‘Economic power’?
I don’t know what you consider economic power, but Russia is a far richer and more developed country than China, as well as a better place to live, on a per capita basis. China has a bigger economy largely because it has, you know, almost ten times the population.
Also, remind me again of the ‘international system’: Western countries are allowed to send money, weaponry and men to their favoured side of a conflict, but Russia isn’t?
Wars aren’t fought on a per capita basis.
Russia has the economic power of Italy, roughly.
Italy, too, is a nicer place to live than China. Which of them are a bigger threat, though?
Wait, a supporter of Russia is invoking some sort of fairness argument? Like, there is some kind of obligation to be fair and even-handed towards Russia?
The hell with that. If “fair” or “deserves” had anything to do with it, Putin deserves to be squashed like a bug. That would be the “fair” outcome.
Sure, Russia can send aid to their favored side in a conflict. It’s just frowned upon when they start that conflict themselves, whip it into a fury, and annex their neighbors’ territory through said conflict.
Really, no-ones’ actions in this conflict come anywhere near the aggressiveness of Russia. Trying to put a fig leaf over Russia’s aggression and pretending that they’re trying to help in this situation is only going to work on very stupid people.
Or California. California has a little over 1/4 of Russia’s population, and an economy of about the same size.
“We will bury you” indeed!
Disturbing new poll of citizens of NATO countries, it looks like the English-speaking countries and Poland(and presumably the rest of the former Warsaw Pact nations) are the only ones really committed to NATO. The citizens of France, Italy, and Germany don’t really support defending their allies if it comes to war:
Well, the median is 48% to 42%, but really the only important thing is do the governments of those countries feel they would honor their NATO commitments or not. I’m guessing the answer to that is pretty much ‘yes’ across the board, regardless of what their citizens think they should do.
However, if any of those countries seriously feel they won’t or shouldn’t support fellow NATO allies in the event of a war where Russia attacked another NATO member then the right thing for them to do is withdraw from the treaty and go their own way. I don’t think any of those countries would feel the same if THEY were the one being attacked (i.e. I’m guessing the Germans would be a bit miffed if Russia attacked them and no one else wanted to honor their treaty commitments and support and defend them).
Not that surprising. Most (all?) European countries have trouble meeting their NATO obligations.
Putin met with the Pope this week. The subject of Ukraine was discussed. In reference to this a Russian spokesman said “In seriousness, it’s an outrageous attempt to quash the sovereignty of another state.”
So was the spokesman talking about the Russian invasion of Ukraine? No, obviously not.
Was he talking about the Vatican City’s remonstrating Russia for invading Ukraine? Closer, but not that either.
So what horrible violation of another country’s sovereignty are the Russians upset about? Why, America’s of course. Because it’s clear to them that the only reason the Pope would have said anything about Ukraine is if the United States was forcing him to do it.
Fortunately, Russia was there as always to stand up for the sovereignty of small nations.
Besides Ukraine (not NATO), the only NATO countries in play here are the Baltics: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. They’ve been War-Gaming with the USA the past couple of weeks. That shouldn’t have bothered Putin at all. Not at all.
If shit happens, it’s the USA who will “honor” the Baltics NATO agreements. Military bases. Naval ports. They (the Baltics) won’t have a choice (polls be damned).
[QUOTE=Coriolanus]
Besides Ukraine (not NATO), the only NATO countries in play here are the Baltics: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. They’ve been War-Gaming with the USA the past couple of weeks.
[/QUOTE]
That Poland place might be ‘in play’ as well. And no one is saying Ukraine is in NATO.
It should only bother him if he’s planning to do something. I’m sure he’s not, since he seems like a peace lovin’ guy to me. And so kind to animals and reporters. 
And, polls be damned, the other NATO members will ‘honor’ their commitments to any NATO member attacked as well. I’m fairly sure that The Baltics™, if attacked would kind of appreciate that. But sure, spin this as a vast plot by the evil US…or something. Gods know what your point is with all this cryptic crap and breathlessly quoted ‘words’. Military bases…Naval ports…STUFF! THINGS! Meaningful verbiage! INCEPTION BWAAAHHHHHH!!!
Sure they do. If they don’t want U.S. support, they can withdraw from NATO.
I’m sure that would in no way embolden Russia, under Putin, to more tightly integrate their economic ties and to make necessary border adjustments left over from post WWII survey errors. (Why, look, Vilnius is actually inside Russian boundaries!)
That (not NATO) was my ETA - I thought that it sounded like I was saying Ukraine was in NATO.
