To me it feels nearly identical to the build up to Iraq with extremely limited critical application of the journalistic tools available. I mean 20 years later and even the most "liberal" of papers are running pieces on the Ukraine situation with very limited critical analysis. The whole thing feels rushed and baseless and very much a Beltway desire to revv up the engines of war.
Again the government in Washington has no real control of events between Russia and Ukraine.
Its like accusing the weather channel of manufacturing a hurricane. The hurricane may hit or not, and the weather channels models may be correct or may not, but no amount of hype and build up is going to make a hurricane happen that wasn’t going to happen anyway.
Jealous Deva on
+14
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The only realistic way to minimize chance of war would be to stop supporting Eastern Europe at all and let Russia go get their lebensraum. Let them annex all nations they like and remove democracy from tens of millions of people.
I personally don't think that would be a defensible position ethically. But it is physically possible.
To me it feels nearly identical to the build up to Iraq with extremely limited critical application of the journalistic tools available. I mean 20 years later and even the most "liberal" of papers are running pieces on the Ukraine situation with very limited critical analysis. The whole thing feels rushed and baseless and very much a Beltway desire to revv up the engines of war.
Again the government in Washington has no real control of events between Russia and Ukraine.
Its like accusing the weather channel of manufacturing a hurricane. The hurricane may hit or not, and the weather channels models may be correct or may not, but no amount of hype and build up is going to make a hurricane happen that wasn’t going to happen anyway.
I don't think that's the greatest analogy in this case, because unlike a hurricane there is (some degree) of impact and influence Washington / outside actors can have to potentially reduce the chances of invasion. The more costly (diplomatic, economic / personal wealth, Russian blood) invading Ukraine appears to Russia the less appealing it will be to actually invade. Whereas if the west seems to not give a shit the more likely Putin is to figure fuck it yolo and roll tanks. Putin isn't a force of nature and while he largely doesn't give a shit about what anyone cares or is going to do, there is pressure that can be exerted on him and the people around him if people care enough to do so.
I do suppose there is a theoretical point where the US populace / EU / NATO get worked up so much and so angry about the invasion that they begin to support direct action against Russia - i.e. the false stories about Iraqi troops taking incubators from Kuwaiti babies - but I really think it's unlikely that there's a line where the American people are going to look at these stories and demand the 82nd get deployed to Mariupol.
Edit - but in this case, pretty much everything makes war less, not more likely.
The only realistic way to minimize chance of war would be to stop supporting Eastern Europe at all and let Russia go get their lebensraum. Let them annex all nations they like and remove democracy from tens of millions of people.
I personally don't think that would be a defensible position ethically. But it is physically possible.
Minimize war in the immediate future anyway. Long term invading nations don't tend to decide they have had enough and this is a good place to stop, especially because then Putin's sphere of influence butts directly up against NATO and of course that proximity is going to be a threat and....
The only realistic way to minimize chance of war would be to stop supporting Eastern Europe at all and let Russia go get their lebensraum. Let them annex all nations they like and remove democracy from tens of millions of people.
I personally don't think that would be a defensible position ethically. But it is physically possible.
To whit, the opposite is true: make eastern Europe so up gunned that Russia can't risk invading without having the modern equivalent of the winter war.
To me it feels nearly identical to the build up to Iraq with extremely limited critical application of the journalistic tools available. I mean 20 years later and even the most "liberal" of papers are running pieces on the Ukraine situation with very limited critical analysis. The whole thing feels rushed and baseless and very much a Beltway desire to revv up the engines of war.
Again the government in Washington has no real control of events between Russia and Ukraine.
Its like accusing the weather channel of manufacturing a hurricane. The hurricane may hit or not, and the weather channels models may be correct or may not, but no amount of hype and build up is going to make a hurricane happen that wasn’t going to happen anyway.
I don't think that's the greatest analogy in this case, because unlike a hurricane there is (some degree) of impact and influence Washington / outside actors can have to potentially reduce the chances of invasion. The more costly (diplomatic, economic / personal wealth, Russian blood) invading Ukraine appears to Russia the less appealing it will be to actually invade. Whereas if the west seems to not give a shit the more likely Putin is to figure fuck it yolo and roll tanks. Putin isn't a force of nature and while he largely doesn't give a shit about what anyone cares or is going to do, there is pressure that can be exerted on him and the people around him if people care enough to do so.
I do suppose there is a theoretical point where the US populace / EU / NATO get worked up so much and so angry about the invasion that they begin to support direct action against Russia - i.e. the false stories about Iraqi troops taking incubators from Kuwaiti babies - but I really think it's unlikely that there's a line where the American people are going to look at these stories and demand the 82nd get deployed to Mariupol.
Edit - but in this case, pretty much everything makes war less, not more likely.
