demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 30, 2022 18:16:26 GMT
SourceThis goes beyond what is required by Article 5, which only requires member states to take "such action as it deems necessary" in response to an armed attack. Why would we agree to that?
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Mar 30, 2022 18:33:45 GMT
Suggestion:
Expel Russia from UN Security Council.
Urgent resolution to establish peacekeeping force. Line the Russian/Ukrainian border with UN troops from reliable countries (US, UK, Canada, ANZAC, France, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Nepal, Singapore, Japan) and ask India and China to show their true colours by committing to the mission.
After, say, 2 weeks impose strict shoot to kill on any military assets from Ukraine or Russia seeking to cross the border except towards their home country. Any use of weapons against UN forces to be met with decisive lethal retribution.
UN to use air assets to monitor and, if necessary, attack belligerents.
After a defined date, any forces not in their home country to be disarmed, if necessary violently, and shipped over the border with just their personal effects.
This might lead to a reshaping of the UN towards a form that actually fucking achieves something.
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,043
|
Post by petep on Mar 30, 2022 18:37:16 GMT
Suggestion: Expel Russia from UN Security Council. Urgent resolution to establish peacekeeping force. Line the Russian/Ukrainian border with UN troops from reliable countries (US, UK, Canada, ANZAC, France, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Nepal, Singapore, Japan) and ask India and China to show their true colours by committing to the mission. After, say, 2 weeks impose strict shoot to kill on any military assets from Ukraine or Russia seeking to cross the border except towards their home country. Any use of weapons against UN forces to be met with decisive lethal retribution. UN to use air assets to monitor and, if necessary, attack belligerents. After a defined date, any forces not in their home country to be disarmed, if necessary violently, and shipped over the border with just their personal effects. This might lead to a reshaping of the UN towards a form that actually fucking achieves something. I'd agree with this - what are we really asking of russia - stopping attacking a sovereign nation that has done nothing to threaten you... OMG, how dare anyone ask that of russia... |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 30, 2022 18:38:23 GMT
So, your suggestion is a world war, but with nukes this time?
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Mar 30, 2022 19:18:17 GMT
So, your suggestion is a world war, but with nukes this time? No, it's the world saying "don't attack your neighbour on absurd fictional pretexts, get your forces behind your borders or we will kill them". The logical endgame of "but they have nukes" is the whole world falls under Russia style gangsterism or Chinese police State. Or maybe Pakistani islamism or Nationalist Hindu India. Democracy is absolutely shit, especially when it is OK to bribe elected representatives, but it is still far better than any of the plausible alternatives. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 30, 2022 19:32:51 GMT
No, it's the world saying "don't attack your neighbour on absurd fictional pretexts, get your forces behind your borders or we will kill them". So, where is the Ukrainian border? Does it include Crimea and Donbas? Do we think Russia is just going to roll out of those areas because the UN says so? I can think of a similar UN mission that didn't quite work out that way ( and there was a serious threat of nuclear weapons being used in that conflict too). Which means this UN force would have to fight Russia to recapture Crimea and Donbas. No, it's not. If that was the logical endgame, it would've happened a long time ago. But we also have nukes. No one wants a nuclear war. The trick is avoiding one. The U.S. is the OG nuclear gangster btw. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 30, 2022 20:03:40 GMT
According to Bellingcat, which is involved in this whole thing, this occurred on March 3. However, they note this: "The three men experiencing the symptoms consumed only chocolate and water in the hours before the symptoms appeared. A fourth member of the team who also consumed these did not experience symptoms." Then they go right back to positing that it was a poisoning. ( Source) It wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for this to happen, but Putin reportedly approved Abramovich's role in the talks (see post #268). And if they were poisoned, not sure why they would continue negotiating, since Bellingcat said it hadn't previously reported on it in order to protect the victims. Follow-up on this: Intelligence suggests 'environmental' factor sickened Abramovich, Ukrainian negotiatorsShocking. /sarcasm |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 30, 2022 20:49:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Mar 30, 2022 20:52:45 GMT
No, it's the world saying "don't attack your neighbour on absurd fictional pretexts, get your forces behind your borders or we will kill them". So, where is the Ukrainian border? Does it include Crimea and Donbas? Do we think Russia is just going to roll out of those areas because the UN says so? I can think of a similar UN mission that didn't quite work out that way ( and there was a serious threat of nuclear weapons being used in that conflict too). Which means this UN force would have to fight Russia to recapture Crimea and Donbas. No, it's not. If that was the logical endgame, it would've happened a long time ago. But we also have nukes. No one wants a nuclear war. The trick is avoiding one. The U.S. is the OG nuclear gangster btw. We also have nukes but are demonstrating we won't use them defensively and may allow others to use them - tacticaly, low-strategically- offensively. Even if only as a threat. This is new. So,"if it was going to happen it would've happened long ago" doesn't fit. We maybe awakening autocratic, anti-democratic, anti-free market, anti-freedom in general attitudes. Refusing to squash this crime is, right now, strengthening the sort of diseased, cold, vile, a-human politicians we really don't want to encourage. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 30, 2022 21:02:41 GMT
We also have nukes but are demonstrating we won't use them defensively and may allow others to use them - tacticaly, low-strategically- offensively. Even if only as a threat. This is new. So,"if it was going to happen it would've happened long ago" doesn't fit. Where are Western states demonstrating they won't use nukes defensively; the US modernization program certainly wouldn't suggest that. None of this is new. Too many examples to cite: Korea, Hungary, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Iraq, Georgia, Syria, etc., et al. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Mar 30, 2022 21:11:28 GMT
