[OFFICIAL] Ukraine Thread

[OwlHoot]

Your very use of the word "buffer" implies that you reject their statehood and desire for self-determination. Rather, we should consider them to be a No Man's Land or DMZ between Russia and the West. Let's be clear that there is a a cigarette paper between your view of these states and Putin's view; he has used exactly this imagery to justify his invasion, that Ukraine is not a proper state, rather a "buffer", and should remain a good little neutral buffer. Again, pathetic.

You're still missing the point.

The only point GJABS is making (I assume) is that as a matter of practicality, neutrality would arguably have been a more prudent option for Ukraine.

One can think a decision of a person or nation misguided without rejecting their right to make it, or taking it upon ourselves to seek to prevent them making it.

This is not a subtle distinction to master.

[quackhandle]

Again unverified, but seems likely:

Kremlin stooge: "Do the numbers for the report on invading Ukraine, but make it so that Russia wins. Make every report to show Russia wins."

https://twitter.com/igorsushko/statu...01348780199937

qh

[GJABS]

Your very use of the word "buffer" implies that you reject their statehood and desire for self-determination. Rather, we should consider them to be a No Man's Land or DMZ between Russia and the West. Let's be clear that there is a a cigarette paper between your view of these states and Putin's view; he has used exactly this imagery to justify his invasion, that Ukraine is not a proper state, rather a "buffer", and should remain a good little neutral buffer. Again, pathetic.

OK call it No Man's Land or DMZ then.

There are similarities between my view and Putin's view, but for different reasons. It seems entirely plausible that Putin is being honest when he says Ukraine is a threat to Russia, an existential threat even. i.e. for him it is quite likely to be an emotional, visceral fear that we in the west cannot easily understand - because we are not in the same position as him.

But the situation has happened in reverse, in the past. The Cuban Missile crisis of 1962 occurred when Russia placed short-range nuclear missiles in communist Cuba, less than 100 miles from the US. President Kennedy did his nut just like Putin has, and the two sides nearly went to war. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Kennedy might have invaded Cuba, as Putin has Ukraine (and indeed the year before in the "Bay of Pigs" invasion, this did happen albeit covertly by the US).

A buffer zone / DMZ etc is a good thing to have!

Therefore I think we need to be a bit circumspect before we unequivocally condemn Russia for their invasion.

[Paddy]

OK call it No Man's Land or DMZ then.

There are similarities between my view and Putin's view, but for different reasons. It seems entirely plausible that Putin is being honest when he says Ukraine is a threat to Russia, an existential threat even. i.e. for him it is quite likely to be an emotional, visceral fear that we in the west cannot easily understand - because we are not in the same position as him.

But the situation has happened in reverse, in the past. The Cuban Missile crisis of 1962 occurred when Russia placed short-range nuclear missiles in communist Cuba, less than 100 miles from the US. President Kennedy did his nut just like Putin has, and the two sides nearly went to war. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Kennedy might have invaded Cuba, as Putin has Ukraine (and indeed the year before in the "Bay of Pigs" invasion, this did happen albeit covertly by the US).

A buffer zone / DMZ etc is a good thing to have!

Therefore I think we need to be a bit circumspect before we unequivocally condemn Russia for their invasion.

Not the whole story.

The USA placed nukes in Turkey. The response from Krusie boy was not invade Turkey but to ship Nukes to Cuba. USA removed their nukes and Cuba removed theirs. Not one shot fired.

[SueEllen]

OK call it No Man's Land or DMZ then.

There are similarities between my view and Putin's view, but for different reasons. It seems entirely plausible that Putin is being honest when he says Ukraine is a threat to Russia, an existential threat even. i.e. for him it is quite likely to be an emotional, visceral fear that we in the west cannot easily understand - because we are not in the same position as him.

But the situation has happened in reverse, in the past. The Cuban Missile crisis of 1962 occurred when Russia placed short-range nuclear missiles in communist Cuba, less than 100 miles from the US. President Kennedy did his nut just like Putin has, and the two sides nearly went to war. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Kennedy might have invaded Cuba, as Putin has Ukraine (and indeed the year before in the "Bay of Pigs" invasion, this did happen albeit covertly by the US).

A buffer zone / DMZ etc is a good thing to have!

Therefore I think we need to be a bit circumspect before we unequivocally condemn Russia for their invasion.

So you are an apologist for Putin then?

You are aware that existing NATO members can stop other countries from joining?

There are also other countries in Europe, including those who border Russia, who aren't in NATO which Putin hasn't invaded. He can't control those countries governments like he can't control the Ukrainian government, so why hasn't he invaded them?

[WTFH]

...
A buffer zone / DMZ etc is a good thing to have!

As long as it's not your country that is the buffer zone, your life that is thrown into turmoil and your rights that are violated and ignored.

You say it's good, as long as it doesn't negatively impact you.

[Eirikur]

[GJABS]

So you are an apologist for Putin then?

You are aware that existing NATO members can stop other countries from joining?

There are also other countries in Europe, including those who border Russia, who aren't in NATO which Putin hasn't invaded. He can't control those countries governments like he can't control the Ukrainian government, so why hasn't he invaded them?

Yes slightly an apologist for Putin in that I can see things from his point of view as well as from Ukraine's point of view. I don't support the apparent indiscriminate nature of his military attack on Ukraine though - on the face of things he has botched the attack leading to a much greater loss of life than necessary; I thought it would be a quick campaign leading to a quick capitulation of Kyiv.

[GJABS]

As long as it's not your country that is the buffer zone, your life that is thrown into turmoil and your rights that are violated and ignored.

You say it's good, as long as it doesn't negatively impact you.

Sure, if it was the UK that was the buffer country then my opinion would be different. I'm looking at the big picture - what will help to keep the peace globally.

[Eirikur]

on the face of things he has botched the attack leading to a much greater loss of life than necessary

So how much loss of life would have been acceptable for you?