Poo tin... Put@in...
Comments
-
SC is correct.surrey_commuter said:
I disagree, they are the World's policeman and whether they decide to act or not determines the outcome of every conflict or potential conflict.rick_chasey said:The grand power narrative misses what this is all about, ffs.
Americans, this *isn't all about you*.
They have the money, the stores, the military might, the political power, etc etc.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
-
of course, it is all about American interestskingstongraham said:
For Ukraine, this is all about Ukraine. For America, it clearly isn't.surrey_commuter said:
I disagree, they are the World's policeman and whether they decide to act or not determines the outcome of every conflict or potential conflict.rick_chasey said:The grand power narrative misses what this is all about, ffs.
Americans, this *isn't all about you*.0 -
Stop it.rick_chasey said:If it is a proxy war surely you need to define what each side is a proxy for?
1 -
a month ago it was widely assumed that the Russian army would roll over Ukraine in days and would be on the border of moldova and Poland. All of the other countries bordering Russia would be in more peril.rick_chasey said:
This isn't domino theory and Russia isn't attacking Ukraine as part of some global ideological battle, or as a way to improve Russian global power.surrey_commuter said:
I disagree, they are the World's policeman and whether they decide to act or not determines the outcome of every conflict or potential conflict.rick_chasey said:The grand power narrative misses what this is all about, ffs.
Americans, this *isn't all about you*.
Russia is not a global player. It's 140m people and has the economy the size of Spain ( well, pre war anyway) and military spending on a par with the UK.
It is a regional player, and this Ukraine war is, in many ways, a peculiarity of the region - the region is one of the bloodiest regions in history.
This is not a proxy war between two superpowers. It's not even a war with superpowers on either side.
Now it turns out that the US have been arming and training Ukraine for the past 8 years. You think they did that for the love of Ukraine or doing what they think is right? or do you think they are sending a message to Russia and the rest of the world (ie China) not to do things that they don't like.
From a US point of view this will rank alongside Midway as one of their greatest ever strategic victories - I am of course exaggerating for effect0 -
Well, yeah. I seem to remember some previous discussion on this...rick_chasey said:If it is a proxy war surely you need to define what each side is a proxy for?
0 -
in case you are being serious then Ukraine is a proxy for the West's willingness to oppose Russian expansionism.rick_chasey said:If it is a proxy war surely you need to define what each side is a proxy for?
You and the other chap are the only people in the world who think that a proxy war needs to be fought between two proxy's0 -
and the financial power when it comes to sanctionsMattFalle said:
SC is correct.surrey_commuter said:
I disagree, they are the World's policeman and whether they decide to act or not determines the outcome of every conflict or potential conflict.rick_chasey said:The grand power narrative misses what this is all about, ffs.
Americans, this *isn't all about you*.
They have the money, the stores, the military might, the political power, etc etc.0 -
Congrats on re-defining 'proxy war' to suit your own narrative. Imagine being daft enough to think that a proxy war needs actual proxies...surrey_commuter said:
in case you are being serious then Ukraine is a proxy for the West's willingness to oppose Russian expansionism.rick_chasey said:If it is a proxy war surely you need to define what each side is a proxy for?
You and the other chap are the only people in the world who think that a proxy war needs to be fought between two proxy's0 -
Mmmm OK i disagree with point one and I think point 2 is debatable at best.surrey_commuter said:
in case you are being serious then Ukraine is a proxy for the West's willingness to oppose Russian expansionism.rick_chasey said:If it is a proxy war surely you need to define what each side is a proxy for?
You and the other chap are the only people in the world who think that a proxy war needs to be fought between two proxy's
You are over thinking the grand power narrative. It is a simple as preserving the world order, which in large part is to do with preventing expansionism and annexation by medium and large countries. It is not waging war by proxy, as much as chipping in some small change to keep status quo. There is incentive to make it difficult for Russia ( to prevent further expansionism) but that is practical, not war by proxy.
You are giving the West and the US too much agency, and you are not giving the specifics of Putin's thinking (and the political system that allows that to matter), the Ukrainain/Russian history and context enough primacy.
0 -
What do you mean "now it turns out" - where have you been for the last 8 years since Russia annexed Crimea?surrey_commuter said:
a month ago it was widely assumed that the Russian army would roll over Ukraine in days and would be on the border of moldova and Poland. All of the other countries bordering Russia would be in more peril.
