|
Nintendo Kid posted:Just having a nuclear reactor doesn't mean you can turn a spigot and pump out some bomb juice, dude. You need specialized processing facilities to finish off that sort of stuff and assemble a working nuclear weapon. My point is Russia has a massive amount of nuclear infrastructure, has been a nuclear power for 65 years, still invests massive amounts in its nuclear forces and has the nuclear arm as its #1 defense priority, everyone believes they have nukes, everyone acts like they have nukes, they act like they have nukes, the fact their nukes don't work anymore would be a big fuckin deal and hard to keep quiet, and that the argument entails Russia not having a capability that north loving korea has, means the balance of probabilities suggest that the idea that russia's nuclear weapons are all inert is the most out-there of conspiracy theory nonsense
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
It would be pretty funny if Putin did as Zhironovsky suggests and dropped a nuke on Warsaw only for it to break apart on impact wit a little note saying "BOOM" floating out just like in looney tunes
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Cheatum the Evil Midget posted:My point is Russia has a massive amount of nuclear infrastructure, has been a nuclear power for 65 years, still invests massive amounts in its nuclear forces and has the nuclear arm as its #1 defense priority, everyone believes they have nukes, everyone acts like they have nukes, they act like they have nukes, the fact their nukes don't work anymore would be a big fuckin deal and hard to keep quiet, and that the argument entails Russia not having a capability that north loving korea has, means the balance of probabilities suggest that the idea that russia's nuclear weapons are all inert is the most out-there of conspiracy theory nonsense Also in addition, the US actually does still cooperate with Russia on nuclear safety, waste disposal and checking stockpile. I think I would need to see some evidence that the Russians no longer have the ability to produce Tritium for their arsenal. (Also, as said above, the weapons would be much smaller yield but wouldn't be "inert.")
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Present posted:I'm not going to split hairs. Bottom line is many people from the Donetsk/Lugansk region are literally afraid of getting murdered/raped/eaten by Kiev and by Ukrainian army and by Ukrainians from the western part of the country. And I get that it's not their fault, but when they pick up guns and start abducting people for having a Ukrainian flag decal on their lovely Soviet era car, well, then it gets me. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that under Nunn-Lugar, Russia closed its last few plutonium-producing reactors back in 2010. The notion that this means the Russian nuclear arsenal has somehow expired is completely erroneous, though. e: 2010, not 2008. I think it was ordered closed in 2008, because I remember I wrote a paper on it. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Cheatum the Evil Midget posted:My point is Russia has a massive amount of nuclear infrastructure, has been a nuclear power for 65 years, still invests massive amounts in its nuclear forces and has the nuclear arm as its #1 defense priority, everyone believes they have nukes, everyone acts like they have nukes, they act like they have nukes, the fact their nukes don't work anymore would be a big fuckin deal and hard to keep quiet, and that the argument entails Russia not having a capability that north loving korea has, means the balance of probabilities suggest that the idea that russia's nuclear weapons are all inert is the most out-there of conspiracy theory nonsense The fact that they may not be able to maintain them in the future however, is a fact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:Is there any substantive evidence to the claim that the current Ukranian government is in any way/partly made up of "Nazis" or "Fascists"? I've got a friend who continues to insist that this is the case. If your friend is a Russophone, I highly doubt anything you can say will be able to convince them. This isn't a recent propaganda development; this narrative has been used since the end of WW2 and then some. The following have all been used in their time: The Ukrainians are fascists. Their einsatzgruppen were sent to murder Russian women and children in Donbass. The Georgians are fascists. Saakashvili is literally Hitler. Americans are fascists for having supported anti-socialist regimes around the world. The Prague Spring was instigated and organized by West German fascists. The Hungarian uprising were a bunch of fascists that refused to give up 11 years after the war ended. You should also be aware that the only fascist country in Europe prior to the summer of 1941 was bourgeois Poland ("панская Польша"). Fortunately, the exploited Polish proletariat and the oppressed Ukrainian, Belorussian and German ethic minorities were promptly liberated by destroying the hated, murderous regime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The fact that they may not be able to maintain them in the future however, is a fact. It's also a fact that it's going to be a while before they actually hit that point. e: I mean, I'm not happy about that fact, but it's kind of the truth, and it's wishful thinking to act like Russia isn't going to be a strategic power anytime soon. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault Apologies if its been already posted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault It has been, but I don't think it's gotten the discussion it deserves yet. I think Mearsheimer goes a little overboard in saying it's "all the West's fault," but I also think it's intentional hyperbole, meant to underline his main point. Otherwise, he's 100% correct: NATO really did help precipitate this crisis. It was unbelievably stupid for the US and its European allies to think that expanding into former Warsaw Pact states wouldn't be considered provocative, and bring about unintended consequences. As he puts it: quote:Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but it should understand the logic behind it. This is Geopolitics 101: great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory. After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia -- a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear. quote:But most realists opposed expansion, in the belief that a declining great power with an aging population and a one-dimensional economy did not in fact need to be contained. And they feared that enlargement would only give Moscow an incentive to cause trouble in eastern Europe. The U.S. diplomat George Kennan articulated this perspective in a 1998 interview, shortly after the U.S. Senate approved the first round of NATO expansion. