2022: The year the world returns to war?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

why wouldn't he? if he gets away with this what's to say he decides he wants Poland back?

I get this line of thinking. It does feel as if Putin can randomly ask for something and threat a war if he doesn't get what he wants. However, he does not randomly ask for something just because he's made up his mind. It's NATO, not Putin, who flat out lies about never promising to expand East.

Putin wouldn't just randomly want to take Poland back. Crimea is very unique case, Russia has been disputed it ever since the fall of USSR and before Putin was even in power. Both getting Crimea back and stopping NATO expansion have been hot topics in Russia before Putin and will be after him. Getting Poland back? Not so much.

That's probably the real reason why western response is not that firm. And why Putin has support inside Russia. For all the madness going on, Russia has solid cases on both points.

If he goes on after other countries, what would stop him is far harder stance from the west and far less support from within.

[Huntingwhale]

Damn, my wife's step-dad just got the call that he might be headed to the Donbas area as part of the reservists being called up. Nothing for sure yet, but he was told to be ready. Wife's cousin was called yesterday and is heading there on the 26th.

I was also told that land border between UA/RU was being closed. Not sure how true that is though, as I haven't been able to find any news sources confirming this. We were told this by my MIL who lives right by the border.

[Pointman]

When you fight against Russia over Crimea, you effectively fight for this USSR decree to remain in effect. Does it really worth it?

https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/119636

Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, for its part the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR considers that the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR is completely advisable, considering the commonality of their economy, the territorial proximity, and the close economic and cultural ties, and is evidence of the unlimited trust of the great Russian people in the Ukrainian people.

With sincere gratitude and approval the Ukrainian people welcome the decision concerning the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR as a new manifestation of the concern of the CPSU and Soviet Government concerning the further strengthening of the unbreakable friendship and fraternal ties between the Russian and Ukrainian peoples

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Damn, my wife's step-dad just got the call that he might be headed to the Donbas area as part of the reservists being called up. Nothing for sure yet, but he was told to be ready. Wife's cousin was called yesterday and is heading there on the 26th.

I was also told that land border between UA/RU was being closed. Not sure how true that is though, as I haven't been able to find any news sources confirming this. We were told this by my MIL who lives right by the border.

This madness needs to stop. We should negotiate. People are literally getting killed because of 1954 decree by USSR totalitarian government. I get the concept of sovereign nation, borders and all. But sometimes you have to wonder why borders are drawn where they are at the first place. Khrushchev did it to gain support of Ukraine in the post-Stalin power struggle (this happened less than a year after Stalin's death). It's ridiculous that it still haunts us today.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I read the first few paragraphs and will read the rest later. It's unbelievable the way he talks. He's basically saying Ukraine is Russian.

If a German Chancellor started talking about 'historic' German lands that are now part of Poland I can't imagine the blowback from international media.

The whole speech is almost one giant lie, but this part is particularly ridiculous.

[Pointman]

When Putin annexed Crimea, he held a referendum. The people of Crimea voted whether they want to be a part of Russia. It was a joke. It was buffony. No sane person can accept that as a legit vote. The west dismissed that laughable mockery of a "vote".

Yet, in 1954 there was no vote at all. Not even a joke of a vote. Not even a "vote-yes-or-tanks-shoot" type of vote. Nevermind vote, there were not even any opinion polls. Not any type of public discussions of any sort. Mind you public discussions were not a thing in USSR. This is how Ukraine got Crimea. Yet somehow that's ok. Somehow that totalitarian decree is in line with the western values. Somehow the whole civilized world can get behind this USSR decree? To the point that we are having bloodshed over a border line arbitrary drawn by a head of tyrannical state, that no longer exist?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Pointman

When Putin annexed Crimea, he held a referendum. The people of Crimea voted whether they want to be a part of Russia. It was a joke. It was buffony. No sane person can accept that as a legit vote. The west dismissed that laughable mockery of a "vote".

Yet, in 1954 there was no vote at all. Not even a joke of a vote. Not even a "vote-yes-or-tanks-shoot" type of vote. Nevermind vote, there were not even any opinion polls. Not any type of public discussions of any sort. Mind you public discussions were not a thing in USSR. This is how Ukraine got Crimea. Yet somehow that's ok. Somehow that totalitarian decree is in line with the western values. Somehow the whole civilized world can get behind this USSR decree? To the point that we are having bloodshed over a border line arbitrary drawn by a head of tyrannical state, that no longer exist?

I guess at some point I need to go longer on your historical claims, but I'm going to make two quick points here.

1. Russia wants to shed blood over Crimea. They are starting a war over it. They are 100% the only one to blame because without Russian aggression, no war would be fought.

2. There are basically no borders drawn in the world that were drawn by a democratic process. It's a completely bogus argument that you can make about literally any border area in the world to justify wars, and it's also qn argument that HAS been used for literally thousands of years. "This area is traditionally ours" might be the most common excuse for war of all time.

It's what makes it an undefensible non-argument

Also, Ukraine 100% has the right to join NATO if it wants, because it's an independent country, and the reason they wanted to join NATO is because they justifiably fear Russian aggression. It's understandable that Russia wouldn't like it, but it's 100% unjustifiable as an excuse for war.

