Off Topic Politics Thread

[Le Tissier's Laces]

It is pretty obviousm really. If you don't have weapons, you are not going to be perceived as a threat or threaten other countries yourself. We need to disarm as a planet and start working together to solve problems.

You will not doubt call me a Putin apologist, but I think that you will find Ukraine is nothing like the western democracy it has been made out to be. I do not think we should have armed these people and, by the same token, I think we need to take out tanks out of Estonia pretty swiftly.

This shows an utter lack of comprehension about Putin and his motivations. Really Ian, I'll stop short of calling you a Putin apologist, but you appear to be taking what he sometimes says at face value. The fact he's also said, as Schad states, that he believes Ukraine is part of a larger Russia and has no business being an independent state seems to have fallen out of your reckoning, whilst believing the utter bollocks he's been spouting about how he's concerned about Ukraine joining NATO (commonly known as a bullshit excuse for his real reasons, which he's also stated).

Regardless of the fact he also said, less than a week ago, that he wasn't going to invade Ukraine. So excuse me if I struggle to believe anything the man says.

 

[Gregm1988]

Nukes are not a deterrent. They have not prevented war and, in the hands of someone like Putin or countries like Pakistan or Iran , they are highly dangerous. All nuclear weapons should be decommisoned. No one in their right mind should have access to them.

Ah so you are hopelessly naive. This statement confirms it. This statement isn’t wrong. Of course it isn’t. But it is absurdly naive

And estonia needs to be reinforced. That is the point of nato. If we keep doing this weak sauce approach and being worried about “deescalation” it will go badly. If we take a big step back from the Baltics and don’t reinforce them do you know what happens? Putin rolls in there as well. Potentially triggering a war with Nato. If they are too well defending from an initial attack AND have NATO behind them then he might think twice

 

[Gregm1988]

It is pretty obviousm really. If you don't have weapons, you are not going to be perceived as a threat or threaten other countries yourself. We need to disarm as a planet and start working together to solve problems.

You will not doubt call me a Putin apologist, but I think that you will find Ukraine is nothing like the western democracy it has been made out to be. I do not think we should have armed these people and, by the same token, I think we need to take out tanks out of Estonia pretty swiftly.

So exactly how far are you prepared to let Putin go? Poland ? Czech Republic? Berlin? You are living in a bizarre world where you believe everything said by a psycho who used to head the KGB and who hasn’t got over the USSR’s loss in the Cold War.

Why does it matter how much of a democracy Ukraine is? In case you haven’t noticed we aren’t exactly doing too well with our democracy either. 44% of the vote giving 56% of the seats and a pretty much overwhelming majority to a bunch of corrupt chancers. Tyranny of the (uninformed minority)

Does an insufficiently Democratic election system mean is should just be absorbed into Russia? And even less Democratic one. Why stop there? Hungary isn’t looking too Democratic. Let them have it. According to our new owner neither is Serbia. And they are ancestral Slavs. Let the Russians take over there as well. Poland is denying women abortion rights - off to Russia they go

Do you see how illogical that is ?

 

[Osvaldorama]

So exactly how far are you prepared to let Putin go? Poland ? Czech Republic? Berlin? You are living in a bizarre world where you believe everything said by a psycho who used to head the KGB and who hasn’t got over the USSR’s loss in the Cold War.

Why does it matter how much of a democracy Ukraine is? In case you haven’t noticed we aren’t exactly doing too well with our democracy either. 44% of the vote giving 56% of the seats and a pretty much overwhelming majority to a bunch of corrupt chancers. Tyranny of the (uninformed minority)

Does an insufficiently Democratic election system mean is should just be absorbed into Russia? And even less Democratic one. Why stop there? Hungary isn’t looking too Democratic. Let them have it. According to our new owner neither is Serbia. And they are ancestral Slavs. Let the Russians take over there as well. Poland is denying women abortion rights - off to Russia they go

Do you see how illogical that is ?

Well said. He’s totally out of touch with reality.

No one can disarm, it’s simple game theory. As soon as you do, Putin will attack.

As someone said, nukes are literally the only thing that has stopped WW3 right now. If no one had nukes the EU would likely already be on the ground there.

No one likes them but the genie is already out of the bottle.

 

[VocalMinority]

For the record I don't want nuclear weapons to exist either. And I would like to reduce the size of the world's armies.

Its just you cant reduce these things unilaterally. If you have no weapons or nuclear deterrent, then it gives the nations who do more power. Even the swiss protect their neutrality with a strong army.