The only realistic way to minimize chance of war would be to stop supporting Eastern Europe at all and let Russia go get their lebensraum. Let them annex all nations they like and remove democracy from tens of millions of people.
I personally don't think that would be a defensible position ethically. But it is physically possible.
Minimize war in the immediate future anyway. Long term invading nations don't tend to decide they have had enough and this is a good place to stop, especially because then Putin's sphere of influence butts directly up against NATO and of course that proximity is going to be a threat and....
Yeah even in the short term colonialism and acquisition of territory is a hell of a drug.
There are a ton of points you can look at in WW1 and 2 where it would have been a great time for Germany or Japan to say “hey shit look what we have acquired, lets pull back, trade a bit of the territory we have conquered for peace, and consolidate over the long term”
But in reality not only were the leaders not in favor of doing this but it would have probably been politically impossible even if they were. Everyone gets a gambler mentality of “I just won at the roulette table on a single number bet, I can win, let it ride!” Instead of “I just won at the roulette table on a single number bet, shit that’ll never happen again, let me go pay off all my credit card debt!”
(As an example, after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk Germany had nearly doubled its size and acquired massive amounts of the same territory they would be seeking in WW2. A reasonable leadership would have thought “shit we are way ahead, lets try everything possible to get out of war with France and England. Give them Belgium, Alsace Lorraine, whatever shit to get 10 years of breathing room to consolidate and integrate this new land”. But no one seriously considered that, they had to throw the dice one more time and went bust.)
Russia's playing the China card. The U.S. player is gonna have to tread lightly until they can flip it face up next round.
Eh.. "No further expansion" is not the same as Russia's "go back to 1997" demand.
Plus
A readout from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) said the two leaders "had an in-depth and thorough exchange of views on China-Russia relations and a series of major issues concerning international strategic security and stability" but made no direct mention of NATO
Obviously there's no love lost for NATO in China, but this is more an expression of how China is not "against Russia" . Not how they are "for Russia"
In this situation China is like that gif of Stephen Colbert with the popcorn. There's really no downsides either way this goes for them, so they can just sit back and watch.
I mean, China is going to take the opportunity to make plays here or there (probably increasing their presence/influence in the 'Stans), but I ddon't see them trying to swipe territory from the russian federation.
I don't think China gives two craps one way or the other about the NATO/Russia UFC weigh in staring match. It's just a way to needle the West for the diplomatic Olympic boycott and also remind Putin to play nice for a bit during this Chinese Olympics rather than last time (IIRC wasn't the last time China hosted also when Russia invaded Georgia?)
Russia IS aware that invading other countries isn't an Olympic category, right?
They are going for the gold
I think the sporting term for this would be "a turkey" given thaat this would be the third time they've done this during olympic games.
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
It is a smart move strategically, because world leaders attention is distracted. I don't think Russia is going to be able to get to Kiev fast enough, if that's what they are planning.
I hope the Ukraine has moved their leadership to a different area, and is working on establishing alternate forms of communication and hardening areas it can.
It is a smart move strategically, because world leaders attention is distracted. I don't think Russia is going to be able to get to Kiev fast enough, if that's what they are planning.
I hope the Ukraine has moved their leadership to a different area, and is working on establishing alternate forms of communication and hardening areas it can.
Nobody's distracted from shit, since russia has been menacing ukraine for weeks and making ludicrous demands that basicaally give them everything and everyone else nothing.
Also maybe its different elsewhere, but it doesnt feel like anyone but China gives half a shit about these Olympics. Is anyone actually distracted by them?
Russia's playing the China card. The U.S. player is gonna have to tread lightly until they can flip it face up next round.
Eh.. "No further expansion" is not the same as Russia's "go back to 1997" demand.
Plus
A readout from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) said the two leaders "had an in-depth and thorough exchange of views on China-Russia relations and a series of major issues concerning international strategic security and stability" but made no direct mention of NATO
Obviously there's no love lost for NATO in China, but this is more an expression of how China is not "against Russia" . Not how they are "for Russia"
Well. Russia is talking to China is probably:
So you’re not going to take our land/impose sanctions when we’re embroiled in this situation in Ukraine right? We dictators need to stick together
Also maybe its different elsewhere, but it doesnt feel like anyone but China gives half a shit about these Olympics. Is anyone actually distracted by them?
Gonna be honest; I didn't even realize they were taking place.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+10
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Also maybe its different elsewhere, but it doesnt feel like anyone but China gives half a shit about these Olympics. Is anyone actually distracted by them?
Gonna be honest; I didn't even realize they were taking place.
My wife was asking me yesterday if I wanted to watch some figure skating, and I was like yeah sure, and I asked her what figure skating she wanted to watch? And she was like the Olympics. So if not for that convo and this thread. I had not thought about it.
