Falco:
If Ukraine would agree to stay out of NATO Putin would come to the table and this conflict could end in a month.
However, US/NATO would rather risk more lives and nuclear war than agree to that.
How many more lives is it worth to fight for Ukraine's sacred right to enter NATO and keep Nuclear Weapons pointed at Russia?
Isn’t part of the problem (Josh referenced above) that NATO didn’t stay out of Ukraine, as they’d agreed?
i believe this is part of what John Mearsheimer spoke about in the video posted early in this thread.
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 11:26 am
What is shocking is to see supposedly "pacifist" Mennonites supporting shipping billions of dollars in weapons, ammunition, bombs, and missiles to the region. Many of these people are the same people who ended up picking up arms in the Ukraine to fight with the Nazis in the 1930s. They have the same kind of thinking: it's OK to shoot and kill people as long as you're shooting and killing Russians.
I don't see that here, Josh. I have not advocated that. I have said this is in Caesar's domain, I don't know what the right course of action is for Caesar, my concern is for the victims of war, etc.
But I am saying military invasions and killing civilians are bad things. That's what Putin is doing. Repeatedly, you seem to be saying that Putin has every right to do this, that it's somehow a good thing, that Ukraine has no right to exist, that it should belong to Russia.
To me, that's a "pacifist" Mennonite playing cheerleader to a military invasion.
Is there a particular reason you say "That's what Putin is doing" rather than saying "That's what Putin and Zelensky are doing."?
Because Zelensky is not bombing Moscow, he has not invaded Russia. He is not a military invader who is killing Russian civilians.
The word genocide has an actual definition and meaning. As does the word "terrorism"
Russia's actions in Ukraine meet any reasonable definition of both genocide and terrorism. As does the rhetoric coming out of Russia from BOTH the Russian government and state media. As they say..."if the shoe fits"
Maybe you should be MORE concerned about the fact that Russia is actually committing both genocide and terrorism in Ukraine and less about how people are describing it or the fact that it makes Russia look bad.
If Ukraine would agree to stay out of NATO Putin would come to the table and this conflict could end in a month. However, US/NATO would rather risk more lives and nuclear war than agree to that.
How many more lives is it worth to fight for Ukraine's sacred right to enter NATO and keep Nuclear Weapons pointed at Russia?
Ukraine staying out of NATO didn't prevent this war. Ukraine was not in NATO and had pretty much zero prospects of joining NATO as of February 24, 2022. That did not prevent Russia from invading. This war isn't about joining NATO. If it was then Russia would have invaded Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and now Finland which are all former Russian colonies that have joined NATO.
In fact, one could easily make the argument that joining NATO would have prevented this war for Ukraine.
Then let's hear Ukraine and U.S. explicitly agree to keep Ukraine out of NATO and see what happens.
Those simple magical words would end this war quickly. "We'll sign an agreement to keep Ukraine out of NATO."
Falco:
If Ukraine would agree to stay out of NATO Putin would come to the table and this conflict could end in a month.
However, US/NATO would rather risk more lives and nuclear war than agree to that.
How many more lives is it worth to fight for Ukraine's sacred right to enter NATO and keep Nuclear Weapons pointed at Russia?
Isn’t part of the problem (Josh referenced above) that NATO didn’t stay out of Ukraine, as they’d agreed?
i believe this is part of what John Mearsheimer spoke about in the video posted early in this thread.
Yes. That is exactly John Mearsheim's entire point. However, no one is listening. History will judge NATO and this administration harshly.
I don't see that here, Josh. I have not advocated that. I have said this is in Caesar's domain, I don't know what the right course of action is for Caesar, my concern is for the victims of war, etc.
But I am saying military invasions and killing civilians are bad things. That's what Putin is doing. Repeatedly, you seem to be saying that Putin has every right to do this, that it's somehow a good thing, that Ukraine has no right to exist, that it should belong to Russia.