Now it turns out that the US have been arming and training Ukraine for the past 8 years. You think they did that for the love of Ukraine or doing what they think is right? or do you think they are sending a message to Russia and the rest of the world (ie China) not to do things that they don't like.
From a US point of view this will rank alongside Midway as one of their greatest ever strategic victories - I am of course exaggerating for effect
0 -
In all honesty I think you are a bit of a nutter or have comprehension difficulties so will leave you to have your feuds with other peopleimposter2.0 said:
What do you mean "now it turns out" - where have you been for the last 8 years since Russia annexed Crimea?surrey_commuter said:
a month ago it was widely assumed that the Russian army would roll over Ukraine in days and would be on the border of moldova and Poland. All of the other countries bordering Russia would be in more peril.
Now it turns out that the US have been arming and training Ukraine for the past 8 years. You think they did that for the love of Ukraine or doing what they think is right? or do you think they are sending a message to Russia and the rest of the world (ie China) not to do things that they don't like.
From a US point of view this will rank alongside Midway as one of their greatest ever strategic victories - I am of course exaggerating for effect1 -
Ukraine's military budget has risen from $2bn to about $5bn in the last 10 years. The US congress just approved $6.5bn in military assistance to Ukraine.
It only looks like a small number when looked at as a percentage of the USA defence budget.0 -
My point here is that discussions of proxy wars and what not make the real mistake of missunderstanding of what has driven the war to happen.kingstongraham said:Ukraine's military budget has risen from $2bn to about $5bn in the last 10 years. The US congress just approved $6.5bn in military assistance to Ukraine.
It only looks like a small number when looked at as a percentage of the USA defence budget.
It is not "great power play". It is something much more specific to the region and specific to Putin himself.
We live in an international world so everyone sticks their oar in to a greater or lesser extend but I think that thinking of it as a proxy war is to misunderstand the fundamentals of the issue.
It also gives more rationality and credence to Russia's behaviour, which I don't think it valid.
I am of the view that a lot of people in the west, reporters, leaders etc, are putting themselves closer to the cause then is actually is the case. It's a western centric perspective, which is fine, we are in the west after all, but it's just that.0 -
Seriously.imposter2.0 said:
Congrats on re-defining 'proxy war' to suit your own narrative. Imagine being daft enough to think that a proxy war needs actual proxies...surrey_commuter said:
in case you are being serious then Ukraine is a proxy for the West's willingness to oppose Russian expansionism.rick_chasey said:If it is a proxy war surely you need to define what each side is a proxy for?
You and the other chap are the only people in the world who think that a proxy war needs to be fought between two proxy's
Let. It. Go.
It doesn't matter what you call it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You never mentioned this before.imposter2.0 said:
What do you mean "now it turns out" - where have you been for the last 8 years since Russia annexed Crimea?surrey_commuter said:
a month ago it was widely assumed that the Russian army would roll over Ukraine in days and would be on the border of moldova and Poland. All of the other countries bordering Russia would be in more peril.
Now it turns out that the US have been arming and training Ukraine for the past 8 years. You think they did that for the love of Ukraine or doing what they think is right? or do you think they are sending a message to Russia and the rest of the world (ie China) not to do things that they don't like.
From a US point of view this will rank alongside Midway as one of their greatest ever strategic victories - I am of course exaggerating for effect
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I disagree. The war started because Putin invaded Ukraine because he wants to build a greater Russian empire.rick_chasey said:
My point here is that discussions of proxy wars and what not make the real mistake of missunderstanding of what has driven the war to happen.kingstongraham said:Ukraine's military budget has risen from $2bn to about $5bn in the last 10 years. The US congress just approved $6.5bn in military assistance to Ukraine.
It only looks like a small number when looked at as a percentage of the USA defence budget.
It is not "great power play". It is something much more specific to the region and specific to Putin himself.
We live in an international world so everyone sticks their oar in to a greater or lesser extend but I think that thinking of it as a proxy war is to misunderstand the fundamentals of the issue.
It also gives more rationality and credence to Russia's behaviour, which I don't think it valid.
The war continues because the west have armed and are arming Ukraine to enable them to fight back. This is happening partly because we want Ukraine to win for its own sake, but mainly we do not want Russia to win, because the empire building wouldn't have stopped within Ukraine's borders.
I don't think this gives Russia's behaviour any unwarranted rationality. If they had not invaded Ukraine, this would not be happening.0 -
Anyhoo, the Ukrainians ought to pay lip service to the Russians in the diplomatic talks, slowly drive them out and then join NATO.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
You are giving the West and the US too much agency, and you are not giving the specifics of Putin's thinking (and the political system that allows that to matter), the Ukrainain/Russian history and context enough primacy.
I would disagree on this in terms of the US, most of my academic background is in American history/cultural studies (which is not brag just to highlight I have a reasonable understanding). I would argue the US is still the world's only superpower, and for better or worse, once they decide to get involved in any conflict, their influence will be massive, either directly or indirectly.
I think there would be a recognition that for various reasons, they got a bit complacent when it came to Russia over the last two decades. Putin and many Russians, in spite of their economic and military size, still view themselves as a superpower. America is now putting them back in their box.
In addition, the only real threat to US dominance, China, is also brought into line as they won't want to be seen to back Russia as they don't want to get into a head to head with the US over this.
Just my proverbial 10 cents FWIW.0 -
No-one is fighting on behalf of anyone else.
Nations assist various different parties in war all the time. Stop putting the West at the heart of the issue. It's self centred and it misses the geopolitical context.0 -
Was reading the opposite analysis re China, yesterday. The Atlantic, I think.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:You are giving the West and the US too much agency, and you are not giving the specifics of Putin's thinking (and the political system that allows that to matter), the Ukrainain/Russian history and context enough primacy.
I would disagree on this in terms of the US, most of my academic background is in American history/cultural studies (which is not brag just to highlight I have a reasonable understanding). I would argue the US is still the world's only superpower, and for better or worse, once they decide to get involved in any conflict, their influence will be massive, either directly or indirectly.
I think there would be a recognition that for various reasons, they got a bit complacent when it came to Russia over the last two decades. Putin and many Russians, in spite of their economic and military size, still view themselves as a superpower. America is now putting them back in their box.
In addition, the only real threat to US dominance, China, is also brought into line as they won't want to be seen to back Russia as they don't want to get into a head to head with the US over this.
Just my proverbial 10 cents FWIW.
Essentially the thesis was that Xi can't domestically be seen to be bullied by the US, so Biden's gambit to pressure them publicly will have the opposite effect.0 -
So this is exactly the kind of analysis that I'm saying ignores the local context.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:You are giving the West and the US too much agency, and you are not giving the specifics of Putin's thinking (and the political system that allows that to matter), the Ukrainain/Russian history and context enough primacy.
I would disagree on this in terms of the US, most of my academic background is in American history/cultural studies (which is not brag just to highlight I have a reasonable understanding). I would argue the US is still the world's only superpower, and for better or worse, once they decide to get involved in any conflict, their influence will be massive, either directly or indirectly.
I think there would be a recognition that for various reasons, they got a bit complacent when it came to Russia over the last two decades. Putin and many Russians, in spite of their economic and military size, still view themselves as a superpower. America is now putting them back in their box.
In addition, the only real threat to US dominance, China, is also brought into line as they won't want to be seen to back Russia as they don't want to get into a head to head with the US over this.
Just my proverbial 10 cents FWIW.
It's not great power play. It's regional, and the world police have thrown some loose change. Just because they're a big power so chickenfeed for them has a big impact in regional wars does not a proxy war make.
Russia is not a global power and aside from their enormous nuclear arsenal (which again is a fairly specific issue in context) is not a material rival to any global player, and it certainly won't be once this is all over.0 -
Seems to be quite detailedrick_chasey said:
My point here is that discussions of proxy wars and what not make the real mistake of missunderstanding of what has driven the war to happen.kingstongraham said:Ukraine's military budget has risen from $2bn to about $5bn in the last 10 years. The US congress just approved $6.5bn in military assistance to Ukraine.
It only looks like a small number when looked at as a percentage of the USA defence budget.
It is not "great power play". It is something much more specific to the region and specific to Putin himself.
We live in an international world so everyone sticks their oar in to a greater or lesser extend but I think that thinking of it as a proxy war is to misunderstand the fundamentals of the issue.