To turn that around and say "we're only attacking you because you are trying to make yourself able to defend yourself from us, and we wouldn't attack you of you made yourself even more unable to defend yourself" is just grotesque.

[Cheese]

We see a clear evolution of Putin’s public position on Ukraine:

• 2020 – Ukraine is a sovereign country, Russia is ready to cooperate with its government, but Ukraine must first reach an agreement with Russia.
• 2021 (July, Putin’s article) – Ukraine has a dubious history of creation; Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same people; Russia respects the choice of the Ukrainian people, but Ukraine’s sovereignty can only exist in partnership with Russia.
• 2022 (February) – Ukraine has no history; it is a historical error; it has no legitimate government; it is under external rule and does not deserve sovereignty.
The whole speech can be perceived as a “stream of consciousness,” but this stream is not accidental. It is a de facto declaration of war on Ukraine at the political level and its denial of recognizing it as a sovereign country.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Itse

I guess at some point I need to go longer on your historical claims, but I'm going to make two quick points here.

1. Russia wants to shed blood over Crimea. They are starting a war over it. They are 100% the only one to blame because without Russian aggression, no war would be fought.

2. There are basically no borders drawn in the world that were drawn by a democratic process. It's a completely bogus argument that you can make about literally any border area in the world to justify wars, and it's also qn argument that HAS been used for literally thousands of years. "This area is traditionally ours" might be the most common excuse for war of all time.

It's what makes it an undefensible non-argument

1. Annexation should never have happened and that's 100% on Russia. Just because Crimea is traditionally Russian, it does not justify even a bloodless annexation, let alone what we see now. The point is not about putting the blame on the west, but more about letting it go. Basically, I want peace asap. If that means recognizing Crimea as Russian, so be it. I get it's easy for me to say it as Russian. But I'm just not a fight-till-death-over-holy-yet-randomly-drawn borders guy. I am fine with giving disputed Kurily Islands to Japan, for instance. I don't want the world to go into hell because of a god forgotten peninsula which, in all fairness, should have been Russian all the way.. The way Crimea went from Russia to Ukraine is arguably even less "democratic", than it went the other way around. Best we just let it go.

2. I somewhat can get the danger of letting everyone go after lands that are perceived as "traditionally ours". However, being fixed on borders drawn by war, authority or luck isn't the way forward either. Didn't you have a vote on Quebec independence? Or a vote on Scottish independence? That's the way forward. Negotiate. Let people decide. Honour promises. That's the way to establish a sustainable peace,v which is the goal for everyone involved.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Itse

Also, Ukraine 100% has the right to join NATO if it wants, because it's an independent country, and the reason they wanted to join NATO is because they justifiably fear Russian aggression. It's understandable that Russia wouldn't like it, but it's 100% unjustifiable as an excuse for war.

To turn that around and say "we're only attacking you because you are trying to make yourself able to defend yourself from us, and we wouldn't attack you of you made yourself even more unable to defend yourself" is just grotesque.

Ukraine has 100% rights to APPLY for NATO membership. Because Ukraine is independent country. Yet, NATO has no rights to accept them because of the promises they gave to Russia and consequently broke. Given that both German and US archives seem to confirm the promises, there's little doubt left that promise was indeed made and later broken. Does it justify war? No. But to say that NATO can accept anyone as they please is just ignoring historical facts.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Pointman

1. Annexation should never have happened and that's 100% on Russia. Just because Crimea is traditionally Russian, it does not justify even a bloodless annexation, let alone what we see now. The point is not about putting the blame on the west, but more about letting it go. Basically, I want peace asap. If that means recognizing Crimea as Russian, so be it. I get it's easy for me to say it as Russian. But I'm just not a fight-till-death-over-holy-yet-randomly-drawn borders guy. I am fine with giving disputed Kurily Islands to Japan, for instance. I don't want the world to go into hell because of a god forgotten peninsula which, in all fairness, should have been Russian all the way.. The way Crimea went from Russia to Ukraine is arguably even less "democratic", than it went the other way around. Best we just let it go.

2. I somewhat can get the danger of letting everyone go after lands that are perceived as "traditionally ours". However, being fixed on borders drawn by war, authority or luck isn't the way forward either. Didn't you have a vote on Quebec independence? Or a vote on Scottish independence? That's the way forward. Negotiate. Let people decide. Honour promises. That's the way to establish a sustainable peace,v which is the goal for everyone involved.

Ok, but I want to make sure you understand this:

What you're saying is directly opposed to everything Putin is doing and what he stands for.

We can not get the world we want by giving in and effectively giving more power to someone who is directly opposed to what we want.

Putin is strictly anti-democratic and pro-violence, both on an individual level and international level, both domestically and internationally.

Someone has to fight that.