To me, that's a "pacifist" Mennonite playing cheerleader to a military invasion.
Is there a particular reason you say "That's what Putin is doing" rather than saying "That's what Putin and Zelensky are doing."?
Because Zelensky is not bombing Moscow, he has not invaded Russia. He is not a military invader who is killing Russian civilians.
If Ukraine would agree to stay out of NATO Putin would come to the table and this conflict could end in a month. However, US/NATO would rather risk more lives and nuclear war than agree to that.
How many more lives is it worth to fight for Ukraine's sacred right to enter NATO and keep Nuclear Weapons pointed at Russia?
Ukraine staying out of NATO didn't prevent this war. Ukraine was not in NATO and had pretty much zero prospects of joining NATO as of February 24, 2022. That did not prevent Russia from invading. This war isn't about joining NATO. If it was then Russia would have invaded Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and now Finland which are all former Russian colonies that have joined NATO.
In fact, one could easily make the argument that joining NATO would have prevented this war for Ukraine.
Then let's hear Ukraine and U.S. explicitly agree to keep Ukraine out of NATO and see what happens.
Those simple magical words would end this war quickly. "We'll sign an agreement to keep Ukraine out of NATO."
Prior to the Russian invasion Ukraine was not part of NATO and had zero chance of entering NATO by virtue of the fact that it had disputed borders in Crimea and the Donbass. Countries are ineligible to join NATO if they are engaged in border disputes according to Article 10 of NATO. The treaty would need to be renegotiated and re-confirmed by all the member states in order to bring in Ukraine. Which wasn't going to happen prior to February 24, 2022 but might have been made more likely by Russia's invasion, although it is still a very heavy lift.
Ukraine had perhaps a better chance of joining the EU rather than NATO. Which is all about economics and not defense. There are some countries that are members of the EU but not NATO like Austria and Ireland.
Go ahead and propose an ironclad guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO. Do you think Russia will then withdraw from the four provinces of Ukraine that it has claimed to have annexed along with Crimea? Of course not. There is zero chance of that.
Which underscores the lie that this was anything to do with NATO. It was about Russian imperialism and an effort by Russia to expand its territory at the expense of the nation and people of Ukraine. They have said exactly that. Both Putin in his speeches and the other organs of the state.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ukraine staying out of NATO didn't prevent this war. Ukraine was not in NATO and had pretty much zero prospects of joining NATO as of February 24, 2022. That did not prevent Russia from invading. This war isn't about joining NATO. If it was then Russia would have invaded Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and now Finland which are all former Russian colonies that have joined NATO.
In fact, one could easily make the argument that joining NATO would have prevented this war for Ukraine.
Then let's hear Ukraine and U.S. explicitly agree to keep Ukraine out of NATO and see what happens.
Those simple magical words would end this war quickly. "We'll sign an agreement to keep Ukraine out of NATO."
Prior to the Russian invasion Ukraine was not part of NATO and had zero chance of entering NATO by virtue of the fact that it had disputed borders in Crimea and the Donbass. Countries are ineligible to join NATO if they are engaged in border disputes according to Article 10 of NATO. The treaty would need to be renegotiated and re-confirmed by all the member states in order to bring in Ukraine. Which wasn't going to happen prior to February 24, 2022 but might have been made more likely by Russia's invasion, although it is still a very heavy lift.
Ukraine had perhaps a better chance of joining the EU rather than NATO. Which is all about economics and not defense. There are some countries that are members of the EU but not NATO like Austria and Ireland.
Go ahead and propose an ironclad guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO. Do you think Russia will then withdraw from the four provinces of Ukraine that it has claimed to have annexed along with Crimea? Of course not. There is zero chance of that.
Which underscores the lie that this was anything to do with NATO. It was about Russian imperialism and an effort by Russia to expand its territory at the expense of the nation and people of Ukraine. They have said exactly that. Both Putin in his speeches and the other organs of the state.
