Quote from: TwitchySeal on May 05, 2022, 08:12:18 PM

Quote from: DaRude on May 05, 2022, 05:58:23 PM

Quote from: suchmoon on May 04, 2022, 05:55:43 PM

Quote from: DaRude on May 04, 2022, 04:56:57 PM

People are made to think that deescalation in Ukraine is now literally in no ones best interest.

May be not in your or Putin's best interest, but if you had bothered to read what I said... remove the tanks -> deescalation. Tanks invaded Ukraine, Javelins did not invade Russia.

Bravo, right so Russia removing all tanks is the only acceptable "deescalation", must've been really tough to propose such radical thought? Thanks for making my point, currently escalation is in everyone's best interest, so the war must go on.

Quote from: paxmao on May 04, 2022, 09:27:50 PM

Quote from: DaRude on May 04, 2022, 07:17:52 AM

Quote

“In a dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on working out specific agreements that would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory,” Putin said.
He charged that “the threats are mounting on our western border,” with NATO placing its military infrastructure closer to Russia and offered the West to engage in substantive talks on the issue, adding that Moscow would need not just verbal assurances, but “legal guarantees.”
“We aren't demanding any special conditions for ourselves and realize that any agreements must take interests of Russia and all Euro-Atlantic countries into account,” Putin said. “A calm and stable situation must be ensured for all and is needed for all without exclusion.”
Putin's statement came a day after he sternly warned NATO against deploying its troops and weapons to Ukraine, saying it represented a red line for Russia and would trigger a strong response.

Medieval thinking 100%.

Again, Putin telling the people of other countries what they can and cannot do in the name of his safety. Again, Putin telling all countries that they cannot join NATO because he says so. This is Putin considering himself ruler of the old USSR and the one who can tell Europe what can and cannot do. It is no longer the case and, after this war, he will be lucky if other "territories" do not start revolting in view of the inefficacy of its army.

Quote from: DaRude on May 04, 2022, 07:17:52 AM

US pretty much said that Russia is not allowed to have national security interests

On the contrary, Russia has security interests, Ukraine has security interests (even more now), Finland has security interests, Sweden, Lithuania, Letonia,... all have security interests... the question is why Putin's interest are better than anyone else's. Is it because he's got a better army / more power? Now that argument seems to have a few leaks.

...

And we're back to hypocrisy and double standards. Due to their proximity, US can have national security interests in Cuba, totally normal for NATO and Australia to have national interests in Solomon Islands etc... But why should Russia have national interests that spans to the country directly on it's border that speaks the same language and was part of the same country?? Then we go into, all countries are equal but some are more equal than others, and the ones that clear some imaginary level of democracy/freedom are allowed to absorb countries bordering other superpowers with beneficial offers, while others are not. Great policy, guaranteed to result in wars, so here we are.

Coming up next, everyone acts super surprised when China starts "special operations" in Taiwan after US decides to add Taiwan to it's "defense" pact. US will also be willing to supply Taiwan with any and all weapons till the last standing Taiwanese.

Any comment on why you believe the Pope is wrong as well, in seeing how such policies cannot possibly lead to peace?

Edit: wording

If you're going to use whataboutism, I think the United States committing genocide against the Native Americans would be more appropriate. Also, remember when you defend Russias actions by comparing them to those of other countries, you're also defending those other countries actions.

Ahh whataboutism, there is no hypocrisy or double standard that it cannot retort.

I'm not defending or justifying anyone, just being a realist. In a perfect world, we all have unlimited freedoms, hugs and kisses, and sing Kumbaya. Unfortunately we're not there yet, so through hard lessons of MAD best we could come up with is to give superpowers their distance and let them all play in their own sandboxes. Sure it's not perfect, has it's own issues but that's the best we could come up with. Now, this whole concept that provided relative peace is being unilaterally challenged, under cover or freedom (of course applied selectively only where it's preferential i.e. not Saudi Arabia or middle east). The results are as expected, and shouldn't surprise anyone.

As an added benefit such convenient new policy can easily start a war between to drag China into a war anytime it wishes just by providing more weapons to Taiwan, with the added benefit of claiming to spread freedoms.

Quote from: paxmao on May 05, 2022, 08:58:07 PM

Quote from: DaRude on May 05, 2022, 05:58:23 PM

...
Any comment on why you believe the Pope is wrong as well, in seeing how such policies cannot possibly lead to peace?

Edit: wording

I did not say anything about the Pope. I think that his thoughts on this matter are irrelevant at this point if you really need a comment from me.

As for the rest, you are comparing today's situation with Cold War. That explains why you consider Putin's actions valid - you live with him in the sixties. The US know it. The US is using it. There is no winner.

I didn't think that the idea that rules either have to be applied equally or non at all, was such a hard concept to grasp. From April 26, 2022

Quote

...we also wanted to let them know that if steps were taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power-projection capabilities, or a military installation, then we would have significant concerns and we would very naturally respond to those concerns.
So, again, I’m not going to speculate what that may or may not involve, but I think our goal was to be very clear in that regard...

https://www.state.gov/teleconference-with-assistant-secretary-of-state-for-east-asian-and-pacific-affairs-daniel-kritenbrink

Think US/Australia said it best (military alliances are a red line for Australia) and US have a significant concerns and it would very naturally respond to those concerns (apparently even the ones on the other side of the world), and has nothing to do with cold war. You do not want to set a precedence where China can buy they way into military bases on US/Mexico border.