[commodorejohn]

I mean, precisely nobody is advocating jumping feet-first into WW3 here. But sanctions will only go so far (especially in a world where plenty of non-NATO governments will be happy to ignore them, and probably even a few NATO member states will try to skirt around or drag their feet on enforcing them for convenience's sake;) the most they can do is create internal pressure to reduce support for this invasion. But when the Russian government's position on internal protests is "yes, yes, well, would a stay in the gulag improve your disposition any?" it could well take a long period of absolute economic ruin and bloody oppression to get to the actual point of internal collapse - and, in the meantime, the nature of oligarchic/authoritarian states ensures that it's the common citizens who will suffer the most for it. That's not good for anybody. Supplying military aid as carefully but consistently as we can and building/bolstering defensive alliances in the rest of Europe is about the best tactic we have for bringing this atrocity to an end (and preventing the next one) as quickly as possible.

And the "why should we care, let 'em have it!" argument is - even if you ignore the human cost - shockingly naive, especially coming from people who are already clearly aware of the Russian government's prior history of military brutality in the name of empire. The notion that this would all go away if Ukraine would just surrender quietly is laughable. We've seen this pattern before, in the '30s, the '60s, and elsewhen - you may not care about your neighbor's land, but as soon as their neighbor steamrolls them, he's suddenly your neighbor and your problem. Anybody who's observed Putin's hagiographic nostalgia for the Soviet era should be able to predict this: what starts with Kyiv will eventually come to Berlin, unless something (internal collapse, military defeat, etc.) stops it first.

[Irinikus]

Watch this from 30 Minutes and 40 seconds in:

[Raion]

For things that happen in Europe or Asia I usually watch CaspianReport. The only time he is reasonably shown any type of bias is when it concerns his own country of Azerbaijan which I recognize but appreciate his perspective nonetheless because the majority of the time you don't hear their side of the story in the media.

One of the guiding principles of my geopolitical theory is the idea that people should have the right to self-determination if they are a significant enough ethnic group and have the landmass to become independent or part of another country. Nothing is perfect though and even if the Ukraine wins and takes back Crimea and it's eastern provinces that ethnic Russians who probably have lived there for a long time might end up being kicked out. I don't support that implication to some degree but you have to look no further than how Russia is treating the Ukraine right now and has in the past to understand why there would be a perception of collective guilt by the ukrainians. The same thing happened post World War II in Czechoslovakia and other countries with significant German populations. Wars have consequences and while individuals cannot prevent wars necessarily it's always going to have consequences for individuals. My personal perspective is that the best way to handle such a situation would be to compensate ethnic Russian citizens with the money to go relocate elsewhere and compensate them for their land and other assets as much as possible. That may not be possible in a post-war Ukrainian economy but that would be my personal ideal to try to handle the situation. You can't necessarily make everyone happy but you can do your best to make some concessions and that's what I try to always strive for.

[Shiunbird]

The 90s were a lost opportunity to include Russia in the international sphere.
I understand the US trying to enjoy the spoils from having won the Cold War but, back then, the west the wealth of the country to the oligarchs (basically, a subset of the former Soviet nomenklatura) and turning a blind-eye to the rampant corruption, in exchange only demanding a constant flow of commodities. For example, no one lifted a finger when Yeltsin bombarded the parliament in 1993. The classic "bad guy, but OUR bad guy". 2014 was more of the same: turning a blind eye, but hey, cheap gas.

The late 80s saw a lively democratic debate in the Soviet Union. Legislative debates were aired, and people were welcoming and participated. It was a shame not to encourage this kind of development.

Despite tensions, during the 90s, when both Russia and Ukraine were weak, relations were cordial. As far as I remember, the first border posts between Russia and Ukraine were built only in the late 2000s, early 2010s. Most of my friends over there have friends and relatives across the border and have no interest in bloodshed.

My best Russian friend always came back home, saying he wanted to stay to help the country develop. For the first time in the 22 years I've known him, he speaks of moving abroad. A huge shame.

Unfortunately, as long as the west keeps abandoning its "principles" when it's economically convenient, we will always end up in this kind of mess.

[commodorejohn]

The 21st century in general has been a long and terrible lesson in chickens coming home to roost.

[lunatic]

The 21st century in general has been a long and terrible lesson in chickens coming home to roost.

don't tell me you are now tired of winning.

[soviet]

Wish the world could react the same way, each time NATO invades a country or bomb it into oblivion.

[commodorejohn]

The 21st century in general has been a long and terrible lesson in chickens coming home to roost.

don't tell me you are now tired of winning.

What.

[Raion]

Russia never had a chance of democracy because none of the old post-soviet people were outed from the government. There's a straight line transition from communist Soviet Union to the corrupt mafia state of the Russian Federation.

We can talk all day about how the West didn't include Russia but when the people involved and the government are the same ones that were part of the Soviet Union it's kind of hard to delineate the two. I'd almost argue that the Russian federation is simply a rump state of the Soviet Union with superficially more rights than under the Soviet Union.

Pardon the prequel reference but at this point Russia is too dangerous to be kept alive. They have control of a significant portion of the United Nations. they have engineered terrorism across the world and continue to support their former client states that they had in the USSR. Russia is obsolete and it's going to have to be carved up if it continues. There's no future that includes Ukraine and an intact Russia if this keeps up.

And for those who think that I'm being too hard on Russia I need to remind you that I'm not a huge fan of the way the US does things. I'm here in the US not by choice but by birth. The reason that I remain here is because there isn't necessarily anywhere better to go at the moment, despite inflation, despite growing social unrest, rising crime and a divided populous I don't have anywhere I could particularly go and not be considered an outsider.

The United States never should have gotten involved in the Middle East and should have let the Soviet Union take Afghanistan on by themselves because at the end of the day they wouldn't have been able to hold the country, but the US would have had no culpability in the resulting radical Islam wave. The United States has failed to integrate its minorities properly and that's why we're having so much social unrest. The value systems have crumbled because they never included anybody that wasn't a white Protestant. People like Trump being elected was a symptom of a problem not the actual problem. The Soviet Union falling predates me but I have had to learn the hard way that being politically one sided is a dangerous thing.

[soviet]

Remember when Yeltsin was "our boy on Moscow ?" or when he call in the army to lay waste the parliament because they wanted to boot him because he was a drunk puppet. Then the US envoy in Russia says on TV "we support this in the name of democracy".