If by that Rick means this isn't a Russian - American conflict being played out in Ukraine but rather a Russian - Ukrainian conflict in which the USA is providing assistance to one side because their interests coincide with Ukraine resisting annexation - then I agree.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
Amazing stuff to write that paragraph and also maintain that there is no broader context to this war.rick_chasey said:
Russia is not a global power and aside from their enormous nuclear arsenal (which again is a fairly specific issue in context) is not a material rival to any global player, and it certainly won't be once this is all over.0 -
Of course there is broader context, but you've got the priorities of them flipped.kingstongraham said:
Amazing stuff to write that paragraph and also maintain that there is no broader context to this war.rick_chasey said:
Russia is not a global power and aside from their enormous nuclear arsenal (which again is a fairly specific issue in context) is not a material rival to any global player, and it certainly won't be once this is all over.
0 -
No.surrey_commuter said:
In all honesty I think you are a bit of a nutter or have comprehension difficulties so will leave you to have your feuds with other peopleimposter2.0 said:
What do you mean "now it turns out" - where have you been for the last 8 years since Russia annexed Crimea?surrey_commuter said:
a month ago it was widely assumed that the Russian army would roll over Ukraine in days and would be on the border of moldova and Poland. All of the other countries bordering Russia would be in more peril.
Now it turns out that the US have been arming and training Ukraine for the past 8 years. You think they did that for the love of Ukraine or doing what they think is right? or do you think they are sending a message to Russia and the rest of the world (ie China) not to do things that they don't like.
From a US point of view this will rank alongside Midway as one of their greatest ever strategic victories - I am of course exaggerating for effect
Imposter is 100% correct.
what do you think Trump's first impeachmens all about?
Of course the Americans have been funding, training etc. We have as well. OP CABRIT isn't just pissingabout in Estonia. Spec Inf have been pissingabout there for years. SRR, Hereford, 6, its a big playground.
Why do you think we spent all those times pissingabout in the rest of Eastern Europe?
we weren't there for the bortsch and cheap beer.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
1 -
Not at all. You're only reading half of what is written and then getting annoyed by it.rick_chasey said:
Of course there is broader context, but you've got the priorities of them flipped.kingstongraham said:
Amazing stuff to write that paragraph and also maintain that there is no broader context to this war.rick_chasey said:
Russia is not a global power and aside from their enormous nuclear arsenal (which again is a fairly specific issue in context) is not a material rival to any global player, and it certainly won't be once this is all over.
If you agree with "this isn't a Russian - American conflict being played out in Ukraine but rather a Russian - Ukrainian conflict in which the USA is providing assistance to one side because their interests coincide with Ukraine resisting annexation" then we're all on the same page.0 -
*assistance is not fighting a proxy war*kingstongraham said:
Not at all. You're only reading half of what is written and then getting annoyed by it.rick_chasey said:
Of course there is broader context, but you've got the priorities of them flipped.kingstongraham said:
Amazing stuff to write that paragraph and also maintain that there is no broader context to this war.rick_chasey said:
Russia is not a global power and aside from their enormous nuclear arsenal (which again is a fairly specific issue in context) is not a material rival to any global player, and it certainly won't be once this is all over.
If you agree with "this isn't a Russian - American conflict being played out in Ukraine but rather a Russian - Ukrainian conflict in which the USA is providing assistance to one side because their interests coincide with Ukraine resisting annexation" then we're all on the same page.
If you think we're on the same page then it's *not a proxy war*.0 -
You are disagreeing with me whilst reiterating my pointMattFalle said:
No.surrey_commuter said:
In all honesty I think you are a bit of a nutter or have comprehension difficulties so will leave you to have your feuds with other peopleimposter2.0 said:
What do you mean "now it turns out" - where have you been for the last 8 years since Russia annexed Crimea?surrey_commuter said:
a month ago it was widely assumed that the Russian army would roll over Ukraine in days and would be on the border of moldova and Poland. All of the other countries bordering Russia would be in more peril.
Now it turns out that the US have been arming and training Ukraine for the past 8 years. You think they did that for the love of Ukraine or doing what they think is right? or do you think they are sending a message to Russia and the rest of the world (ie China) not to do things that they don't like.
From a US point of view this will rank alongside Midway as one of their greatest ever strategic victories - I am of course exaggerating for effect
Imposter is 100% correct.
what do you think Trump's first impeachmens all about?
Of course the Americans have been funding, training etc. We have as well. OP CABRIT isn't just pissingabout in Estonia. Spec Inf have been pissingabout there for years. SRR, Hereford, 6, its a big playground.
Why do you think we spent all those times pissingabout in the rest of Eastern Europe?
we weren't there for the bortsch and cheap beer.0
