2022: The year the world returns to war?

[SebC]

The Russian nukes in Cuba gave them a greatly expanded ability to hit the continental US. These days missiles have global range, or can be deployed from subs, or bombs can delivered from a loitering B2.

I don't see how Ukraine could make such a significant difference, and even if it would, Russia's actions are giving Ukraine cause to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Hopefully this goes better than the illegal annexation of Crimea by the russians. Seems they walked away from that with a slap on the wrist and that’s all.

No need for war but I’m assuming the economic sanctions will hit them harder. They’ve got germany in their pocket what with the ability to shut off Germany’s gas if they upset them but I believe the rest of Europe isn’t quite as beholden to russian whims

I never supported annexation of Crimea. In fact, I was and still am against it, and frankly owning the Crimea for 8 years seems to give us far less that the sanctions took away. That being said, the Russian argument for it was the following:

If a country joins a union and then leaves the union, it should leave with the same lands it has had when joined.

Ukraine didn't have Crimea when it joined USSR. In fact, Crimea was part of Russia. Crimea was handed over from Russia to Ukraine when both were in USSR by Ukrainian-born leader of USSR. It was never a will of people or anything. So when Ukraine voted to leave USSR and become independent, it should have left the Union with the same lands it joined, that is without Crimea. Or so Russia believes, rightly or wrongly

[Harry Lime]

It's also about the annexation of Crimea by Putin. If he wanted to protect his deep water port from being a part of NATO, he picked the most violent and antagonistic way of making sure that didn't happen. If anything that pushed Ukraine towards NATO membership, and he has to know that would be the result of his actions.

A lot of parallels can be made to Kennedy, but the Bay of Pigs invasion was a small group of Cuban exiles backed by the US, not the US itself, and the USSR later tried to physically place nukes, not open negotiation.

What's happening in Ukraine is the equivalent of if Al Capone was President instead of Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The news in Russia also seems to be painting this entirely as a conflict with the US and Ukraine is an afterthought.

This seems like a failure by both Russia and the West to effectively create an economic power of Ukraine. The country has been a lot more poor and unstable than it should have been since the falling of the Soviet Union. Putin has had decades to strengthen Ukraine as a buffer and an ally, and instead strewn discord. On the other side, the West has used Ukraine for a quick economic gain while ignoring the fragility of the political system, because that suited them from a business standpoint.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by SebC

The Russian nukes in Cuba gave them a greatly expanded ability to hit the continental US. These days missiles have global range, or can be deployed from subs, or bombs can delivered from a loitering B2.

I don't see how Ukraine could make such a significant difference, and even if it would, Russia's actions are giving Ukraine cause to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

I don't have such deep military understanding as Captain Crunch, but still global range missiles are easier to intercept and fly for much longer (i.e. like 20 minutes). While you are right about distance mattering less, it still matters. Situation is tense because Russian troops are right at the border - rather than some distance away. There was a discussion earlier in this thread about how Russia has military advantage because it's so close to Ukraine while US is far away and has long supply lines. Being right at the border or being some distance away still matters apparently.

On the second one, you are perfectly right. With everyone expecting everyone else to start invasion or missile strike or whatever, Ukrainians seem to be left with no choice but to get some weapons themselves.

Which is why the only way out of it is to gain some more trust. Which can only be gained by honouring agreements and improving understanding of each other.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

The Russian nukes in Cuba gave them a greatly expanded ability to hit the continental US. These days missiles have global range, or can be deployed from subs, or bombs can delivered from a loitering B2.

I don't see how Ukraine could make such a significant difference, and even if it would, Russia's actions are giving Ukraine cause to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

Shorter range and response time. Moscow is 600 km from Ukraine, far closer than any open water or NATO state

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

The lack of trust is so severe, that Putin wants written legally binding guarantees on Ukraine not joining NATO. And he actually did explain that he wants it this way because oral, not clearly formulated promises of 1990 were broken (see Spiegel article above). And the west doesn't want to give him that.

Why does Russia get to dictate what Ukraine does? Part of being a country is self-determination. If Ukraine wants to join something, sorry Putin, too bad, so sad. You don't get to invade them for that.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why does Russia get to dictate what Ukraine does? Part of being a country is self-determination. If Ukraine wants to join something, sorry Putin, too bad, so sad. You don't get to invade them for that.

Putin has failed to make an ironclad ally of Ukraine, or make it very economically worrisome for them to consider NATO as an option. Even if they had poor political ties with Russia, if the economic benefit was there, they wouldn't risk losing it for a military agreement. With a lack of economic clout, Putin resorted to the stick.

It's as if Canada was poor (more ill run politically than it is now!) and decided that the best way forward was to join Warsaw, because the USA had been dicks to Canada for decades upon decades.

Ukraine wasn't built up like Europe and didn't recover with Russia at the same rate (ironically they both would have benefited greatly by stronger ties than they have). This is a very long string of diplomatic failure.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

No one wants to invade Russia

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why does Russia get to dictate what Ukraine does? Part of being a country is self-determination. If Ukraine wants to join something, sorry Putin, too bad, so sad. You don't get to invade them for that.

