Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[nett]

Russia's demands

Only one of those would be a change of how things are in practicality and perfectly fitting with the goal of a buffer against NATO.

That's hopeful...on Russia's part, the war would have been a personally and monitarily expensive way to get these concessions.

How should Russia have tried to get these concessions?

[QuietlyListening]

Why does Russia need these concessions? And don't say it's because they don't want NATO next door or there are Russians who want to be part of Russia. They can move, and Russia or USSR didn't care about encroaching on European nations in the 50s and 60s. So, why?

[Soloist]

Why does Russia need these concessions? And don't say it's because they don't want NATO next door or there are Russians who want to be part of Russia. They can move, and Russia or USSR didn't care about encroaching on European nations in the 50s and 60s. So, why?

Eliminate all the options and only the impossible remains.
You can believe what you want to believe but the goals Russia demanded fit relatively with the goal of not having NATO next door.

[Ernie]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... orces.html

Captured commander says Russian forces were duped into invading in the false belief that the government had been overthrown by Nazis and needing liberating.

[Ken]

Why does Russia need these concessions? And don't say it's because they don't want NATO next door or there are Russians who want to be part of Russia. They can move, and Russia or USSR didn't care about encroaching on European nations in the 50s and 60s. So, why?

Eliminate all the options and only the impossible remains.
You can believe what you want to believe but the goals Russia demanded fit relatively with the goal of not having NATO next door.

If that was their goal then it backfired spectacularly because as a result of this invasion, previously neutral Finland and Sweden are looking to join NATO and Finland shares a very long and strategic border with Russia. And both Denmark and Germany are increasing their financial commitments to NATO and defense spending along with various others.

In any event, I would suggest the whole NATO thing is a charade. There haven’t been any serious negotiations about the expansion/non-expansion of NATO. If that was a diplomatic priority for Russia they would need to come to the negotiating table and come up with some sort of neutrality guarantees and disarmament proposals that would be acceptable to all parties involved. I see no sign that Russia ever proposed such talks or was interested in them. Their demands have all been one-sided and understandably ignored.

[temporal1]

International Law is a liberal fantasy. There is no higher court to appeal to. International law amounts to whatever the most power nation says it is.

In reality, "All is fair in love and war"

hmm. yeah. if there had been “law” maybe there wouldn’t have been NATO expansions over the years?

1994 / “The Clinton-era blunder that set the stage for today’s Ukrainian crisis”
Instead of working toward a new, inclusive European security order, Clinton expanded NATO over the objections of a prostrate Russia.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/ ... an-crisis/

my father started teaching me about the “psychology of losing,” when i was about 13.
we took a short trip to Georgia, travel was uncommon for folks like us. lots of children, not enough money.
it was summer, hot, no AC in the family car. AC was not common anywhere. (not really until computer mainframes required them in workplaces.) AC was not for employees! it was for computers. employees liked it.

we saw many new things from the backseat windows on that trip. one thing was Confederate flags. i was puzzled.
when i asked, “why?” “the Civil War has been over for so long.” “who thinks about it?”

my father, a man of few words, just said, “you didn’t lose.”
that’s when i began to learn about the importance of caring about (losing) others.

winners are often haughty, dismissive, arrogant, uncaring, unfeeling. it’s normal. maybe not desireable. esp long term.

in my view, the U.S./the West would have two options. either attempt to forge a new path for Russia to become invested in civilized politics, OR, because of habit/convenience/profiteers, maintain “Russia as the designated evil one,” and continue on that path, no matter the collapse of the USSR or anything else.

does the U.S. have any idea how to function without an opposing super power? or is it just too ingrained to let it go?

i’ve been wondering since the 1990’s.

[temporal1]

Why does Russia need these concessions? And don't say it's because they don't want NATO next door or there are Russians who want to be part of Russia. They can move, and Russia or USSR didn't care about encroaching on European nations in the 50s and 60s. So, why?

Eliminate all the options and only the impossible remains.
You can believe what you want to believe but the goals Russia demanded fit relatively with the goal of not having NATO next door.

Aren’t these demands close to what was formerly promised by NATO/the West?

[Dan Z]

International Law is a liberal fantasy. There is no higher court to appeal to. International law amounts to whatever the most power nation says it is.

In reality, "All is fair in love and war"

hmm. yeah. if there had been “law” maybe there wouldn’t have been NATO expansions over the years?

1994 / “The Clinton-era blunder that set the stage for today’s Ukrainian crisis”
Instead of working toward a new, inclusive European security order, Clinton expanded NATO over the objections of a prostrate Russia.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/ ... an-crisis/

my father started teaching me about the “psychology of losing,” when i was about 13.
we took a short trip to Georgia, travel was uncommon for folks like us. lots of children, not enough money.
it was summer, hot, no AC in the family car. AC was not common anywhere. (not really until computer mainframes required them in workplaces.) AC was not for employees! it was for computers. employees liked it.

we saw many new things from the backseat windows on that trip. one thing was Confederate flags. i was puzzled.
when i asked, “why?” “the Civil War has been over for so long.” “who thinks about it?”

my father, a man of few words, just said, “you didn’t lose.”
that’s when i began to learn about the importance of caring about (losing) others.

winners are often haughty, dismissive, arrogant, uncaring, unfeeling. it’s normal. maybe not desireable. esp long term.

in my view, the U.S./the West would have two options. either attempt to forge a new path for Russia to become invested in civilized politics, OR, because of habit/convenience/profiteers, maintain “Russia as the designated evil one,” and continue on that path, no matter the collapse of the USSR or anything else.

does the U.S. have any idea how to function without an opposing super power? or is it just too ingrained to let it go?

i’ve been wondering since the 1990’s.

very thoughtful response t1. Thanks for posting it.

[joshuabgood]

Why does Russia need these concessions? And don't say it's because they don't want NATO next door or there are Russians who want to be part of Russia. They can move, and Russia or USSR didn't care about encroaching on European nations in the 50s and 60s. So, why?

True, though after having been attacked by European nations several times before that, perhaps a buffer zone desire was logical.

Russia basically is trying to make itself great again. And they are doing what nations do. Basically what the USA did in the Mexican War, the Civil War, and the Spanish American War, not to mention the myriad of Indian wars. (ETA - perhaps mentioning Persion Gulf 1, Afghanistan, and Iraq would be in order as well).

This is the way it is in the worldly kingdoms.

[temporal1]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... orces.html

Captured commander says Russian forces were duped into invading in the false belief that the government had been overthrown by Nazis and needing liberating.

i hope ..
the public is keenly aware of how this sort of rhetoric is “this close” to everyday chatter in U.S. and Canada politics and mainstream.
not just chatter, but plenty is fueled by such language. it’s unhealthy and will not produce good fruits.