ForumTouchy Subjects ► Ukraine
Let's discuss.
  
  
I think the situation in Ukraine is more complex than we're generally led to believe. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, but hasn't moved into Ukraine beyond that. Russia has aided pro-Russian rebels, but America aids pro-American rebels all the time, so what of it.
  
What the hell should we do?

It's hypocritical of the US of all countries to be like "Hey you can't just invade a country". Also, how involved do we really need to be? Is a Russian invasion truly "imminent" or is it just media hype?

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of standing back and doing nothing as a nuclear capable country makes an aggressive move on another.

If we do choose to do something, and it looks like we have, how forcefully should we approach the situation? Is deploying NATO escalating the situation rather than deterring it?
  
We shouldn't deploy. We should discuss. Is it going anywhere?
  
Last I heard, a few thousand NATO troops were preparing to leave for or have already been deployed to Eastern Europe. The stated purpose is to deter Russian aggression but it may have the opposite effect by giving Russia the "well you threatened us" argument. This whole thing stems from Ukraine's desire to join NATO, if I remember correctly.

According to Reuters the situation is basically this: yesterday Russia said it moved troops away from the Ukrainian border. That claim, while promising, was pretty vague and the west (US and UK) are saying that's bull. Most mainstream coverage I've seen in the US is that the invasion is still "any day now".

Diplomacy is still open but at this point we're just sort of watching both sides poke each other until something happens. Who's doing the poking at this point in time will probably be whether or not you believe Russia actually took a step back or not.
  
"Any day now"
  
I don't buy it. I think Biden/the US are just shit-stirring. The invasion's been "any day now" for the last couple of weeks.
  
The UK also confirmed Russia hasn't backed off. I don't know why you'd trust Russia over either of them, either, tbh. I don't know about invasion but Putin's clearly trying to stack immense pressure on Ukraine with them considering NATO. He outright said it.
  
Oh, the US and UK, the countries who invaded Iraq because they said there was weapons of mass destruction, and there wasn't.
  
Irrelevant. Russia just threatened nuclear war to hold Ukraine's NATO membership hostage. This isn't lies from the US, this is from the horse's mouth. You're running enthusiastically towards willful ignorance while roleplaying what you think is the questioning of authority here. I'm not saying the US can't have an ulterior motive but Russia is loudly announcing theirs.
  
Examples of the US and UK being untrustworthy are relevant to discussion about them being trustworthy. You're acting like we should automatically trust the US/UK over Russia, like they have some great record of objectivity in this department. They don't.

In the clip, Putin said that if Ukraine joined NATO and NATO invaded Crimea, that would risk nuclear war. Which it would. You can't just keep expanding NATO right up to Russia's borders and hope it doesn't cause any tension. Wouldn't it be more sensible to leave Ukraine as a buffer-state?
  
And your response to the fact that NATO backs both the US and UK on Russia lying about pulling troops away from the border?
  
I'm not surprised that the rest of NATO agrees with its founding members.
  
I lean more towards Millpond here; I'm more skeptical of the known to be bloodthirsty western media and leadership than Russia's honesty about it's territorial ambitions. But I'd like to hear more about what would happen if the west were to "cave" on this one.

Earlier in the negotiations the big Russian ask was for Ukraine to ever join NATO. Do you truly believe if we had conceded that the Russians would be satisfied? What would some of the ramifications be? I'm led to believe that would signal a moment of weakness in the west and Russia and even China might try to take advantage of that. It might set a bad precedent for the use of military force. Something something, appeasement of Hitler.
  
That literally does not work when Russia's territorial ambitions are what's in question. You don't need to ignore Russia to acknowledge that yeah, the US and UK don't have the best track record.
  
Ukraine applied for NATO membership in 2008. It isn't joining NATO any time soon and both sides know it. One of the criteria for joining NATO is you can't have any active territorial disputes, so you don't just drag everyone into your war straight away. I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the reason why Russia took Crimea back, because that would prevent Ukraine from joining.

Ukraine's potential NATO membership is like Turkey's potential EU membership. It's never going to happen, it's just going to dangle there forever because they don't really want them to join, but they like having the possibility there as leverage. NATO doesn't want to be dragged into a war with Russia, and while Ukraine isn't in NATO, it doesn't have to be. Even with all this talk of invasion, the US has never said it will actually fight for Ukraine, it's only talked about economic sanctions.
  
That literally does not work when Russia's territorial ambitions are what's in question. You don't need to ignore Russia to acknowledge that yeah, the US and UK don't have the best track record.
That makes me wonder: which countries have had a better intelligence record?
  
Why is US involvement in this discussion in the first place? Should the conversation not be on what the angle is for stacking troops on the border? Perhaps their potential use as leverage for... something?
  
I just thought it was an interesting side point. The Iraqi WMD thing was a total fiasco, but I don't think it justifies discounting all subsequent US/UK intelligence reports.

Given that Russia does not currently acknowledge their continued troop presence/buildup on the border (last I checked, their official stance is that they have started withdrawing troops), it looks less like a negotiation tactic than preparation for invasion. It wouldn't be the first time in the last eight years.
  
I just thought it was an interesting side point. The Iraqi WMD thing was a total fiasco, but I don't think it justifies discounting all subsequent US/UK intelligence reports.

Given that Russia does not currently acknowledge their continued troop presence/buildup on the border (last I checked, their official stance is that they have started withdrawing troops), it looks less like a negotiation tactic than preparation for invasion. It wouldn't be the first time in the last eight years.

Ye, def, and that's something I'd be interested in hunting down the answer to, as well. You could probably throw it heavily one way or their other though depending on how you want to tally up a track record. There's a lot that goes into trustworthiness and a lot of it's situational.

Was just noticing that the US really has not a lot to do the Ukraine situation other than the one announcement, and with a complete lack of any other response to the situation it's a lil odd that that's totally dominated the conversation.
  
Instead of just talking about Russia invading, we should talk about Ukraine's internal instability that gives Russia the excuse to invade, and alternative ways to resolve that.

It's not like everyone in Crimea was happy being in Ukraine and then one day Russia invaded out of the blue. In 2010, Crimea mostly voted for Yanukovych, the pro-Russian president who was overthrown during the Euromaidan protests/riots/revolution/coup. The Crimean Parliament stood by Yanukovych, and started asking about a referendum on re-joining Russia.

Ukraine not only denied it, but declared them criminals for suggesting it and threatened any part of Ukraine that wanted to leave. Pro-Russian protests/riots began putting up Russian flags and talking about re-joining Russia, later on clashing with pro-Ukrainian factions. Eventually Russian troops move in and Crimea declares itself independent of Ukraine and votes to return to Russia, but by that point Russian troops are already there. All polling by outside pollsters (including the US) indicate the majority wanted to be annexed.

Crimea was transferred from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. It's not like Crimea is some immutable traditional part of Ukraine, it's only been part of Ukraine for 68 years. What would've been the problem with them having a referendum to settle the issue peacefully? The very same year Scotland had an independence referendum, the UK allowed it, and Scotland's been part of the UK a lot longer than Crimea's been part of Ukraine.
  
Here we go
  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBB5FE1X3I0&t=0s
  
To the surprise of almost no one.