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies,” he said. “I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else.” When George loving Kennan is saying that, you should probably listen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:Requires registration http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r....74649129,d.dGc Try this. Otherwise just google it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Was Ukraine actually going to join NATO?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The fact that they may not be able to maintain them in the future however, is a fact. If you include "may not" in a sentence that's a red flag it's a possibility rather than a fact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Forgall posted:Was Ukraine actually going to join NATO? Yup-they made it to the Action Plan phase, with NATO officials outright saying "Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault There are some reasonable points in the article, but sometimes when people are trying too wedded to their own form of contrarianism you get doubly dumb like this: quote:That decision gave rise to antigovernment demonstrations that escalated over the following three months and that by mid-February had led to the deaths of some one hundred protesters. Ah, the good old passive voice. Clearly, if those demonstrators hadn't been impudent enough to start demonstrating they never would have been killed by... someone? As for NATO expansion, just because something is provocative doesn't mean it is wrong. Russia has a lengthy history of aggression, oppression, and general misrule that made numerous countries want future protection against it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:As for NATO expansion, just because something is provocative doesn't mean it is wrong. Russia has a lengthy history of aggression, oppression, and general misrule that made numerous countries want future protection against it. I don't blame them, but it's not like NATO was wise to let them in, or come so close, in Ukraine and Georgia's case - especially if its willingness to protect those states from an aggressive Russia would be in question. Plus, as Mearsheimer points out, the US would be alarmed if Mexico suddenly aligned itself with China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It has been, but I don't think it's gotten the discussion it deserves yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:While true about NATO threats to Russia, being a satellite nation to Russia does suck balls and if it takes joining NATO to get some protection from Russian influence well then so be it. Doesn't that cut both ways, though? If admitting Ukraine as a full member risks making Russia an enemy, perhaps it's in NATO's best interest to not do it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Doesn't that cut both ways, though? If admitting Ukraine as a full member risks making Russia an enemy, perhaps it's in NATO's best interest to not do it? What's Russia going to do about it? Attack a NATO member? Maybe they should've played nice when they had hegemony over Eastern Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
It is the west's fault for not rebuffing eastern europes attempts to extricate themselves from soviet hegemony. It is my fault the woman next door was murdered by her abusive partner because I called the police for her last time she knocked on my door in tears.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:What's Russia going to do about it? Attack a NATO member? If Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would almost certainly immediately invade (formally, this time). They clearly think a Ukraine aligned with the West is intolerable. They might back down later when the US opens the doors on silos or a massive multinational force arrives to drive them out, but I can't see the Russians not trying their luck to reverse it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
katlington posted:It is the west's fault for not rebuffing eastern europes attempts to extricate themselves from soviet hegemony. It is your fault if you told that abusive woman you would protect her so she should tell him she's leaving, her husband kills her, and you respond by barring him entrance to your convenience store.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:What's Russia going to do about it? Attack a NATO member? Veto UNSC resolutions, more-openly sponsor regimes hostile to the US, build up their nuclear arsenal again, refuse to help us extract our troops in Afghanistan - these are all areas where it would be good to have Russia's cooperation. Also, the West royally hosed Russia over in the 90s, when they tried to play by our rules, so the whole "they should have behaved better" line isn't going to convince them. katlington posted:It is the west's fault for not rebuffing eastern europes attempts to extricate themselves from soviet hegemony. Yes, everything you disagree with is tantamount to rape/domestic abuse apologists. Thank you for trying to make a complex debate more black-and-white. Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Russia is War Machine. Ukraine is Christy Mack. Who is going to play Dog the Bounty Hunter or the US marshalls?Cheatum the Evil Midget posted:It is your fault if you told that abusive woman you would protect her so she should tell him she's leaving, her husband kills her, and you respond by barring him entrance to your convenience store. As long as we agree it's not the actual murderers fault.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
katlington posted:Russia is War Machine. Ukraine is Christy Mack. Who is going to play Dog the Bounty Hunter or the US marshalls? Poland, duh
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Cameron, Merkel, Hollande and Obama are the chicks on The View