Because not accepting new members from the east was a condition of unification of Germany. As written in Spiegel article linked above. Putin has no right to tell Ukraine what to do - and he doesn't. He does, however, every right to demand NATO to honour that agreement.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Putin has failed to make an ironclad ally of Ukraine, or make it very economically worrisome for them to consider NATO as an option. Even if they had poor political ties with Russia, if the economic benefit was there, they wouldn't risk losing it for a military agreement. With a lack of economic clout, Putin resorted to the stick.

It's as if Canada was poor (more ill run politically than it is now!) and decided that the best way forward was to join Warsaw, because the USA had been dicks to Canada for decades upon decades.

Ukraine wasn't built up like Europe and didn't recover with Russia at the same rate (ironically they both would have benefited greatly by stronger ties than they have). This is a very long string of diplomatic failure.

And Canada should have a right to that. Ukraine has legitimate concerns about the defense of their borders, as evidence by the stealing if Crimea, and the present situation. If you had someone taking your land and attacking you, would you not look elsewhere for protection?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Putin has failed to make an ironclad ally of Ukraine, or make it very economically worrisome for them to consider NATO as an option. Even if they had poor political ties with Russia, if the economic benefit was there, they wouldn't risk losing it for a military agreement. With a lack of economic clout, Putin resorted to the stick.

It's as if Canada was poor (more ill run politically than it is now!) and decided that the best way forward was to join Warsaw, because the USA had been dicks to Canada for decades upon decades.

Ukraine wasn't built up like Europe and didn't recover with Russia at the same rate (ironically they both would have benefited greatly by stronger ties than they have). This is a very long string of diplomatic failure.

There's no doubt there were plenty of diplomatic and economic failures, including that on Russian side, all the way here.

And I'm not even sure why West and Russia are even antagonists at all. There were surely some issues, but it's not like the countries are so different that they couldn't collaborate and trade and prosper together. I don't see them competing for the same resources either.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Because not accepting new members from the east was a condition of unification of Germany. As written in Spiegel article linked above. Putin has no right to tell Ukraine what to do - and he doesn't. He does, however, every right to demand NATO to honour that agreement.

Why? Putin has been a bad actor, but everyone else is still tied to respecting previous agreements? "You play by the rules, while I go around doing whatever I feel like" isn't exactly a strong position to make demands from.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

And Canada should have a right to that. Ukraine has legitimate concerns about the defense of their borders, as evidence by the stealing if Crimea, and the present situation. If you had someone taking your land and attacking you, would you not look elsewhere for protection?

And stealing Crimea was an immediate response to a western-backed coup that toppled the legally elected president of Ukraine. Who, in turn, was a corrupt Putin puppet, and Ukrainians wanted to gravitate towards west, rather than Russia.

It all makes me feel that those power games are kind of unnecessary and redundant. If we all just disarm, what harm would it make?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why? Putin has been a bad actor, but everyone else is still tied to respecting previous agreements? "You play by the rules, while I go around doing whatever I feel like" isn't exactly a strong position to make demands from.

How did Putin broke the rules? If you mean Crimea, it happened long after NATO has been illegally expanding.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Because not accepting new members from the east was a condition of unification of Germany. As written in Spiegel article linked above. Putin has no right to tell Ukraine what to do - and he doesn't. He does, however, every right to demand NATO to honour that agreement.

and Russia needs to follow the Minsk agreements.

• Immediate, comprehensive ceasefire.
• Withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides.
• OSCE monitoring.
• Dialogue on interim self-government for Donetsk and Luhansk, in accordance with Ukrainian law, and acknowledgement of special status by parliament.
• Pardon, amnesty for fighters.
• Exchange of hostages, prisoners.
• Humanitarian assistance.
• Resumption of socioeconomic ties, including pensions.
• Ukraine to restore control of state border.
• Withdrawal of foreign armed formations, military equipment, mercenaries.
• Constitutional reform in Ukraine including decentralisation, with specific mention of Donetsk and Luhansk.
• Elections in Donetsk and Luhansk.
• Intensify Trilateral Contact Group’s work including representatives of Russia, Ukraine and OSCE.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

How did Putin broke the rules? If you mean Crimea, it happened long after NATO has been illegally expanding.

Maybe a little something about shooting down a civilian aircraft?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Cheese

and Russia needs to follow the Minsk agreements.

• Immediate, comprehensive ceasefire.
• Withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides.
• OSCE monitoring.
• Dialogue on interim self-government for Donetsk and Luhansk, in accordance with Ukrainian law, and acknowledgement of special status by parliament.
• Pardon, amnesty for fighters.
• Exchange of hostages, prisoners.
• Humanitarian assistance.
• Resumption of socioeconomic ties, including pensions.
• Ukraine to restore control of state border.
• Withdrawal of foreign armed formations, military equipment, mercenaries.
• Constitutional reform in Ukraine including decentralisation, with specific mention of Donetsk and Luhansk.
• Elections in Donetsk and Luhansk.
• Intensify Trilateral Contact Group’s work including representatives of Russia, Ukraine and OSCE.

Sure. Let's finally try to honour agreements and strive for peace.

[nik-]

This is hilarious. I really hope no one is buying this ####.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe a little something about shooting down a civilian aircraft?

It was accidental. Do you think Putin is personally responsible for it? Does it make Reagan personally responsible for this one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

It was accidental. Do you think Putin is personally responsible for it? Does it make Reagan personally responsible for this one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Whoops! My bad. Teehee.


If it was an accident, why have they made no reparations for it?