Ukraine (43 Viewers)

I guess if "support international democracy" vs. "don't care" is political, you may be right.

I see it as more moral and philosophical, but I looked for the moral and philosophical board and I just couldn't find it, so I went with EE.

From a philosophical standpoint, do we know how the people of Donetsk and Luhansk feel about it? If the people of Donetsk and Luhansk indeed want to separate from Ukraine, then who's supporting international democracy: those who don't let them declare themselves autonomous States, or those who help them in their quest for autonomy?

I don't claim to know how they feel, though.
 
Last edited:
From a philosophical standpoint, do we know how the people of Donetsk and Luhansk feel about it? If the people of Donetsk and Luhansk indeed want to separate from Ukraine, then who's supporting international democracy: those who don't let them declare themselves autonomous States, or those who help them in their quest for autonomy?

I don't claim to know how they feel, though.

The 8 that showed up in Donetsk for the fireworks on the heels of the Putin address like it.

In the end, I don't think they care if they are Russian or Ukranian by geography. But I guess it comes down to what country they identify with.

8 for sure for Russia.

And who has boxes of fireworks sitting around???
 
From a philosophical standpoint, do we know how the people of Donetsk and Luhansk feel about it? If the people of Donetsk and Luhansk indeed want to separate from Ukraine, then who's supporting international democracy: those who don't let them declare themselves autonomous States, or those who help them in their quest for autonomy?

I don't claim to know how they feel, though.

It’s a fair question. It’s also fair to ask what they thought in 2014 as well, this has been a campaign by Moscow, a long play. But that line of thought would require an accurate and honest account of what they actually want - and it’s going to be very mixed, they’re not all pro-Russian. And this is after 8 years of control by Russian forces.

When that isn’t clear I think you have to defer to international law. You can’t sow separatist sentiment by force and then use that separatism as a pretext to invade and annex territory from a sovereign neighbor. If it genuinely was about the protection of those in the region other methods that don’t involve military invasion would seem more desirable. But it isn’t, it’s about Putin’s vision for Russia.
 
I'm trying to figure out the significance of Putin "recognizing the independence" of those two regions they're talking about in the news.

All the stories read as if everyone already knows what that means. What does it mean... and why is it a further sign he's about to invade Ukraine?

They cite the headline, then move on to what the US is doing in response. But WHHHHY does that warrant a response? It's driving me a little batty not understanding it.
He will send in the troops to Ukraine, on the pretense of being invited in by the separatist, to save them from being attacked by the Ukrainians, of course which is not true. Quite the opposite.
 
It’s a fair question. It’s also fair to ask what they thought in 2014 as well, this has been a campaign by Moscow, a long play. But that line of thought would require an accurate and honest account of what they actually want - and it’s going to be very mixed, they’re not all pro-Russian. And this is after 8 years of control by Russian forces.

When that isn’t clear I think you have to defer to international law. You can’t sow separatist sentiment by force and then use that separatism as a pretext to invade and annex territory from a sovereign neighbor. If it genuinely was about the protection of those in the region other methods that don’t involve military invasion would seem more desirable. But it isn’t, it’s about Putin’s vision for Russia.
Bingo!
 
Not sure we can do much when he invades and he knows that.
Nothing NATO, or the free world can do, outside of getting involved in WW3. Economic sanctions will not work. Russia will get all of what they need from China, iran…etc. They will use bitcoin as a monetary means if need be. The communist and similar governments have figured out, bitcoin is the ticket around typical monetary currency. This administration, along with many other free countries, are not up to date on how financial sanctions will no longer be effective. And Putin along with other countries, China, Iran, know this as well.
 
If Putin is going to invade Ukraine then he needs to get on with it. Does anyone really think the mental gymnastics that he drums up for his pre-text matters to anyone in the international community? He's going to look bad, no matter what. He's going to be largely condemned by many world leaders regardless of whatever excuse he decides to go with.
 
And now politics gets injected into the discussion. I'm impressed it took this long.

Yep. But on the policy question those critical of the US’s handling have to be able to articulate what should have been done instead. I have been following this pretty closely for weeks and most of the foreign policy analysis has been pretty favorable on how Washington and the West have handled it and those who are critical haven’t offered much of an alternative.

So for the reflexive “weak president” responses, I’d like to know what they think would have been better.
 
Nothing NATO, or the free world can do, outside of getting involved in WW3. Economic sanctions will not work. Russia will get all of what they need from China, iran…etc. They will use bitcoin as a monetary means if need be. The communist and similar governments have figured out, bitcoin is the ticket around typical monetary currency. This administration, along with many other free countries, are not up to date on how financial sanctions will no longer be effective. And Putin along with other countries, China, Iran, know this as well.
Sanctions will be very, very effective, especially the ones against the 50-60 thieving billionaire Russian oligarchs he has to keep happy. Start revoking visas and freezing their assets and watch what happens.

Also if Russia can’t export fuel to Europe do you really think the Chinese are going to help? HAHAHAHA they are going to squeeze him out of every last petrodollar of price that they can.
 
Yep. But on the policy question those critical of the US’s handling have to be able to articulate what should have been done instead. I have been following this pretty closely for weeks and most of the foreign policy analysis has been pretty favorable on how Washington and the West have handled it and those who are critical haven’t offered much of an alternative.

So for the reflexive “weak president” responses, I’d like to know what they think would have been better.
The rapid rebuilding of a coalition of Western Europe under US leadership has been impressive.

George HW Bush did this with Kuwait and it worked pretty darn well.
 
It will all depend on how much discomfort the US and the EU can stand. Hard sanctions will work, as will a protracted insurgency in Ukraine. However, it will be uncomfortable for the US and EU - energy prices will go up, if we need to bring sanctions against China for helping Russia, that will further hurt supply chain issues, preventing inflation from easing as early as we'd like.

If we stay united, then Russia really doesn't stand much of a chance. They have an economy smaller than Italy. But it requires American and Europe being willing to stand discomfort for maybe a couple of years, and given how divided this country is, it's not a sure thing we can do that.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom