Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Flarelaine]

This is a complete non-argument. Kharkiv has more Russians than Kaliningrad, and they're fighting to death against Russia. Cities like Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kyiv have huge Russian populations but they clearly don't want to be in Russia. Riga has nearly as many Russians as Kaliningrad, Easo is obviously one of them - ask Easo if he wants to leave EU and rejoin Mother Russia. Give Kaliningrad green light for EU membership, let pro-democracy Russians flee there, and they won't think about rejoining Russia.

It won't happen for military reasons, which is a different argument.

I defer to you on Russian diaspora attitudes. I made the remark because the line of thought about dismembering Russia generally cites the fate of Yugoslavia as an example but Yugoslavia was riven by ethnic conflict throughout its entire existence and so it's not a good comparison.

[Belize]

No they're not and you know that. It's Russia-Ukraine. Russia. Russia. Russia. Putin. Putin. Putin. Nuclear. Nuclear. Supporting these movements is nothing but feeding into the fear that these people are selling. The news has been spreading so much misinformation lately it's laughable.

China puts a plague on the world and not a drop of punishment happens and they're responsible for the deaths of millions, one of them being in my family, and others from my friend's families. Yet Russia hits Ukraine, civilians die, and the whole world dogpiles the civilians of Russia with sanctions to severely destabilize their economy while looking only at Putin and not how the Russian people will suffer despite virtual signaling for peace? Give me a break.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-60703301
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/15/healt...-us/index.html
Etc...


It's literally a top headline everywhere. Well, except for right-wing rags. I guess we know what you read.

[Belize]

I have seen questionable photos of Ukrainians wearing and holding up discriminatory symbols and flags.

Oh, piss off. Seriously. Take your shitty propaganda elsewhere.

[Gabriel]

This is basically semi-civil war, almost everyone speaks the same language, uses the same or very similar looking equipment. Pretty much the "perfect" ground for some friendly fire.

Shut the fuck up with this russian shill rhetoric. It is not a civil war. It is a war of aggression on russia's part.

She obviously is going to be alive... -.-
Administrative punishment + any future career options destroyed? Yes.

Nobody will never see her again. If she is lucky the FSB just shot her in the head instead of sending her to be raped in some Siberian gulag.

You of all people should believe less bullshit from there. We know what Ukraine did at the start of civil war in Donbas, there is nothing gained by pretending it did not happen, or believing it did not happen.

Again, not a civil war. Either shut up or fuck off.

[Azadina]

No, smart ass. You said that they would be bombed ON PURPOSE. And they wont even be bombed accidentally, as I expect a temporary halt in shelling while visit is underway.

Yea, and we have very little in a way of proving they'd do it on purpose, because the place is shelled anyway due to the war. No one would throw NATO into war with Russia over "we think you did it on purpose, soo, war"

[Belize]

Showing a little more trust in Russia than I would.

Or maybe Russia just isn't anywhere close to Kiyv and are running out of things to bombard it with.

Kinda like what the intel reports say, that they've been bogged down miles away for days with no movement and are struggling to source missiles and artillery shells...

[Gabriel]

Yea, and we have very little in a way of proving they'd do it on purpose, because the place is shelled anyway due to the war. No one would throw NATO into war with Russia over "we think you did it on purpose, soo, war"

If russia doesn't want to bomb the visiting politicians, they will make sure they won't be. If they do get bombed, russia will find out just how much the Polish people want blood.

[Azadina]

If russia doesn't want to bomb the visiting politicians, they will make sure they won't be. If they do get bombed, russia will find out just how much the Polish people want blood.

By that logic, we could have visiting politicians all over Ukraine, if they're able to shield places from war with their presence. I don't have a problem with that, but I highly doubt Russia would scurry off as result.

[Gabriel]

By that logic, we could have visiting politicians all over Ukraine, if they're able to shield places from war with their presence. I don't have a problem with that, but I highly doubt Russia would scurry off as result.

Well if russia then did bomb those politicians, EU and maybe even NATO, should bomb every single russian soldier that steps into Ukraine.

[DarkAmbient]

She obviously is going to be alive... -.-
Administrative punishment + any future career options destroyed? Yes.

Marina Ovsyannikova has now gone missing.

[Gabriel]

Marina Ovsyannikova has now gone missing.

Been killed*

[Jessicka]

By that logic, we could have visiting politicians all over Ukraine, if they're able to shield places from war with their presence. I don't have a problem with that, but I highly doubt Russia would scurry off as result.

Killing them would literally be an act of war. They will avoid it, it's not like they've actually hit Zelensky when they have tried in any case.

- - - Updated - - -

Marina Ovsyannikova has now gone missing.

Shame. No one at FOX would show that kind of bravery.

[Shadowferal]

Shame. No one at FOX would show that kind of bravery.

Admittedly I'm not that brave either.

[Slant]

T
And this here says pretty much everything about you. It's not even funny, it's just sad.

And they say Germans have no sense of humor... If you think that was a serious bit, you've a) missed the point of that entire paragraph, which says a lot about you, and b) haven't even begun to realise just how out of depth you are in a conversation with me. I'm more complicated than your simplistic black/white world view.

- - - Updated - - -

Even Putin has to know how stupid continuing to bombard Kyiv would be while leaders from NATO member states are there would be. Considering any of them getting or worse, outright killed would be seen as an act of war by Russia.

I don't agree with that assessment. If NATO member state politicians waltz into a warzone, that's their risk to take. But it doesn't automatically trigger Art. 5. See Art. 6 on what constitutes an attack:

Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

* on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
* on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Politicians are not part of the armed forces. They are not stationed in Kyiv. They do not occupy Kyiv. It would not apply. And even if it applied, you'd have a hard time making a case that Russian shelling of Kyiv, which has been going on for a while, is now suddenly aimed at foreign politicians because they happened to decide to go there.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't set records for breaking rights and liberties if you don't have them in the first place. We're trying to cram thousands of years of fuckery into a few hundred years. So that's a shortcut we took, trying to pad the numbers.

Fair enough. Referee rules fair play, I'd say.

[Logwyn]

It’s not that straightforward. Russia was seen as the bigger threat even then. Britain and France saw the rearmament of Germany as an important bulwark against the Soviet Union, while the USA were key trading partners with Germany right up to 1941.

Other than hydrocarbon trade there aren’t such excuses for allowing Russia to do what it wanted for the last 30 years.

This is off topic but the trade between Germany and the US pre-1941 is not as robust as you paint it. Stay away from "Nazis: Thugs for the Rich" or pop history books like IBM and the Holocaust. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...ng_ww2_before/

Is a good read with well-cited sources even if it's a Reddit post.

[Slant]

Killing them would literally be an act of war. They will avoid it, it's not like they've actually hit Zelensky when they have tried in any case.

No, see my other response above. It's worth looking into the legal text of the treaty once in a while when making these assumptions. People on the internet throw Art. 5 around like a frisbee, but 9 out of 10 have never even once read it.

[Jessicka]

No, see my other response above. It's worth looking into the legal text of the treaty once in a while when making these assumptions. People on the internet throw Art. 5 around like a Frisbee, but 9 out of 10 have never even once read it.

Probably fewer than 1 in 10. But I never mentioned the article, but let's look at WW1, the assassination of the Archduke was regarded as an act of war, as would generally any assassination of a head of state, or emissary thereof. NATO certainly will have written in many, many more examples to lawyer out basically anything as an automatic trigger in order to keep open options of de-escalation; it's a defensive pact, it's members aren't actually looking for excuses. That said, Russia won't want to give them one either.

[Shadowferal]

No, see my other response above. It's worth looking into the legal text of the treaty once in a while when making these assumptions. People on the internet throw Art. 5 around like a frisbee, but 9 out of 10 have never even once read it.

"We" learned that starting a war over the death of a single individual is a bad idea from Franz Ferdinand.

- - - Updated - - -

What Jessika said...

[Makabreska]

Probably fewer than 1 in 10. But I never mentioned the article, but let's look at WW1, the assassination of the Archduke was regarded as an act of war, as would generally any assassination of a head of state, or emissary thereof. NATO certainly will have written in many, many more examples to lawyer out basically anything as an automatic trigger in order to keep open options of de-escalation; it's a defensive pact, it's members aren't actually looking for excuses. That said, Russia won't want to give them one either.

Eh, I would not bring up 100y old examples, the word has changed. Also, stray rocket is not an assassination.

[Gabriel]

No, see my other response above. It's worth looking into the legal text of the treaty once in a while when making these assumptions. People on the internet throw Art. 5 around like a frisbee, but 9 out of 10 have never even once read it.

It doesn't have to trigger Art. 5 directly. I suspect Poland would be more than willing to start killing russian invaders in Ukraine on their own given a suitable pretext. THEN if russia decides to start bombing military bases in Poland in return we might see Art 5. I don't really know the fine print on how that would be interpreted then, but I don't really give a shit either.

Poland unleashed would end russia's excursion in Ukraine, and then it would be upto Mr. Manlet in Kremlin to decide if he truly wants to escalate this into a hot hot war by nuking Poland, because NATO or not, if russia uses nukes against anybody, it will get wiped off the face of the earth by US nuclear forces.