I suggest you watch the John Mearsheim video. He covers the facts. Russia would have found your reasoning laughable. All they want is an assurance and in writing.
There's still one simple way to prove me wrong. We just need to hear those magic words.
(Whether he insists on keeping certain regions now neither underscores nor proves a thing.)
Last edited by Falco Underhill on Tue Oct 11, 2022 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:55 pmI suggest you watch the John Mearsheim video. He covers the facts. Russia would have found your reasoning laughable. All they want is an assurance and in writing.
There's still one simple way to prove me wrong. We just need to hear those magic words.
But why bother with Mearsheimer when we can go straight to the source. Putin himself published a 7,000 word essay on the Russia and Ukraine. How many times do you think he mentions NATO? Exactly twice and not in the context of justification for war. Or in reference to the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. But rather talking about military advisors from NATO countries working in Ukraine. Here is is. Go ahead and read it: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
It all full of nonsense about how Ukraine is a NAZI state and how Ukraine as a nation, language, and culture does not actually exist. Or does not deserve to exist. There is nothing about fearing NATO expansion.
The simple way to prove you wrong is to look at what Russia has proposed as a negotiated settlement to the war in their ongoing off and on again negotiations with Ukraine. Your proposal is not part of it. It isn't what Russia is asking for.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:55 pmI suggest you watch the John Mearsheim video. He covers the facts. Russia would have found your reasoning laughable. All they want is an assurance and in writing.
There's still one simple way to prove me wrong. We just need to hear those magic words.
But why bother with Mearsheimer when we can go straight to the source. Putin himself published a 7,000 word essay on the Russia and Ukraine. How many times do you think he mentions NATO? Exactly twice and not in the context of justification for war. Or in reference to the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. But rather talking about military advisors from NATO countries working in Ukraine. Here is is. Go ahead and read it: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
It all full of nonsense about how Ukraine is a NAZI state and how Ukraine as a nation, language, and culture does not actually exist. Or does not deserve to exist. There is nothing about fearing NATO expansion.
The simple way to prove you wrong is to look at what Russia has proposed as a negotiated settlement to the war in their ongoing off and on again negotiations with Ukraine. Your proposal is not part of it. It isn't what Russia is asking for.
The simple way is to say the magic words.
I read the date of that article you provided.
It was eight months before the invasion. The invasion wasn't even a topic. I've got other things to do.
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:49 pm
Go ahead and propose an ironclad guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO. Do you think Russia will then withdraw from the four provinces of Ukraine that it has claimed to have annexed along with Crimea? Of course not. There is zero chance of that.
Which underscores the lie that this was anything to do with NATO. It was about Russian imperialism and an effort by Russia to expand its territory at the expense of the nation and people of Ukraine. They have said exactly that. Both Putin in his speeches and the other organs of the state.
I suggest you watch the John Mearsheim video. He covers the facts. Russia would have found your reasoning laughable. All they want is an assurance and in writing.
There's still one simple way to prove me wrong. We just need to hear those magic words.
For those who prefer to read, this paper lays out Mearsheim's argument:
But Ukraine did not join NATO before the invasion, and NATO didn't sound like they were likely to allow them to join. Perhaps Russia could wait for the offense to happen before invading?
And the REASON that Ukraine wanted help defending itself against Russia is quite simple: Russia consistently threatened the existence of Ukraine. That's where the Canada and Mexico analogies fall down: the United States is not threatening the existence of either country. Suppose the United States did threaten Canada and Canada appealed to a military alliance for help - that would look different.
Beyond that ... surely Russia is primarily responsible for what Russia does. Neither NATO nor the United States are invading Russia or threatening to do so. Russia is doing that to Ukraine. That's where I really start shaking my head, when it sounds like the military aggressor bears no real blame for massive destruction of civilian lives.
Last edited by Bootstrap on Tue Oct 11, 2022 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.