Russia-Ukraine War

[Alan Phipps]

Imagine this scenario: two opposed but so-far tolerant superpacts (whatever you call them) sandwich a buffer zone of non-aligned states between them. Both pacts may harbour some passing ambitions to see some or all of the buffer states in their pact but at the same time they would both prefer not to have or extend a directly shared and contested border between the pacts as that would be dangerous for both, so they resist those ambitions for now.

Now one pact moves into a buffer zone state 'because it doesn't want the other pact to have it' and that causes the exact tensions, threats and hardships that both pacts allegedly wanted to avoid. (It also poses severe problems for the occupied buffer state.)

Surely that would all have been avoidable if both pacts had just mutually agreed in the first place that the non-alignment of the buffer states would be considered sacrosanct? (The issue with that is that the buffer states get no say in the matter.)

[mr.WHO]

Imagine this scenario: two opposed but so-far tolerant superpacts (whatever you call them) sandwich a buffer zone of non-aligned states between them. Both pacts may harbour some passing ambitions to see some or all of the buffer states in their pact but at the same time they would both prefer not to have or extend a directly shared and contested border between the pacts as that would be dangerous for both, so they resist those ambitions for now.

Yo dawg, I heard you like buffer state, so I put a buffer state in your buffer state, next to your buffer state, so we can buffer while we buffer looking at your buffer buffering - Central Europe in a nutshell for last 100+ years.

[fiksal]

Surely that would all have been avoidable if both pacts had just mutually agreed in the first place that the non-alignment of the buffer states would be considered sacrosanct? (The issue with that is that the buffer states get no say in the matter.)

this hypothetical pact would be not advantageous to the those hypothetical buffer states, as it forces them to be subservient to the whims of the other kings. Or else the penalty is death

[mr.WHO]

Surely that would all have been avoidable if both pacts had just mutually agreed in the first place that the non-alignment of the buffer states would be considered sacrosanct? (The issue with that is that the buffer states get no say in the matter.)

this hypothetical pact would be not advantageous to the those hypothetical buffer states, as it forces them to be subservient to the whims of the other kings. Or else the penalty is death

It's only hypotetical, because in reality from the first day, both pacts were actively trying to swing any and all buffer states.
Don't forget that before the revolution in Ukraine and Russian intervention Ukraine leadership was openly negotiating with EU/NATO, but then in the last moment turned and decided to join Russian economic/military block, which cause the whole uproar in the first place.

Buffers are intherently a failed concept - the iron curtain was much more stable.
Given that The Wall is being build along Belarus borders, now it's only a matter where will The Wall be going through Ukraine territory.

[fiksal]

can't blame Ukrainians oppose that idea very much. And I hope they succeed no matter what picking their own path without Tsars

the issue with Kremlin is that it sees everything through the Imperialistic glasses. Countries are either "part of the block" or are enemies to be destroyed. Be it US, Germany, Latvia, Finland, Poland, Turkey, etc... and a recently added enemy - Netherlands.

So yes, the hypothetical example works very well

[jlehtone]

Surely that would all have been avoidable if both pacts had just mutually agreed in the first place that the non-alignment of the buffer states would be considered sacrosanct? (The issue with that is that the buffer states get no say in the matter.)

this hypothetical pact would be not advantageous to the those hypothetical buffer states, as it forces them to be subservient to the whims of the other kings. Or else the penalty is death

Seemed to me that Alan's scenario has buffers subservient to kings, if there had been sacrosanct agreement, but under the sole of one king if not.

[Vertigo 7]

Either way, it's clear that Russia had no intentions on letting Ukraine self-govern, unless Ukraine's government wanted to join Russia. That's the only outcome that Putin desired, while in contrast, NATO would have been fine to let Ukraine do as it pleases, even if that meant Ukraine didn't join NATO.

[EGO_Aut]

Either way, it's clear that Russia had no intentions on letting Ukraine self-govern, unless Ukraine's government wanted to join Russia. That's the only outcome that Putin desired, while in contrast, NATO would have been fine to let Ukraine do as it pleases, even if that meant Ukraine didn't join NATO.

So tell me why not to stay neutral?
Why provoke with joining NATO, just because of the hope of eventually regaining lost ground?

[Vertigo 7]

Because it ain't f'n up to Russia to decide what Ukraine wants to do. If Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's between Ukraine and NATO and no one the f else. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

[Warenwolf]

So tell me why not to stay neutral?
Why provoke with joining NATO, just because of the hope of eventually regaining lost ground?

You are either intellectually dishonest here - or do you really need explaining why after Crimea was annexed and eastern provinces conquered with help of "green men" and equipment from Russia, Ukraine felt threatened and felt it needed help from outside forces?

Also by what right has Putin to decide foreign policy of Ukraine?

PS:
I feel it fitting to link to this story by Leo Tolstoy - Putin should have read it during his elementary education - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Much_ ... an_Need%3F

[fiksal]

Surely that would all have been avoidable if both pacts had just mutually agreed in the first place that the non-alignment of the buffer states would be considered sacrosanct? (The issue with that is that the buffer states get no say in the matter.)

this hypothetical pact would be not advantageous to the those hypothetical buffer states, as it forces them to be subservient to the whims of the other kings. Or else the penalty is death

Seemed to me that Alan's scenario has buffers subservient to kings, if there had been sacrosanct agreement, but under the sole of one king if not.

both scenarios are equally bad for the buffer states. They don't control themselves

[chew-ie]

Because it ain't f'n up to Russia to decide what Ukraine wants to do. If Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's between Ukraine and NATO and no one the f else. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

I'm with you here - but the answer to your question is: some old white men screwed things up in the past and are convinced they are above peoples. No matter if times have changed or not - and no matter if countries are & stay souvereign or not. The globe still is partitioned by those old white men I mentioned.