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Why does Russia have to answer for every sin of the Soviet Union? The Union collapsed. Russia is not communist. It is not the same government or people that it was 20 years ago. I can understand a country disentangling itself from the Soviet clusterfuck, but why does everyone want to be so brazenly antagonistic? Russians were victims of the Soviets too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Malleum posted:Why does Russia have to answer for every sin of the Soviet Union? The Union collapsed. Russia is not communist. It is not the same government or people that it was 20 years ago. I can understand a country disentangling itself from the Soviet clusterfuck, but why does everyone want to be so brazenly antagonistic? Russians were victims of the Soviets too. I really wish somebody in NATO leadership, or the Clinton Administration, had asked that question 20 years ago. Nowadays I can't blame people for the comparison, since Russia is the clear aggressor in this case. But it does need to be understood that NATO blunders played a major role in getting us into this mess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Malleum posted:Why does Russia have to answer for every sin of the Soviet Union? The Union collapsed. Russia is not communist. It is not the same government or people that it was 20 years ago. I can understand a country disentangling itself from the Soviet clusterfuck, but why does everyone want to be so brazenly antagonistic? Russians were victims of the Soviets too. We won the Cold War, they lost. Get over it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
No decisions yet regarding a larger NATO presence (American bases) inside the Baltic states and Poland, correct?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Malleum posted:Why does Russia have to answer for every sin of the Soviet Union? The Union collapsed. Russia is not communist. It is not the same government or people that it was 20 years ago. I can understand a country disentangling itself from the Soviet clusterfuck, but why does everyone want to be so brazenly antagonistic? Russians were victims of the Soviets too. Russians were the leaders of the Soviet Union. That's why people blame them. Because they did it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Malleum posted:Why does Russia have to answer for every sin of the Soviet Union? The Union collapsed. Russia is not communist. It is not the same government or people that it was 20 years ago. I can understand a country disentangling itself from the Soviet clusterfuck, but why does everyone want to be so brazenly antagonistic? Russians were victims of the Soviets too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Even if NATO membership wasn't on the table, what about the EU? Russia was not happy with the idea of Ukraine joining the EU, yet EU membership would likely have helped the Ukrainian economy and the Ukrainian people quite a bit. Can't blame Ukraine for wanting that, and blaming the EU for wanting to expand seems pretty far-fetched too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Veto UNSC resolutions, more-openly sponsor regimes hostile to the US, build up their nuclear arsenal again, refuse to help us extract our troops in Afghanistan - these are all areas where it would be good to have Russia's cooperation. So a new Cold War then? Because Russia would lose (again), except this time it won't take forty years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
toe knee hand posted:Even if NATO membership wasn't on the table, what about the EU? Russia was not happy with the idea of Ukraine joining the EU, yet EU membership would likely have helped the Ukrainian economy and the Ukrainian people quite a bit. I think it is actually noble for the Ukrainian people to stand up to the Russian state. However, at what cost? That's the crux of it, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:Russians were the leaders of the Soviet Union. That's why people blame them. Because they did it. Russians that have been dead for half a century. Russia was the head of the Soviet Union. Russia was not the Soviet Union. Germany was the head of the Third Reich, but everyone and their mother was eager to help them transition from a totalitarian state instead of isolate and punish them for their former misdeeds. What's the difference here? A Buttery Pastry posted:Russians might have been, but Russia itself? Maybe I'm wrong, but it never seemed like Russia tried to portray the USSR as a bad thing which they too were victims off, which kinda seems like a prerequisite for co-victim status. Why should it anyway, given the heavily pro-Russian character of the state? What is a country if not its people? Russia definitely portrayed the USSR as a bad thing for Russians. It was. It ruined their economy, murdered their people, and kept them prisoners in their own lives for a century. The pro-Russian inclinations of the state were to send Russians to die in work camps rather than firing squads. North Korea is described as pro-Korean, and the Kims are literally starving the country to keep their power. The Soviet Union was pro-Soviet Union, not Pro-Russian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Malleum posted:Why does Russia have to answer for every sin of the Soviet Union? The Union collapsed. Russia is not communist. It is not the same government or people that it was 20 years ago. I can understand a country disentangling itself from the Soviet clusterfuck, but why does everyone want to be so brazenly antagonistic? Russians were victims of the Soviets too. Putin makes a big thing out of Russia inheriting Soviet affairs, he called the dissolution of USSR "the biggest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century" and the state-backed historiography is actively building a narrative of the eternal Russian State just changing decorations once in a while. Sometimes Putin tries to distance from the most obvious Stalin crimes (Katyn massacre, for example), but the tendency of shoving every Soviet sin under the rug of collateral damage/foreign intervention shows his true colors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Obama's whole "reset" policy was an attempt to try and warm up relations with Russia with a more bi-lateral relationship but obviously it didn't pan out so well or was too little too late.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Let's just all agree that collective punishments inflicted on whole nations are a-ok and we didn't nuke enough of them drat Japanese
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
Malleum posted:Germany was the head of the Third Reich, but everyone and their mother was eager to help them transition from a totalitarian state instead of isolate and punish them for their former misdeeds. What's the difference here? (West) Germany was seen as bulwark against the threat of the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 07:28
|
|