We also have nukes but are demonstrating we won't use them defensively and may allow others to use them - tacticaly, low-strategically- offensively. Even if only as a threat. This is new. So,"if it was going to happen it would've happened long ago" doesn't fit. Where are Western states demonstrating they won't use nukes defensively; the US modernization program certainly wouldn't suggest that. None of this is new. Too many examples to cite: Korea, Hungary, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Iraq, Georgia, Syria, etc., et al. Nah, this is different. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,043
|
Post by petep on Mar 30, 2022 21:16:47 GMT
We also have nukes but are demonstrating we won't use them defensively and may allow others to use them - tacticaly, low-strategically- offensively. Even if only as a threat. This is new. So,"if it was going to happen it would've happened long ago" doesn't fit. Where are Western states demonstrating they won't use nukes defensively; the US modernization program certainly wouldn't suggest that. None of this is new. Too many examples to cite: Korea, Hungary, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Iraq, Georgia, Syria, etc., et al. this is where the conversation usually stops...its always the great equalization...that isn't close to true... |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 30, 2022 21:20:19 GMT
this is where the conversation usually stops...its always the great equalization...that isn't close to true... You don't know what the conversation is about. If you did, you would realize it's about how nuclear armed powers have responded to the invasion of their allies/client states or other states by another nuclear armed power, i.e., they have responded in ways that avoid direct conflict. The examples should've been a hint, but too subtle for some I suppose. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 30, 2022 21:47:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Mar 30, 2022 22:25:12 GMT
Or, more realistically, that was never a real demand, but a tactic for negotiating and propagandizing.
To what end. Putin has leveled most all cities.
To what end? Ukraine neutrality regarding NATO. Gaining recognition of territories they wish to be part of Russia or independent of Ukraine.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,545
|
Post by thor on Mar 30, 2022 22:40:00 GMT
Suggestion: Expel Russia from UN Security Council. Urgent resolution to establish peacekeeping force. Line the Russian/Ukrainian border with UN troops from reliable countries (US, UK, Canada, ANZAC, France, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Nepal, Singapore, Japan) and ask India and China to show their true colours by committing to the mission. After, say, 2 weeks impose strict shoot to kill on any military assets from Ukraine or Russia seeking to cross the border except towards their home country. Any use of weapons against UN forces to be met with decisive lethal retribution. UN to use air assets to monitor and, if necessary, attack belligerents. After a defined date, any forces not in their home country to be disarmed, if necessary violently, and shipped over the border with just their personal effects. This might lead to a reshaping of the UN towards a form that actually fucking achieves something. Germans would be a bad, Bad, BAD idea. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 31, 2022 13:43:38 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2022 14:52:50 GMT
How sanctions factor into negotiations between Russia and Ukraine Source
This kind of question and answer tells us nothing. It's infuriating.
For one thing, Juan Zarate is the person being asked. He worked on Bush the Younger's counter terrorism strategy. He was the guy who handled seizing Saddam Hussein's assets. How'd he do?
They keep asking all the people who were instrumental in our foreign policy debacles for the past 30 years. People who not only seem to be wrong, consistently, but who have a vested, and in the case of Zarate who started a Washington DC consulting firm, financial interest in doubling down on their bad ideas.
Last night I read an article pointing out that the ruble has already rebounded to where it was vs the dollar pre sanctions.
Here's a new article from CNN this morning
But one month after the tanks rolled, the currency has made a full recovery and is now trading at levels seen prior to the war. How is that possible?
In addition to demanding gas payments in rubles (still being debated but I'm pretty sure Russia has Europe over a barrel on that one) ... Russia is now signalling that other exports will also only accept payments in rubles.
And absent from all of these "analyses" is the fact that the West shot ITSELF in the head with a gun ... too. We're at the beginning of figuring out whether the West has isolated Russia ... or itself.
There are too many articles out there flashing warning signs about recessions in the West and the potential loss of the dollar as the world's reserve currency for me to take any of this kind of stuff into account. Since the 15th century "world currencies" have held the top spot for about a century.
Portugal 1450 - 1530 Spain 1520 - 1640 Netherlands 1640 - 1720 France 1720 - 1815 Great Britain 1815-1920 United States 1921 - .....
Dare I say it?
I'm gonna say it.
This is what it's like to live at the end of a golden age.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 31, 2022 16:09:55 GMT
This kind of question and answer tells us nothing. It's infuriating. This is the main point with regard to sanctions vis a vis the negotiations: "The conversation could also come to include the lifting of certain sanctions, such as restrictions on trade or investment." And it's something the Russians have specifically noted during the discussions with Ukraine. And we've talked about sanctions with Zelensky. I would have to look again but I haven't seen much indicating we're willing to ease sanctions as part of the negotiating process. I'm also surprised a more mainstream outlet like NPR even asked the question at all. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Mar 31, 2022 16:48:37 GMT
This goes beyond what is required by Article 5, which only requires member states to take "such action as it deems necessary" in response to an armed attack. Why would we agree to that? Shocker: Western officials are balking at Ukraine's proposal for a NATO-style mutual-defense pledge that could draw their military forces into a war with Russia, even as they expressed some receptiveness to the idea of international security guarantees as part of a deal to end hostilities... ( Source) And some of you are still trying to figure out why Ukraine was never going to be a member of NATO. |
|