[fiksal]

Because it ain't f'n up to Russia to decide what Ukraine wants to do. If Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's between Ukraine and NATO and no one the f else. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Exactly!

[fiksal]

Because it ain't f'n up to Russia to decide what Ukraine wants to do. If Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's between Ukraine and NATO and no one the f else. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

I'm with you here - but the answer to your question is: some old white men screwed things up in the past and are convinced they are above peoples. No matter if times have changed or not - and no matter if countries are & stay souvereign or not. The globe still is partitioned by those old white men I mentioned.

old white men, and in our example that's Putin, are thrashing about because they have been losing the grip for years now

[EGO_Aut]

Either way, it's clear that Russia had no intentions on letting Ukraine self-govern, unless Ukraine's government wanted to join Russia. That's the only outcome that Putin desired, while in contrast, NATO would have been fine to let Ukraine do as it pleases, even if that meant Ukraine didn't join NATO.

If Selensky continues like this, he will soon be a trophy hanging over Putin's chimney, and half of Ukraine will be declared a buffer zone, not only Don and Luh.
And sleepy Joe will report on TV every day what Vlad will do tomorrow or the day after.
Really great that help from outside forces.

[mr.WHO]

Lets not forget that Ukraine in NATO would be basically the same thread to Russia as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in the NATO.

I don't see Russia screaming about thread of hypersonic missiles launched at Moscow from there (Russia has a dead-hand switch anyway, so any first strike is useless no matter if missile take 30 minutes or 3 minutes to hit).

Accepting that Ukraine cannot be member of NATO, will in future contest the right of Baltic states to be in NATO as well - it's not like Russia demanded to kick-out entire Central Europe out of NATO to get back before 1997, just a few weeks ago

[mr.WHO]

I also like to point of a very good analogy, especially to Germans who are against Ukraine joining NATO.

If we say Ukraine shouldn't be accepted by the NATO because:
- vocal agreement with Russia
- country is ruined and corrupted (and some adds "run by nazis")
- we don't want to aggravate Russia
- Russia occupy Eastern parts of the country


Then by the same logic Western Germany shouldn't been accepted to NATO during Cold War.

I'm sure Germans would enjoy status of buffer state for decades with no one wanting to invest into a literall frontline to be (I bet people back then still remember how well it ended with Belgium trying to be a buffer in WW1 and WW2).
I'm sure there wouldn't be any problems with joining proto-EU as well.
Germany would be a very successful, prosperous country unlike now.

[fiksal]

Either way, it's clear that Russia had no intentions on letting Ukraine self-govern, unless Ukraine's government wanted to join Russia. That's the only outcome that Putin desired, while in contrast, NATO would have been fine to let Ukraine do as it pleases, even if that meant Ukraine didn't join NATO.

If Selensky continues like this, he will soon be a trophy hanging over Putin's chimney, and half of Ukraine will be declared a buffer zone, not only Don and Luh.
And sleepy Joe will report on TV every day what Vlad will do tomorrow or the day after.
Really great that help from outside forces.

That's called bluffing, your King holds no cards and has no pants

[EGO_Aut]

Either way, it's clear that Russia had no intentions on letting Ukraine self-govern, unless Ukraine's government wanted to join Russia. That's the only outcome that Putin desired, while in contrast, NATO would have been fine to let Ukraine do as it pleases, even if that meant Ukraine didn't join NATO.

If Selensky continues like this, he will soon be a trophy hanging over Putin's chimney, and half of Ukraine will be declared a buffer zone, not only Don and Luh.
And sleepy Joe will report on TV every day what Vlad will do tomorrow or the day after.
Really great that help from outside forces.

That's called bluffing, your King holds no cards and has no pants

You're just disappointed that the $5 Billions was sunk into the Maidan uprising for nothing. By the way, what kind of job did sleepys son uh "Hunter" have had in the Ukraine?

PS he is not my King, it just seems obvious to me......and i dislike aristocrats

[EGO_Aut]

I also like to point of a very good analogy, especially to Germans who are against Ukraine joining NATO.

If we say Ukraine shouldn't be accepted by the NATO because:
- vocal agreement with Russia
- country is ruined and corrupted (and some adds "run by nazis")
- we don't want to aggravate Russia
- Russia occupy Eastern parts of the country


Then by the same logic Western Germany shouldn't been accepted to NATO during Cold War.

I'm sure Germans would enjoy status of buffer state for decades with no one wanting to invest into a literall frontline to be (I bet people back then still remember how well it ended with Belgium trying to be a buffer in WW1 and WW2).
I'm sure there wouldn't be any problems with joining proto-EU as well.
Germany would be a very successful, prosperous country unlike now.

Those are good arguments, I think the USSR didn't care at the time - there were plenty of buffer zones.
Germany was unfortunately divided after WW2, thanks to Gorbatschov reunited despite NATO. That was a great leap of faith, and last but not least, the USSR was cheated.