History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Xceler8x said:

Stampie said:

In reply to Xceler8x :

Look I understand your position on the current administration.  I also understand that you are turning this into a political discussion.  That's not the way.

How is it not a political discussion considering the US's previous stance vs the current US stance? They are polar opposite specifically because of politics. It's all politics. Dancing around the topic and ignoring the elephant in the room isn't the way to seek the actual truth here. While I get we're talking about the US negotiating mineral rights in Ukraine, what's going on is that the US has left an ally, many allies actually, hang out to dry. For what reason? Shouldn't we discuss that instead of erudite conversation about the finer points of international politics? (There's that word again.)

 There's a larger conversation going on here than who owns what mineral rights. 

There is a distinction between talking about politics and talking about policy. There may be some crossover, but it is certainly possible to talk about either one without discussing the other.

And I don't know about anyone else, but I've never even considered the idea of trying "to seek the actual truth"; I don't know if such a thing exists, but whether it does or not, I would argue it doesn't matter, and suggesting that it does predisposes people to toward seeking a "truth" that is acceptable to them, rather than a dispassionate understanding based on analysis of the relevant evidence.

This thread has moved off topic and become (unavoidably) about politics. Time to pour the concrete.

Pete

Xceler8x said:

Any of you listen to Dan Carlin? The Hardcore History podcast? Great talent. He has many things to say about history occurring right now, today. 

 

A quick view of his current discussion appears to be about dynamics and evolution of US presidential powers.  Not something that needs to (or probably can) be discussed here.  His podcasts are all historically related (and very comprehensive and good).

In reply to 02Pilot :

Thank you. 

In reply to NOHOME :

No, it's not. There are too many valuable viewpoints here. If you (or anyone) feels a strong way about something, provide evidence to support your position and people can choose to ignore it, be swayed, or not. I've always made a point of listening to people with whom I disagree (sometimes virulently), and frankly believe that we all should follow suit.  

In reply to Xceler8x :

How is it not a political discussion considering the US's previous stance vs the current US stance? They are polar opposite specifically because of politics. It's all politics. Dancing around the topic and ignoring the elephant in the room isn't the way to seek the actual truth here. While I get we're talking about the US negotiating mineral rights in Ukraine, what's going on is that the US has left an ally, many allies actually, hang out to dry. For what reason? Shouldn't we discuss that instead of erudite conversation about the finer points of international politics? (There's that word again.)

 There's a larger conversation going on here than who owns what mineral rights. 
 

O2Pilot pretty much covered it, but I'll add the main reason- because we aren't supposed to discuss that here in this forum. I'd love to go more into detail discussing political differences and their effects, but we can't have that discussion here. So we talk about the 30,000 foot view of what has been said and done and the results of those words and actions, without arguing over which was right or wrong. That is already difficult, but gets more difficult when people start injecting political opinions into the mix. Frankly, none of us here have all of the info required to know what the "right" answers are. And the "right" answer is different for all parties involved- which is why no clear cut easy solution exists. We can only talk about what we know and make our predictions based off of that. 

I thought it would be interesting to go back to the first few pages of this thread and see what was being said. I know some of my assessments were proven wrong, notably my prediction that Putin was posturing and wouldn't invade because he had more to gain by simply maintaining the threat of invasion (I still think he could have gained more by leveraging the threat); I was curious to see just how far off-base I was (not great, but not as bad as I feared). While some things didn't hold up, I posted this back on page 6:

We have to think about desired outcomes here. In an ideal world, the US and the West want Ukraine democratic, free, and secure from Russian threat or influence. The Russians want Ukraine under control of a friendly (and likely dependent) government, and free of Western influence in all its forms. Neither of these is going to happen, so the question becomes what is acceptable to all parties, or at least to Russia and the US, since they're the only external military forces that have a chance of being used in numbers. To be perfectly blunt about it, Ukraine does not have the ability to control its own destiny, and as such, is going to be forced to accept the desires of external actors.

From the US perspective, if avoiding open conflict while maintaining a Ukrainian government that is not aligned with Russia is the first priority, then the next step is figuring out what can be given up while still achieving these objectives. If the deal that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis is any guide, perhaps the framework should be similar: a public Russian non-invasion pledge and reduction in forces on the border in exchange for a public statement that NATO will not open membership discussions with Ukraine. This will surely be less than everyone wants, but all the participants get something out of it, and the situation is stabilized. The Ukrainians will not be happy with such an arrangement (Castro was furious that the Soviets made a deal behind his back), but they frankly also have little choice in the matter.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to NOHOME :

..."If you (or anyone) feels a strong way about something, provide evidence to support your position and people can choose to ignore it, be swayed, or not. "...

I feel strongly that in this discussion in particular, people need to avoid posting what they feel a strong way about and then picking evidence to support it. That is where the politics and opposing positions come into it.

If you want to change people's minds or are searching support for your feelings, this is probably not the place to post it. Meanwhile:

UN General Assembly Weighs Competing Resolutions Marking Third Anniversary Of War In Ukraine

The two drafts were proposed to mark the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, when the UN General Assembly is scheduled to vote on the resolutions.

The U.S. draft, proposed on February 21, mourns "the tragic loss of life throughout the Russia-Ukraine conflict," calls for a swift end, and urges a lasting peace. But it fails to mention territory occupied by Russia and doesn't single out Moscow as the source of the conflict.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the resolution "simple and historic," and urged UN members to support it "in order to chart a path to peace."

"This resolution is consistent with President Trump's view that the UN must return to its founding purpose, as enshrined in the UN Charter, to maintain international peace and security, including through the peaceful settlement of disputes," Rubio said in a statement.

By contrast, the draft resolution from the European Union and Ukraine refers to "the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation" and demands an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all of Moscow's forces.

The Ukrainian-European text stresses the need to redouble diplomatic efforts to end the war this year, while blaming Russia for the invasion and committing to Kyiv's "territorial integrity." It also recalls the need to implement all previous assembly resolutions "adopted in response to the aggression against Ukraine."  ...