and there's no justification for other country to invade and cause mass civilian casualties.
Just because they ask doesn't mean their request should be entertained.
I did't argue that it should. I argued that threats of violence and actual violence if they did make a request were totally unjustifiable
But that's not the reality of the situation. If NATO wasn't expanding and providing consideration as early as 2008, there'd be no invasion.
And it certainly isn't up to any country - Western or Eastern - to arbitrarily decide whether a country is a neutral buffer zone or not
Of course it is - by mutual agreement neither side will let them join their own private club.
Actually it isn't. I think you're confusing the right of an independent country to decide it's own foreign & security policies with that of other states agreeing to alliances with them.
I'm doing no such thing. An independent country can decide it's own foreign and security policies. That doesn't expand to an obligation on other countries to accede to those wishes.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
Yeah, it's working out well for them.
Sorry, but if a country wants to join NATO, the EU or whatever then it's up to them to ask - and there's no justification for other country to invade and cause mass civilian casualties.
Just because they ask doesn't mean their request should be entertained.
I did't argue that it should. I argued that threats of violence and actual violence if they did make a request were totally unjustifiable
But that's not the reality of the situation. If NATO wasn't expanding and providing consideration as early as 2008, there'd be no invasion.
It is the reality of the situation. You've just said that when you stated there'd be no invasion if countries like Poland hadn't applied to join NATO.
And it certainly isn't up to any country - Western or Eastern - to arbitrarily decide whether a country is a neutral buffer zone or not
Of course it is - by mutual agreement neither side will let them join their own private club.
Actually it isn't. I think you're confusing the right of an independent country to decide it's own foreign & security policies with that of other states agreeing to alliances with them.
I'm doing no such thing. An independent country can decide it's own foreign and security policies. That doesn't expand to an obligation on other countries to accede to those wishes.
Isn't that what I said?
-
No wonder the Russians are struggling, they're driving around like they're on parade! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/10/drone-footage-russia-tanks-ambushed-ukraine-forces-kyiv-war
-
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
-
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
We've been doing that with Crimea, Georgia and Syria and it hasn't worked out very well, has it?
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
We've been doing that with Crimea, Georgia and Syria and it hasn't worked out very well, has it?
Yes (in some situations). And encourage Ukraine to comply with the Minsk agreements (which would likely satisfy Russia). Rather than say encouraging Ukraine to join Nato (as Kamala did)
Seems more sensible to me. But Im not an expert on all of this but don't like the way its heading.
-
Yes (in some situations).
So you're OK with Russia invading Ukraine and shelling civilians then as they disagree with Ukraine's policies.
And encourage Ukraine to comply with the Minsk agreements (which would likely satisfy Russia)
And you also want Ukraine to comply with the Minsk agreements (Minsk II) but think it OK for Russia to ignore them.
Rather than say encouraging Ukraine to join Nato (as Kamala did)
Its a bit silly to blame this situation on Kamala Harris for encouraging Ukraine to join NATO when they started the process of joining way back in 2008.
Seems more sensible to me. But Im not an expert on all of this but don't like the way its heading.
I think Churchill said something about feeding other people to the crocodile in the hope it eats you last. He turned out to be right.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
Yeah, it's working out well for them.
Sorry, but if a country wants to join NATO, the EU or whatever then it's up to them to ask - and there's no justification for other country to invade and cause mass civilian casualties.
Just because they ask doesn't mean their request should be entertained.
I did't argue that it should. I argued that threats of violence and actual violence if they did make a request were totally unjustifiable
But that's not the reality of the situation. If NATO wasn't expanding and providing consideration as early as 2008, there'd be no invasion.
It is the reality of the situation. You've just said that when you stated there'd be no invasion if countries like Poland hadn't applied to join NATO.
I don't see Poland being attacked. The issue is Ukraine.
And it certainly isn't up to any country - Western or Eastern - to arbitrarily decide whether a country is a neutral buffer zone or not
Of course it is - by mutual agreement neither side will let them join their own private club.
Actually it isn't. I think you're confusing the right of an independent country to decide it's own foreign & security policies with that of other states agreeing to alliances with them.
I'm doing no such thing. An independent country can decide it's own foreign and security policies. That doesn't expand to an obligation on other countries to accede to those wishes.
Isn't that what I said?
It's what I said, You've mistakenly inferred that by not agreeing to a request to join that means States aren't free to determine their own foreign and security policies. They aren't mutually exclusive. Ukraine could've been pro-West in it's outlook and NATO could still refuse them membership which negates the threat of NATO being on Russia's doorstep.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
Why not? The West loves rogue States like the USA doing it.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
I don't see Poland being attacked. The issue is Ukraine.
You could have said the same about Ukraine when Russia invaded Georgia.
It's what I said, You've mistakenly inferred that by not agreeing to a request to join that means States aren't free to determine their own foreign and security policies. They aren't mutually exclusive. Ukraine could've been pro-West in it's outlook and NATO could still refuse them membership which negates the threat of NATO being on Russia's doorstep.
Not sure I've inferred anything. I simply said an independent country has every right to want to join NATO or the EU (without fear of invasion and killing of its citizens) but that doesn't obligate NATO or the EU to accept them.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
Why not? The West loves rogue States like the USA doing it.
Great whataboutery, but no cigar.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
I don't see Poland being attacked. The issue is Ukraine.
You could have said the same about Ukraine when Russia invaded Georgia.
I'd have said it about Georgia. NATO shouldn't have entertained it in 2006.
It's what I said, You've mistakenly inferred that by not agreeing to a request to join that means States aren't free to determine their own foreign and security policies. They aren't mutually exclusive. Ukraine could've been pro-West in it's outlook and NATO could still refuse them membership which negates the threat of NATO being on Russia's doorstep.
Not sure I've inferred anything. I simply said an independent country has every right to want to join NATO or the EU (without fear of invasion and killing of its citizens) but that doesn't obligate NATO or the EU to accept them.
Which is what I said originally. Remember you said 'And it certainly isn't up to any country - Western or Eastern - to arbitrarily decide whether a country is a neutral buffer zone or not'. Refusing Ukraine membership makes it a buffer zone.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
Why not? The West loves rogue States like the USA doing it.
Great whataboutery, but no cigar.
Ahh yes, throw out the old tu quoque fallacy rather than acknowledge the simple truth of the matter; if we conduct ourselves in one way, we have no grounds to complain that others do the same thing. We're dealing with the reality of realpolitik here, not sitting around singing kumbaya.
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
Refusing Ukraine membership makes it a buffer zone.
Bit of a stretch to say not being a NATO member means a country is forced into being a neutral buffet zone.
-
So you're OK with Russia invading Ukraine and shelling civilians then as they disagree with Ukraine's policies.
No Im not just to be clear. I hoped Russia wouldn't invade. And was sure they wouldn't.
But Im just not an expert and will withdraw. Thanks for the reply
-
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@antipodean said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew said in Ukraine:
@victor-meldrew But do we want WW3. With China maybe joining Russia.
What are you arguing? That the West simply accepts that rogue states like Russia can decide the fate of third-party countries?
Why not? The West loves rogue States like the USA doing it.
Great whataboutery, but no cigar.
..if we conduct ourselves in one way, we have no grounds to complain that others do the same thing.
Totally agree with you. The only difference is I don't accept it's OK for countries like Russia to invade other countries any more than the US.