Personally I believe the best way to be able to be able to reduce the size of the worlds armed forced armed forces is with defensive alliances and unions/courts. the bigger the alliance, the stronger the collective army, the smaller army an individual country needs to protect itself because its backed up by the alliance. So then they can spend more on the welfare of their people and not need to worry about the military.

Unions, or at least strong courts can give an alternative way to resolve conflict than with the military. I personally believe the ability for the EU to resolve internal disputes through the EU courts is a big reason why internally the EU is so peaceful.




I also think countries should aim to be 1 step 'better' than their competition. IE if you are against a country who has a large army and uses chemical weapons. it would be naïve to disarm as you would surely lose and your enemy will be stronger. but you can not use chemical weapons. and that way if you defeat your enemy the world will be improved. If you start using chemical weapons then nothing changes, and if you adopt something worse to win then you have made the world a worse place.
if everyone just tried to be slightly better than their rivals, then that is how you make the world a better place. And if you are doing that, I think you will find the allies to help you win your fights.

Ukraine and NATO aren't perfect, but they are several steps better than the Putin regime, maybe too much so given the tactics Putin uses.

I hope I got that viewpoint across, I found it hard to explain.

 

[Schad]

And for anyone who thinks that Russia is acting defensively -- somehow -- let me introduce you to Aleksander Dugin, a rather influential (probably the most influential) political theorist in modern Russia:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/2...n-ukraine-eurasianism-manifest-destiny-putin/

Among the things Dugin called for in his book, Foundations of Geopolitics:

• Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[9]

In the United States:

• Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".[9]

 

[Gregm1988]

And for anyone who thinks that Russia is acting defensively -- somehow -- let me introduce you to Aleksander Dugin, a rather influential (probably the most influential) political theorist in modern Russia:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/2...n-ukraine-eurasianism-manifest-destiny-putin/

Among the things Dugin called for in his book, Foundations of Geopolitics:

They have certainly succeeded on that “in the United States” part. Whether they had much to do with it or not. That country is bitterly divided to the point where people on both extremes are not denouncing this invasion

You’d think having a proper common old school enemy, especially a historic one, again would unite people. But it hasn’t seemed to

 

[Kaito]

I rarely agree with you regarding anything…. And that has continued.

NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance. They have caused nothing

Apart from the American element of NATO which has penned Russia in almost up to its borders and has done the same to China in the South China Sea.

NATO is a defensive alliance from the UK and European point of view but from an American viewpoint it is much more than that. America has around one thousand military bases around the world and they feel they are the worlds policeman, yet America has caused more wars and invaded more countries than any other since the end of WW2.

And no, I do not support what Putin has done, but I can see why he has done it. There are even people within NATO who feel they have made serious mistakes by encouraging so many east European countries to join, and did not fully appreciate that this would be seen as a serious threat to Russia.

 

[garysfc]

Haven’t read the thread for 12hrs & it’s probably been said already; the single thing we have to do is together. Whether it be sanctions, providing aid, whatever, we have to do this as one. I appreciate it’s difficult as we all have different local interests but together our message to Putin & Russia becomes so much stronger. And that’s now & for the future.

 

[tomw24]

The only way that nuclear weapons are reduced is if everyone signs a treaty to reduce them. Ain't gonna happen unfortunately. Like @VocalMinority says if the US gets rid of some then it just hands more power to Russia and China and vice versa. And I can't see global tensions easing anytime soon. Nuclear weapons are unfortunately a necessary evil because of people like Putin.

 

[Schad]

Apart from the American element of NATO which has penned Russia in almost up to its borders and has done the same to China in the South China Sea.

NATO is a defensive alliance from the UK and European point of view but from an American viewpoint it is much more than that. America has around one thousand military bases around the world and they feel they are the worlds policeman, yet America has caused more wars and invaded more countries than any other since the end of WW2.

And no, I do not support what Putin has done, but I can see why he has done it. There are even people within NATO who feel they have made serious mistakes by encouraging so many east European countries to join, and did not fully appreciate that this would be seen as a serious threat to Russia.

Again, I would potentially agree with this if there was any ambiguity in Putin's actions, but there is not. He quite literally announced to the world why Russia feels it should be able to act with impunity in the Baltics and Ukraine. He believes that they are non-states to be controlled or annexed wholesale, and he said so.

To the extent that NATO's actions here are a precursor, it's largely because Ukraine's membership has been mooted but not yet occurred, which meant that he had a window in which to act to fulfill his political ambitions. But that's not an issue that would be resolved if NATO simply didn't allow the accession of Eastern European countries, either.

 

[SaintsForTheWin]

Apart from the American element of NATO which has penned Russia in almost up to its borders and has done the same to China in the South China Sea.

