2 Russian stray missiles have just hit a farm in Przewodów on the Polish side of the Polish-Ukrainian border, killing 2 Poles. Nato Article 5?

[AntonToo]

It’s not in question that this was a war of choice for Russia. Most wars are wars of choice, and yes, Putin does reject the sovereignty of Ukraine. That much has been obvious.

Well you say that now, but this is the comment that this whole disccusion was about:

Ukraine and US brought this is war about

This was a war of choice for Russia. It was Russia that brought us this war above everyone else.

 

[AntonToo]

In Putin’s mind they’re one and the same, and the US knows that and chose to provoke him anyway.

First it was thirty years of behavior that you were talking about, now it's what is in Putin's mind.

It's not what is in Putin's mind. Putin's mind knows damn well his borders are well secured by his nuclear arsenal. What's in his mind is the popular uprising that will end his Czardom and conclude his presidency as a stain on Russian history.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In Putin’s mind they’re one and the same, and the US knows that and chose to provoke him anyway.

The same way the Chinese checking American imperialism in the South CHINA Sea would be perceived by the US as a threat to the US.

So your argument is that if you tell a rapist or a murderer that he cannot rape or murder you are provoking him? And that would provide a justification for him to go on raping and murdering?

There are no examples of American imperialism since the end of WWI, and the tensions between China and the US are not considered a security threat to the US.

What you are suggesting is that NATO should have allowed Russia to terrorize the eastern European nations in obedience, in effect creating a new Russian empire and denying the eastern European people the right to govern themselves. Obviously, that would be unacceptable to the civilized nations of the world.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Some people agree with that there, some people don’t. Some people would obviously prefer to be closer to Russia.

Clearly, the nations that chose to join NATO don't wish to be closer to Russia, and your argument is that they should not have the right to decide that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Serbia and Libya were both authorized by UNSC resolutions.

Which means what?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well you say that now, but this is the comment that this whole disccusion was about:

This was a war of choice for Russia. It was Russia that brought us this war above everyone else.

I’m responsible for what someone else said?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

First it was thirty years of behavior that you were talking about, now it's what is in Putin's mind.

It's not what is in Putin's mind. Putin's mind knows damn well his borders are well secured by his nuclear arsenal. What's in his mind is the popular uprising that will end his Czardom and conclude his presidency as a stain on Russian history.

Yes, it’s both. In Putin’s mind, and damn near every Russian’s mind, including Putin’s opposition such as it is, thirty years of expansion by NATO toward Russia’s border, and the promise that Ukraine would be a member of NATO, is a provocative, threatening move by the West. And yes, losing his power and, possibly his life, are certainly concerns of Putin’s when he’s witnessed American-led regime change around the world. You’re not disproving any of my points. This is exactly his fear, and why he would lash out as he has against Ukraine as a result of policies that are backing him into a corner.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So your argument is that if you tell a rapist or a murderer that he cannot rape or murder you are provoking him? And that would provide a justification for him to go on raping and murdering?

There are no examples of American imperialism since the end of WWI, and the tensions between China and the US are not considered a security threat to the US.

What you are suggesting is that NATO should have allowed Russia to terrorize the eastern European nations in obedience, in effect creating a new Russian empire and denying the eastern European people the right to govern themselves. Obviously, that would be unacceptable to the civilized nations of the world.

I would say if you back a murderer or a rapist into a corner and they’re able to physically dominate you in some manner, to simply follow along with your analogy, you should not be surprised if they attack you. And the U.S. allows, and even assists, tyrannical regimes to terrorize their neighbors all of the time. See U.S. support for Saudi genocide in Yemen as exhibit A. We’re talking realpolitik here, and the simple fact is that the US has provoked, yes, a murderer and a tyrant and that wasn’t the best move for the people of Ukraine certainly. And yes, it is better to just leave these people alone. It’s not the America’s right to police the world, especially when they have no moral high ground to stand on.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Clearly, the nations that chose to join NATO don't wish to be closer to Russia, and your argument is that they should not have the right to decide that.

I’m not concerned with nations, as such. I’m concerned with people. Do the people of the Donbas want to be aligned with the West and NATO? They’re largely ethnic Russian so certainly a sizable portion of them would prefer to be closer to Russia. All of them? Certainly not. Most of them? Possibly. Impossible to say. You can’t trust Russian-backed referendums, obviously, but you can’t trust Western-backed ones either so it’s hard to know with any real certainty how they’d go. But let’s assume they’d prefer to be closer to Russia. Why shouldn’t they be? Because some other Ukrainians prefer to go the other way? Why not let everyone decide for themselves? If Kyiv wants to join the West and NATO they can do whatever they want, as far as I’m concerned. If the Donbas wants to join Russia I afford them the same consideration. But it’s not America’s job to say one way or the other, or to make matters worse by getting involved.

 

[para bellum]

Which means what?

Under the UN Charter, it means the military interventions were legal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Under the UN Charter, it means the military interventions were legal.

Not to be that guy, but slavery was once legal in the United States. The question was were they defensive.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Well you say that now, but this is the comment that this whole disccusion was about:

This was a war of choice for Russia. It was Russia that brought us this war above everyone else.