I quoted “honor” because there’s a belief that members of NATO will boldly bond together as one if a fellow nation is attacked. I recall France, Germany and Belgium being unwilling to agree to act if Turkey was attacked by Iraq way back in 2003. Maybe things are different now.
Baltics™
Yeah. Estonia is a bit worried. They are the closest and have a sizable ethnic Russian population. I don’t think Putin - the reporter-lovin, puppy-snugglin - despot will do anything provocative. Anyway, Vilnius in Poland isn’t directly in the path to lonesome Kaliningrad, where the Russian Baltic fleet resides.
Happy Russia Day! День России! Nobody here knows what it’s for, except that it replaced the November 7 holiday - the anniversary of the October 1917 (old style time) Revolution.
Provocative? Putin? Surely not…
Vox has an interesting analysis of the poll results. Short version: terrifying to Russia’s neighbors:
Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war two great super-armies developed. Us, the Russians and the French on one side, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea being that each army would act as the other’s deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.
Private Baldrick: Except, this is sort of a war, isn’t it?
Captain Blackadder: That’s right. There was one tiny flaw in the plan.
Lieutenant George: O, what was that?
Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.
What everyone in the USA and Europe should want is to avoid anything that might lead to fiery radioactive death. I personally live near the ground zero of several locations that almost certainly are on the targeting lists.
I personally don’t give a rats ass if Putin takes back “his” territory of Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. A few people would be shot, and those countries would now be ruled by the people that ruled them for many decades. This is a tragedy…but is it worth the cost to prevent?
Now, during the buildup to ww2, the argument was made that letting Hitler have the territory that used to belong to Germany and a few bits of land here and there was worth it to avoid what followed. So, now the argument seems to be that we need to fight tooth and nail for Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Except that fighting tooth and nail has only 1 ultimate outcome…
[QUOTE=Habeed]
I personally don’t give a rats ass if Putin takes back “his” territory of Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. A few people would be shot, and those countries would now be ruled by the people that ruled them for many decades. This is a tragedy…but is it worth the cost to prevent?
[/QUOTE]
You should have an issue with it, since it would break NATO and I don’t think that’s good for anything. In addition, your rhetoric about ‘fiery radioactive death’ sounds scary and all, but it’s total bullshit. No way is Russia going to risk nuclear war over any of this stuff. Russia isn’t the Soviet Union, and THEY (the USSR) wouldn’t have risked it either. So, the only thing we REALLY have to do is what we are doing, which is to support our NATO allies in the region and simply not back down. Russia is running a huge bluff, basically.
Horseshit. Good grief. We don’t have to fight anyone ‘tooth and nail’. Get real. There is zero chance Russia is going to risk out and out war with the US, let alone NATO…not unless they are sure…100% positive…that if they make a move we won’t lift a finger. And they aren’t sure of that at all, especially the US. A nuclear war over this? Not a chance in hell. They would lose…badly. Hell, they can’t even be sure that most of their nuclear weapons would work if push came to shove, while they can be sure as hell that ours would. Regardless, they know the same thing we do, that if it goes to nukes everyone loses, so not going to happen. From a conventional standpoint they are fucked if they were to tangle with any of the NATO allies (not counting the US), let alone the entire alliance.
So, again, all we have to do is simply what we are doing, which is honor our treaty commitments. Getting back to the Ukraine, we are again doing what needs to be done. We don’t have treaty commitments so there won’t be a war if Russia decides to invade. Their little covert war that everyone knows about is costing them big time. They were tossed out of the G8 (which is now back to being the G7), and the sanctions that posters up thread were laughing about have bitten them big time on the ass. Coupled with the drop in the price of oil they have fucked themselves, and the pressures are mounting. Eventually Putin will have to face reality and give this adventure up as a bad cause. His ego is writing checks his country can’t pay for.
But isn’t that the point when a nations leadership might do something irrational?
Yeah, that only works if you can safely assume that the aggressive country only wants its former territories, and that it’s idea of former territories is the same as your idea of former territories. Putin might just want the old USSR back, or he could decide he wants the entire Eastern bloc back, which encompasses Berlin. If we are determined to avoid war at all costs, no matter what, why shouldn’t Putin just take everything we’re willing to give him?
As for whether to fight for the Baltic republics, our word should mean something. I realize that war for honor is an outdated concept, but we saw what not honoring treaty commitments got us in the last war. National honor isn’t just about machismo, it’s in our self interest to uphold.
I would add that russian military casualties are mounting, and the parents of these kids are not going to accept this forever. just what does Putin stand to gain from this-is he seriously considering a war over Ukraine? It makes no sense to me.