NATO is a defensive alliance from the UK and European point of view but from an American viewpoint it is much more than that. America has around one thousand military bases around the world and they feel they are the worlds policeman, yet America has caused more wars and invaded more countries than any other since the end of WW2.

And no, I do not support what Putin has done, but I can see why he has done it. There are even people within NATO who feel they have made serious mistakes by encouraging so many east European countries to join, and did not fully appreciate that this would be seen as a serious threat to Russia.

Penned Russia in? What utter garbage we live in a modern world where no one should be trying to expand their borders out of conflict

 

[Archers Road]

Again, I would potentially agree with this if there was any ambiguity in Putin's actions, but there is not. He quite literally announced to the world why Russia feels it should be able to act with impunity in the Baltics and Ukraine. He believes that they are non-states to be controlled or annexed wholesale, and he said so.

To the extent that NATO's actions here are a precursor, it's largely because Ukraine's membership has been mooted but not yet occurred, which meant that he had a window in which to act to fulfill his political ambitions. But that's not an issue that would be resolved if NATO simply didn't allow the accession of Eastern European countries, either.

The fact that Putin has proved himself dishonest and unscrupulous through his actions, doesn’t alter the fact that Russian (as opposed simply to Putin’s) concerns about the eastward encroachment of NATO had some legitimacy. When the history of this crisis comes to be written, I expect historians to recognise that the West’s persistent refusal to even consider the issue from Russia’s perspective, may have been a contributing factor. Just as the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles towards Germany, is recognised as a contributory factor leading to the Second World War.

That’s all irrelevant now, Putin has to be stopped. But the following remain irrefutable facts; NATO has been encroaching on former Warsaw Pact territory since 1989, US led alliances have invaded two countries on Russia’s doorstep this century, and is working hard to destabilise another (Iran).

 

[Archers Road]

Penned Russia in? What utter garbage we live in a modern world where no one should be trying to expand their borders out of conflict

We live in a world where the US and her allies invade sovereign states with apparent impunity.

 

[Gregm1988]

The fact that Putin has proved himself dishonest and unscrupulous through his actions, doesn’t alter the fact that Russian (as opposed simply to Putin’s) concerns about the eastward encroachment of NATO had some legitimacy. When the history of this crisis comes to be written, I expect historians to recognise that the West’s persistent refusal to even consider the issue from Russia’s perspective, may have been a contributing factor. Just as the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles towards Germany, is recognised as a contributory factor leading to the Second World War.

That’s all irrelevant now, Putin has to be stopped. But the following remain irrefutable facts; NATO has been encroaching on former Warsaw Pact territory since 1989, US led alliances have invaded two countries on Russia’s doorstep this century, and is working hard to destabilise another (Iran).

Two countries on Russia’s doorstep? I don’t think they have. US led alliances have not got into any country bordering Russia or any that has ever been considered in the old soviet sphere of influence …

 

[Gregm1988]

We live in a world where the US and her allies invade sovereign states with apparent impunity.

But not to expand their borders. Which is the point here. You can argue the positives and (many more) negatives of what the US has done. But it was never to stick a flag in the ground and say “this is now part of the US”

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

But not to expand their borders. Which is the point here. You can argue the positives and (many more) negatives of what the US has done. But it was never to stick a flag in the ground and say “this is now part of the US”

Which is a critical difference.

 

[Gregm1988]

Which is a critical difference.

Of course it is

 

[Schad]

The fact that Putin has proved himself dishonest and unscrupulous through his actions, doesn’t alter the fact that Russian (as opposed simply to Putin’s) concerns about the eastward encroachment of NATO had some legitimacy. When the history of this crisis comes to be written, I expect historians to recognise that the West’s persistent refusal to even consider the issue from Russia’s perspective, may have been a contributing factor. Just as the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles towards Germany, is recognised as a contributory factor leading to the Second World War.

That’s all irrelevant now, Putin has to be stopped. But the following remain irrefutable facts; NATO has been encroaching on former Warsaw Pact territory since 1989, US led alliances have invaded two countries on Russia’s doorstep this century, and is working hard to destabilise another (Iran).

That's a remarkably realpolitik perspective, though. You're effectively suggesting that Russia has a natural sphere of influence in which it should have a free hand, even if -- for instance -- countries in that sphere of influence have been brutally repressed by Russia in the past. Those countries wanted to join NATO for a very good reason, whatever flaws NATO might have.

Also, while I'm hardly a supporter of US military adventures, do you know who also has invaded multiple countries on Russia's doorstep this century? Russia!

 

[ChilcoSaint]

You must log in or register to see media