There are a ton of points you can look at in WW1 and 2 where it would have been a great time for Germany or Japan to say “hey shit look what we have acquired, lets pull back, trade a bit of the territory we have conquered for peace, and consolidate over the long term”
This was actually Japan's strategy going into WW2: grab as much territory as possible, solidify defenses, then negotiate.
There are a ton of points you can look at in WW1 and 2 where it would have been a great time for Germany or Japan to say “hey shit look what we have acquired, lets pull back, trade a bit of the territory we have conquered for peace, and consolidate over the long term”
This was actually Japan's strategy going into WW2: grab as much territory as possible, solidify defenses, then negotiate.
Yeah the problem was they vastly overplayed their hand. They should have backed off when the US threatened to declare war and consolidated in China, though realistically this would have most likely failed eventually as well, as I doubt they could have occupied the massive population centers in china over long term either. It would have been a long brutal war but I feel like the communists would have eventually pushed them out. Honestly they probably overextended the minute they stepped beyond Manchuria, but again colonialism is a hell of a drug.
Generally if your war plan is “declare war on all/most of the other great powers at once” and you aren’t Rome you are probably fucking up, no matter how much you convince yourself the whole structure is going to fall down once you kick the door.
There are a ton of points you can look at in WW1 and 2 where it would have been a great time for Germany or Japan to say “hey shit look what we have acquired, lets pull back, trade a bit of the territory we have conquered for peace, and consolidate over the long term”
This was actually Japan's strategy going into WW2: grab as much territory as possible, solidify defenses, then negotiate.
Technically it was Hitler's as well. The problem was that the British weren't having any of it. Turns out, once you start breaking treaties and guarantees, everyone just assumes you are negotiating in bad faith. (*looks meaningfully at Russia*)
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+14
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
US itself is planning to launch a military assault on Donbass and is counting on rubes to crunch tinfoil on their heads
And we are the tinfoil conspiracy nuts?
Edit - also the Donbas region is part of Ukraine, it is not a separate nation and the framing of it that way is a very clear tell if someone is (to be generous) naive and simply useful to Putin.
I disagree with the assertion that the US is trying to start a war or is planning on direct military action in Ukraine. For starters, shuffling 3K troops east and sending tons of weapons to Ukraine indicates a supportive stance, not an assertive one. For another, the 100K+ troops being staged in the theater are Russian, not American. Also, let's consider the co.petency or lack thereof of the current US administration. They can't even get their own political party marching in the same direction, let alone something 4D chess.
I do not agree with the administration's weird press releases. If you want to make a case for supporting Ukraine, make it. Don't wave around weird accusations of Russian parroting and false flags without some serious evidence.
The good news is Macron's heading on over to do some shuttle diplomacy next week.
US itself is planning to launch a military assault on Donbass and is counting on rubes to crunch tinfoil on their heads
And we are the tinfoil conspiracy nuts?
Edit - also the Donbas region is part of Ukraine, it is not a separate nation and the framing of it that way is a very clear tell if someone is (to be generous) naive and simply useful to Putin.
No man its all a US plan to launch a military assault to take over a landlocked region of Ukraine currently administered by Russia at gunpoint which what sparse independent polling there is suggests would rather be part of Ukraine despite the US having little to no ground forces anywhere near the area.
+2
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Pls report and don't bother responding, it'll be gone when I get a chance to get to it
I wonder what the average number of day old accounts per page is in D&D threads not involving Russia.
I kind of miss the day 1 account Gregnant spam. Did the Ukraine have sex 1 time with a condom while on the pill but they are totally freaking out about it?
zepherin on
+9
Options
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
I mean, China is going to take the opportunity to make plays here or there (probably increasing their presence/influence in the 'Stans), but I ddon't see them trying to swipe territory from the russian federation.
one theory is that china is basically watching this to see what happens. As this would provide them with lots of information on how a Taiwan invasion would play out.
They're not looking to invade russia militarily for the reasons brought up (nukes, etc).
China gains the most by doing nothing here, I think. It costs them nothing to watch their rivals probe each other in rather public ways and glean data from it.
Posts
Again the government in Washington has no real control of events between Russia and Ukraine.
Its like accusing the weather channel of manufacturing a hurricane. The hurricane may hit or not, and the weather channels models may be correct or may not, but no amount of hype and build up is going to make a hurricane happen that wasn’t going to happen anyway.
I personally don't think that would be a defensible position ethically. But it is physically possible.
I don't think that's the greatest analogy in this case, because unlike a hurricane there is (some degree) of impact and influence Washington / outside actors can have to potentially reduce the chances of invasion. The more costly (diplomatic, economic / personal wealth, Russian blood) invading Ukraine appears to Russia the less appealing it will be to actually invade. Whereas if the west seems to not give a shit the more likely Putin is to figure fuck it yolo and roll tanks. Putin isn't a force of nature and while he largely doesn't give a shit about what anyone cares or is going to do, there is pressure that can be exerted on him and the people around him if people care enough to do so.