This was a war of choice for Ukraine

Ukraine - Killed ethnic Russians the past 8 years

US - supported a coup in 2014 that overthrew their democratically elected government

 

[toomuchtime_]

It’s not in question that this was a war of choice for Russia. Most wars are wars of choice, and yes, Putin does reject the sovereignty of Ukraine. That much has been obvious. He wants a client state as a buffer between him and NATO. Obviously. He’s not a good guy. But that doesn’t mean provoking him by overthrowing his puppet government and threatening to have Ukraine join NATO isn’t perceived as a legitimate threat to him, and it doesn’t mean that that doesn’t explain why he made the choice. And it doesn’t mean that provoking him is a good idea, or in the best interests of the United States or Ukraine. Putin can be bad, and provoking him can be bad.

As for NATO being a defensive alliance, please don’t make us laugh. Tell that to Serbia or Libya.

As for imminent vs. eminent: You’re the one who said eminent. I was quoting you.

Perhaps Serbia or Libya has a bone to pick with NATO but there is no basis for considering NATO a threat to Russia unless it attacks Europe again. The war in Ukraine is entirely about Russian imperialism and not at all about Russian security. Not opposing Russian imperialism would be as big a mistake as not opposing that other psychopath's, Hiler's, imperialism.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not to be that guy, but slavery was once legal in the United States. The question was were they defensive.

That's the difference between Russia and the civilized world; the civilized world has moved on from the evils of te past like imperialism, but these evils still form the core value of Russian culture.

 

[para bellum]

The question was were they defensive.

If the UNSC authorizes use of force, it means the resolution that is being enforced is necessary for International peace.

Under the UN Charter, use of force is only legal if it's authorized by the UNSC, or if it is responding to an attack from another country.

Ukraine's fight is defensive- the Ukrainians do not need UNSC authorization to defend their land.

Russia's invasion is illegal under International law, because it is neither UNSC authorized or defensive in nature. There was no imminent threat to justify the invasion.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yes, it’s both. In Putin’s mind, and damn near every Russian’s mind, including Putin’s opposition such as it is, thirty years of expansion by NATO toward Russia’s border, and the promise that Ukraine would be a member of NATO, is a provocative, threatening move by the West. And yes, losing his power and, possibly his life, are certainly concerns of Putin’s when he’s witnessed American-led regime change around the world. You’re not disproving any of my points. This is exactly his fear, and why he would lash out as he has against Ukraine as a result of policies that are backing him into a corner.

Not a single word of truth in your post. The issue back in 2014 was not about NATO but about Ukraine deepening economic ties with the EU. The term, NATO expansion, is a propaganda term intended to negate the desire of eastern European nations that hated and feared Russia to be safe from Russian imperialism, which has been a core value of Russian culture since Peter the Great. NATO was not "inching toward Russia", eastern Europe was running away from Russia. Putin had no fears of western aggression; his actions have been motivated purely by imperialist ambitions.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I would say if you back a murderer or a rapist into a corner and they’re able to physically dominate you in some manner, to simply follow along with your analogy, you should not be surprised if they attack you. And the U.S. allows, and even assists, tyrannical regimes to terrorize their neighbors all of the time. See U.S. support for Saudi genocide in Yemen as exhibit A. We’re talking realpolitik here, and the simple fact is that the US has provoked, yes, a murderer and a tyrant and that wasn’t the best move for the people of Ukraine certainly. And yes, it is better to just leave these people alone. It’s not the America’s right to police the world, especially when they have no moral high ground to stand on.

So, your advice is, let rapists rape and let murderers murder and don't get in the way. Civilized people don't do that. Russia will be held to account for its actions just as Germany was held to account for its actions.

There is no genocide in Yemen; there is a civil war and the Saudis back the government while Iran backs the rebels and the US has been highly critical of both sides.
Talking realpolitik does not excuse you from telling the truth.

 

[AntonToo]

I’m responsible for what someone else said?

You are responsible for understanding what the conversation is about when you butt in.

 

[AntonToo]

This was a war of choice for Ukraine

They chose for Russia to invade? Seriously idiot?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I’m not concerned with nations, as such. I’m concerned with people. Do the people of the Donbas want to be aligned with the West and NATO? They’re largely ethnic Russian so certainly a sizable portion of them would prefer to be closer to Russia. All of them? Certainly not. Most of them? Possibly. Impossible to say. You can’t trust Russian-backed referendums, obviously, but you can’t trust Western-backed ones either so it’s hard to know with any real certainty how they’d go. But let’s assume they’d prefer to be closer to Russia. Why shouldn’t they be? Because some other Ukrainians prefer to go the other way? Why not let everyone decide for themselves? If Kyiv wants to join the West and NATO they can do whatever they want, as far as I’m concerned. If the Donbas wants to join Russia I afford them the same consideration. But it’s not America’s job to say one way or the other, or to make matters worse by getting involved.

Perhaps you don't understand you are repeating Hitler's excuse for invading Czechoslovakia or perhaps you don't care, but whatever dissension there may be in Ukraine is none of Russia's business and is certainly not justification for Russia starting a proxy war against Ukraine and then using it as a justification for a full-scale invasion. Clearly, the people in Donbass are much worse off because of Russia's actions, and if you were actually concerned for people as you claim, you would condemning Russia's actions rather than trying to justify them.