[Itse]

Also, why are we even talking about Crimea? That's not even what this current situation is about, the annexation is done. Russia already has Crimea, no battles are being fought over it. The current fighting is just Russian and pro-Russian forces attacking even further into Ukraine.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Ukraine has 100% rights to APPLY for NATO membership. Because Ukraine is independent country. Yet, NATO has no rights to accept them because of the promises they gave to Russia and consequently broke. Given that both German and US archives seem to confirm the promises, there's little doubt left that promise was indeed made and later broken. Does it justify war? No. But to say that NATO can accept anyone as they please is just ignoring historical facts.

Again, non-argument and irrelevant. Russia is not attacking NATO, it's attacking Ukraine, for reasons that according to Putins recent statements have basically nothing to do with NATO.

You seem to have lost sight of what's actually happening and why. Which is somewhat understandable because Putin has been moving the goalposts of what Ukraine "should stop doing" so many times that it's hard to keep track.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Putin's madman speech, reckless actions and general demeanor somewhat obscures that the demands are not that unreasonable.

Annexation should never be allowed, but Crimea is not something that Russia just took from Ukraine. Crimea had been Russian for centuries and Ukraine should have given it back when USSR dissolved. Crimea is not something to sweat, let alone bleed, over, but it's not like Putin just randomly grabbed some region of his choice. The circumstances of Crimea ending up in Ukraine at the first place are disputable at best.

-snip-

I don't know much about Crimea, so I took a quick look at Wikipedia. I know. But according to the timeline, Russia annexed Crimea in 1783. Hrmm..making a habit of that. Then they gave it to the Ukraine( no take backs!) in 1954. So 171 years. So saying it has been Russian for "centuries" is a bit of a stretch.

If Crimea wants to be independent, that's one thing. But countries don't just get to take land because they had taken it before 231 years before. Could you imagine if Europe just decided to re-take all the land they had taken in the past? Madness!

Is this the look they are going for now? It kinda looks like it.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Itse

Also, why are we even talking about Crimea? That's not even what this current situation is about, the annexation is done. Russia already has Crimea, no battles are being fought over it. The current fighting is just Russian and pro-Russian forces attacking even further into Ukraine.

It stemmed from Putin's demands. So far he has made public two:

1. Recognize Crimea as Russian
2. Don't accept Ukraine into NATO

People reacted as those are non-starters for negotiations. I believe those are decent start for negotiations. I hope for some peace deal around it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

It stemmed from Putin's demands. So far he has made public two:

1. Recognize Crimea as Russian
2. Don't accept Ukraine into NATO

People reacted as those are non-starters for negotiations. I believe those are decent start for negotiations. I hope for some peace deal around it.

What's Russia offering?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't know much about Crimea, so I took a quick look at Wikipedia. I know. But according to the timeline, Russia annexed Crimea in 1783. Hrmm..making a habit of that. Then they gave it to the Ukraine( no take backs!) in 1954. So 171 years. So saying it has been Russian for "centuries" is a bit of a stretch.

If Crimea wants to be independent, that's one thing. But countries don't just get to take land because they had taken it before 231 years before. Could you imagine if Europe just decided to re-take all the land they had taken in the past? Madness!

Is this the look they are going for now? It kinda looks like it.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea

Timeline

Pre- 1783:-; Ottomans, Byzantine, ancient tribes
1783 - 1917 - Russian empire, capital St.Petersburg
1917-1954 Russian Soviet Republic, USSR, capital Moscow
1954-1991 - Ukrainian Soviet Republic, USSR, capital - Moscow
1991-2014 - Ukraine, capital Kiev
2014+ not included

209 years under St.Petersburg&Moscow rule
23 years under Kiev rule

[White Out 403]

I'd like to just give cp a friendly heads up on 2 Ukrainian things

1) it's just Ukraine. Not the the Ukraine.
2) the spelling of the capital is Kyiv. Not Kiev. That's the Russian spelling.

Thanks for keeping that in mind

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Pointman

It stemmed from Putin's demands. So far he has made public two:

1. Recognize Crimea as Russian
2. Don't accept Ukraine into NATO

People reacted as those are non-starters for negotiations. I believe those are decent start for negotiations. I hope for some peace deal around it.

Again; neither of these supposed issues are related to Russians shelling Ukrainian soldiers and civilians right now in eastern Ukraine. That's neither about Crimea or about NATO.

They're yesterday's excuses for war from someone who is obviously just making #### up as he goes. What would even be the point of discussing these excuses for war, when Putin himself seems to have already moved past them, and it's obvious that giving in would do nothing.

Putin is now moving troops into a different part of the country under completely different reasoning.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Itse

Again, non-argument and irrelevant. Russia is not attacking NATO, it's attacking Ukraine, for reasons that according to Putins recent statements have basically nothing to do with NATO.

You seem to have lost sight of what's actually happening and why. Which is somewhat understandable because Putin has been moving the goalposts of what Ukraine "should stop doing" so many times that it's hard to keep track.

Putin's speech wasn't the easiest to keep track of, but he surely did say that NATO is a big part of the reason for invasion. He specifically mentioned:

1. Broken promise to not accept eastern countries (which is true)
2. Missiles that can reach Moscow in 5 minutes if located in eastern Ukraine (no idea if true)
3. Ochakovo naval base renovated by NATO (somewhat true, might be embellished)