- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is Henry Kissinger's reason for Russian invasion of Ukraine wrong?
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:24 pm to jp4lsu
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:24 pm to jp4lsu
quote:
I would think the US orchestrating a 2014 coup in Ukraine to remove the pro-Russian President and put in a pro-US/NATO president would come off as being aggressive.
Do you think that Russia has somehow not interfered directly with Ukrainian politics? Or that the Poroshenko was the first pro-NATO Ukrainian leader?
1
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:26 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Do you think that Russia has somehow not interfered directly with Ukrainian politics? Or that the Poroshenko was the first pro-NATO Ukrainian leader?
No no. You aren't understanding. Russia has justified unilateral authority to dictate what its neighbors do because it used to govern them and Russians live there.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:30 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Maybe the U.S. was a little too aggressive in their desire to expand NATO eastward into Ukraine, no?
I said this early on. We had as a country given our word and then decided to ignore it. Actions have consequences. The radical left should have found a different money laundering locale.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:31 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No no. You aren't understanding. Russia has justified unilateral authority to dictate what its neighbors do because it used to govern them and Russians live there.
Amazing how many can’t comprehend this.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:33 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Putin invading kind of validates Ukraine's concerns.
Wouldn't have happened if NATO wasn't trying to get Ukraine to join. Read Kissinger's statement before posting next time.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:35 pm to Indefatigable
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. They can join NATO if they want. NATO has been around a long time and is clearly not an aggressive alliance. Just as we individuals should be willing to fight for each other’s rights to say what we want, so should we nations fight for the right of each other’s rights. Russia had no right to Ukraine. Ukraine had the right to exist and join whatever alliance they wanted.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:37 pm to GumboPot
I’ve said this all along.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:37 pm to GumboPot
Kissinger is overthinking this question.
Putin took over Georgia and Crimea and it had nothing to do eith NATO so why is Ukraine any different?
Putin took over Georgia and Crimea and it had nothing to do eith NATO so why is Ukraine any different?
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:40 pm to Penrod
quote:
Ukraine is a sovereign nation. They can join NATO if they want.
And if there’s one thing that we know, the U.S. has always respected the sovereignty of other nations. Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:41 pm to Jack Carter
quote:
Wouldn't have happened if NATO wasn't trying to get Ukraine to join. Read Kissinger's statement before posting next time.
Kissinger's statement is nonsensical. How is Poland part of traditional Western history, but somehow Russian control of those areas since 1796 has to supersede how integrated those places were into the on-goings of Europe as a whole before 1796? If Turkey wanted the entire Balkans because they possessed them after 1796, and they were excessively belligerent about that, no one would accept that argument from the Turks. Why do we have to accept that argument for Russia? Or rather, why does Russian security concerns supersede self-determination of individual nations? It's an idiotic position to take. Why are we conceding this one thing to historical circumstance and not anything else? It's a very stupid view, but it fits in with Kissinger's plagued approach to foreign policy.
This post was edited on 9/28/22 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:42 pm to Penrod
Obviously, they can, but foreign policy doesn’t happen in a vacuum. There are countless examples from history of nations going to war because a neighboring country entered into a defensive pact with a different nation that warring nation didn’t like. Every action has a reaction. The Ukraine had every right to seek alliances as a sovereign nation. Russia, also as a sovereign nation, has shown a tendency to react to such alliances violently. The Ukraine and the U.S. should have known what they were getting themselves into by courting Ukrainian membership into NATO. That doesn’t make Russia the good guy, by any stretch, but from their perspective, it doesn’t take much squinting to see why Russia might view NATO as the aggressor in this conflict.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:42 pm to kingbob
quote:
A large scale invasion force from Finland could besiege St. Petersburg on the first day while simultaneously severing communications between the Russian government and their nuclear arsenal on the Cola Peninsula, essentially eliminating the option of mutually assured destruction.
Welcome to 1950. There are things called satellites now. There is no conceivable way that NATO is invading nuclear Russia.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:44 pm to kingbob
quote:
The Ukraine had every right to seek alliances as a sovereign nation. Russia, also as a sovereign nation, has shown a tendency to react to such alliances violently. The Ukraine and the U.S. should have known what they were getting themselves into by courting Ukrainian membership into NATO. That doesn’t make Russia the good guy, by any stretch, but from their perspective, it doesn’t take much squinting to see why Russia might view NATO as the aggressor in this conflict.
So many on this board paint this view as being a Putin apologist.
This conflict has made people crazy.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:44 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Putin wants to restore the Russian Empire
Yes, he does, but...
quote:
Putin invading kind of validates Ukraine's concerns.
The West's occupation and bolstering of Ukraine kind of validated Putin's concerns, and forced his hand.
I've said this from the beginning. Back in 2016 when I had friends in the NG being deployed to Ukraine, we could all see this coming from miles away.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:46 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Simplest explanation is Putin wants to restore the Russian Empire.
He has long been a critic of both Gorbachev / the glostnost policy and the passiveness of Russia when the Eastern Bloc fell.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:47 pm to kingbob
quote:
Obviously, they can, but foreign policy doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
It doesn't, but there is some straight revisionism about who was driving NATO expansion.
quote:
That doesn’t make Russia the good guy, by any stretch, but from their perspective, it doesn’t take much squinting to see why Russia might view NATO as the aggressor in this conflict.
Why did Warsaw Pact states approach NATO and the EU before the USSR was technically dissolved? The reality is that most nations who were behind the Iron Curtain did not want to be in Russia's sphere of influence again. That by itself drove integration into the EU and NATO.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:47 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
no one would accept that argument from the Turks.
Okay, let’s imagine, for a moment, that the Balkans nations didn’t all hate each other more than they hate any other nation. Turkey and Greece have been saber rattling for years over maritime borders and claims to Cyprus. Now, imagine if Greece started entering a mutual support agreement with all of the other Balkan nations against Turkey. The Turks might get a little nervous at the prospect of a coalition army massing 120 miles from Istanbul, but the Turkish mainland isn’t threatened. Now, imagine Georgia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Armenia join in. The Turks will react…violently. They will have to in order to survive.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:51 pm to Penrod
You’re assuming that the folks making decisions are up to date, logical, reasonable, and calm people. Most of the folks driving this conflict are old moron politicians with outdated understandings of the world, applying logic of the 1940’s to conflicts in the 2020’s. This would be akin to mimicking Pickett’s Charge at the Battle of the Bulge.
This post was edited on 9/28/22 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:52 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
So many on this board paint this view as being a Putin apologist
I don't think it is so much Putin apologia rather than it doesn't tell the whole story of NATO expansion. It's always the one view too, and never the Polish view, or the view from people of the Baltics on why they sought NATO membership. It doesn't even address the initial skepticism by the US or why the US eventually supported expansion, with support among both parties.
Posted on 9/28/22 at 12:58 pm to kingbob
quote:
That doesn’t make Russia the good guy, by any stretch, but from their perspective, it doesn’t take much squinting to see why Russia might view NATO as the aggressor in this conflict.
My thing is that I can’t understand why anyone actually believes that this is Russia’s true motivation. Of course it’s their public justification, that doesn’t mean it’s their actual motivation.
Hell, the fact that they have stated that its their motivation is the best possible evidence that it is not.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News