I do suppose there is a theoretical point where the US populace / EU / NATO get worked up so much and so angry about the invasion that they begin to support direct action against Russia - i.e. the false stories about Iraqi troops taking incubators from Kuwaiti babies - but I really think it's unlikely that there's a line where the American people are going to look at these stories and demand the 82nd get deployed to Mariupol.
Edit - but in this case, pretty much everything makes war less, not more likely.
Edit2 -
Minimize war in the immediate future anyway. Long term invading nations don't tend to decide they have had enough and this is a good place to stop, especially because then Putin's sphere of influence butts directly up against NATO and of course that proximity is going to be a threat and....
To whit, the opposite is true: make eastern Europe so up gunned that Russia can't risk invading without having the modern equivalent of the winter war.
Yeah even in the short term colonialism and acquisition of territory is a hell of a drug.
There are a ton of points you can look at in WW1 and 2 where it would have been a great time for Germany or Japan to say “hey shit look what we have acquired, lets pull back, trade a bit of the territory we have conquered for peace, and consolidate over the long term”
But in reality not only were the leaders not in favor of doing this but it would have probably been politically impossible even if they were. Everyone gets a gambler mentality of “I just won at the roulette table on a single number bet, I can win, let it ride!” Instead of “I just won at the roulette table on a single number bet, shit that’ll never happen again, let me go pay off all my credit card debt!”
(As an example, after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk Germany had nearly doubled its size and acquired massive amounts of the same territory they would be seeking in WW2. A reasonable leadership would have thought “shit we are way ahead, lets try everything possible to get out of war with France and England. Give them Belgium, Alsace Lorraine, whatever shit to get 10 years of breathing room to consolidate and integrate this new land”. But no one seriously considered that, they had to throw the dice one more time and went bust.)
Russia's playing the China card. The U.S. player is gonna have to tread lightly until they can flip it face up next round.
It's a good sign that no one is planning to invade Russia: China would love to get Syberia, and an invasion would be the perfect time to get it.
But they won't. Because Russia has nukes. So no one is going to invade Russia.
Eh.. "No further expansion" is not the same as Russia's "go back to 1997" demand.
Plus
Obviously there's no love lost for NATO in China, but this is more an expression of how China is not "against Russia" . Not how they are "for Russia"
Georgia during Beijing 2008.
They are going for the gold
I think the sporting term for this would be "a turkey" given thaat this would be the third time they've done this during olympic games.
I hope the Ukraine has moved their leadership to a different area, and is working on establishing alternate forms of communication and hardening areas it can.
Nobody's distracted from shit, since russia has been menacing ukraine for weeks and making ludicrous demands that basicaally give them everything and everyone else nothing.
Well. Russia is talking to China is probably:
So you’re not going to take our land/impose sanctions when we’re embroiled in this situation in Ukraine right? We dictators need to stick together
So it’s not about NATO but it is about NATO.
Gonna be honest; I didn't even realize they were taking place.
- John Stuart Mill
This was actually Japan's strategy going into WW2: grab as much territory as possible, solidify defenses, then negotiate.
Generally if your war plan is “declare war on all/most of the other great powers at once” and you aren’t Rome you are probably fucking up, no matter how much you convince yourself the whole structure is going to fall down once you kick the door.
Technically it was Hitler's as well. The problem was that the British weren't having any of it. Turns out, once you start breaking treaties and guarantees, everyone just assumes you are negotiating in bad faith. (*looks meaningfully at Russia*)
- John Stuart Mill
How dare you impugn the American media! Why, the New York Times itself is encouraging scepticism of government sources!
I guess to be fair it's an open question whether they lust for Democratic or foreign blood more.
And we are the tinfoil conspiracy nuts?
Edit - also the Donbas region is part of Ukraine, it is not a separate nation and the framing of it that way is a very clear tell if someone is (to be generous) naive and simply useful to Putin.
I do not agree with the administration's weird press releases. If you want to make a case for supporting Ukraine, make it. Don't wave around weird accusations of Russian parroting and false flags without some serious evidence.
The good news is Macron's heading on over to do some shuttle diplomacy next week.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220204-france-s-macron-to-meet-putin-and-zelensky-in-separate-talks-next-week
So those of us that have been advocating a France/Germany spearheaded diplomatic solution have something to look forward to.
No man its all a US plan to launch a military assault to take over a landlocked region of Ukraine currently administered by Russia at gunpoint which what sparse independent polling there is suggests would rather be part of Ukraine despite the US having little to no ground forces anywhere near the area.
one theory is that china is basically watching this to see what happens. As this would provide them with lots of information on how a Taiwan invasion would play out.
They're not looking to invade russia militarily for the reasons brought up (nukes, etc).