JD Vance's version of a Ukraine / Russia Peace Deal: Surrender Ukrainian Territory

[7thKeeper]

What's there to elaborate on? NATO's been eating up Europe for decades, inching closer to its imperialistic designs of eating Russia.

Aaah, utter bollox then, thanks for elaborating what you actually meant. Eating up Europe... LOL. Sure, if by "eating up" you mean "sovereign countries deciding they wish to join". Aah... That was a funny.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I asked how many countries has Iran invaded.

Yes, that was the answer to that question...3

They ignored a UN Security council resolution and invaded Iraq

They launched an offensive in Syria with the Iranian Revolutionary guard (led by Soleimani... I'm sure that name rings a bell)

Seizure of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(this one bears a closer resemblance to the kind of stuff Russia does, where they claim some sort of heritage-based "traditional/cultural" claim to the area)


Plus, the activities (which wouldn't be direct invasions per say) like those that occurred with The Houthi Insurgency in Yemen

 

[Chesterton]

Aaah, utter bollox then, thanks for elaborating what you actually meant. Eating up Europe... LOL. Sure, if by "eating up" you mean "sovereign countries deciding they wish to join". Aah... That was a funny.

It doesn't matter how it was done, whether by brute force or bribery. A greedy used car salesman is not going to succeed if he tries to use violence to sell cars. I can't completely blame the sovereign countries who gave up some sovereignty, though. If someone came to me and said "I'll be your personal bodyguard against an enemy which doesn't exist, and I'll pick up 90% of your expenses", I might take that deal too.

 

[7thKeeper]

It doesn't matter how it was done, whether by brute force or bribery.

Neither.

 

[Whyayeman]

What's there to elaborate on? NATO's been eating up Europe for decades, inching closer to its imperialistic designs of eating Russia.

NATO is an alliance which came out of WW2 to face the Soviet Union's expansionism.

If there has been any 'eating up Europe' since 1945 it has been USSR. Soviet tanks on the streets of Budapest and Prague are the proof. If there have been imperialist ambitions on display in Europe since 1945 it has been modern Russia under Putin, who often lauds the old Russian Empire.

I don't know what Vance thinks about these issues, if anything.

 

[Whyayeman]

So keep fighting a war they cannot win and keep having people die for the cause.

Yes.

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. Winston Churchill​

I think this is a hard truth, and reason why I am not a pacifist.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes.

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. Winston Churchill​

I think this is a hard truth, and reason why I am not a pacifist.

I am a realist.

 

[Chesterton]

NATO is an alliance which came out of WW2 to face the Soviet Union's expansionism.

If there has been any 'eating up Europe' since 1945 it has been USSR. Soviet tanks on the streets of Budapest and Prague are the proof. If there have been imperialist ambitions on display in Europe since 1945 it has been modern Russia under Putin, who often lauds the old Russian Empire.

I don't know what Vance thinks about these issues, if anything.

The U.S.S.R. hasn't existed since 1990. NATO has no reason to exist other than to bully and provoke Russia.

 

[7thKeeper]

The U.S.S.R. hasn't existed since 1990. NATO has no reason to exist other than to bully and provoke Russia.

Oh please with the Russian talking points. The official government fell, but the people remained. And Russia has proven the need for NATO quite well.

 

[Larniavc]

They ignored a UN Security council resolution and invaded Iraq

Iraq invaded Iran in that conflict. True the invasion had been repelled but the action to continue into Iraq is the same as Ukraine today.

 

[Larniavc]

They launched an offensive in Syria with the Iranian Revolutionary guard (led by Soleimani... I'm sure that name rings a bell)

They’re been allies with Syria since forever?

 

[Larniavc]

(this one bears a closer resemblance to the kind of stuff Russia does, where they claim some sort of heritage-based "traditional/cultural" claim to the area)

Seems odd to call reclaiming land previously occupied by the UK an invasion.

 

[rjs330]

If there are territorial concessions e.g. of the Crimea and the Donbas then they need to be linked to NATO membership. Otherwise, Russia will simply do this all again in a few years. With settled borders, Ukraine can get back to functioning as a country. The Vance solution is simply to let Russia win.

Is it though? Doesn't Russia want more? If Russia has to settle for a certain amount that's not necessarily a win. Irs a gain for sure, but it prevents them from taking more. Which we can't stop them from doing.

I certainly understand the idea of kicking them out completely, but no one is committed to doing that but the Ukrainians. And most don't believe they are capable of doing that.

 

[7thKeeper]

Is it though?

I would say that #2 and #3 conditions would make that a yes, especially #3.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Iraq invaded Iran in that conflict. True the invasion had been repelled but the action to continue into Iraq is the same as Ukraine today.

• In July 1982, Iran invaded Iraq and conducted countless offensives in a bid to conquer territory and capture cities, such as Basra.
• The war continued until 1988 when the Iraqi army defeated the Iranian forces inside Iraq and pushed the remaining Iranian troops back across the border.

They’re been allies with Syria since forever?

2015 Southern Syria offensive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They sent their troops into Syria did they not? It may have been in an attempt to prop of up the Assad regime against rebels, but it still shows them using military force to meddle in other countries, does it not?

Seems odd to call reclaiming land previously occupied by the UK an invasion.

Russia is trying to "reclaim" land that once belonged to them as well, so what's the difference?


Either current boundary lines are respected or they're not.

Back to my original point, capitulating and making concessions to Iran (a country that has involved itself in other countries in the region, either by direct military force, or by funneling weapons and money to militia groups that are loyal to them, who then turn around and attack our allies and create havoc in the region) isn't any better or worse than making concessions to Russia.


So why does the "Iran nuclear deal" get praise, and the idea of making certain concessions to Russia get scorn? (and vice versa)

I suspect that the rationales people have for justifying one and bristling at the other have less to do with consistent philosophical positions about interventionism, and have more do to with "Obama-centric" and/or "Trump-centric" reasons.


If you think about, the very fact that people felt that "we have to make concessions to Iran so they don't blow up the world" is an acknowledgement of the danger they present, correct? The UK has nukes, we don't have to engage in "hostage negotiation"-style concessions to them in order to protect their neighboring countries from them.

 

[Larniavc]

Russia is trying to "reclaim" land that once belonged to them as well, so what's the difference?

Who are Russia reclaiming it from?

Are you really suggesting Iran supporting the government of Syria is an 'invasion'? You are either unaware of the meaning of 'invasion' or you did not read your own source. Care to re-evaluate your bold claim about Iranian 'invasions'?

 

[Larniavc]

Russia is trying to "reclaim" land that once belonged to them as well, so what's the difference?

Russia (and funnily enough America) has a proud and noble history of breaking treaties when it suits them. Iran does not seem to.

I abhor Iran as an excellent example of what happens to a country when religious people are in charge (put there by America if memory serves) but in terms of not invading other sovereign nations they are a poor country to compare to the Russian 'it's just a training exercise' Federation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Who are Russia reclaiming it from?

Are you really suggesting Iran supporting the government of Syria is an 'invasion'? You are either unaware of the meaning of 'invasion' or you did not read your own source. Care to re-evaluate your bold claim about Iranian 'invasions'?

I was referring to your comment about Iran reclaiming the emirates right after the Brits left.

Seizure of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iran is still occupying the territory to this day.

With regards to the term "invasion", deploying ones troops into another county with the purposes of influencing the outcome of their regional conflict still counts.

For instance, we say "The Allied Invasion of Normandy". We obviously weren't trying to take ownership of France or that region of France...We were allies with them, however, we put our troops there to help influence the outcome and help a particular side "win" in that theater of conflict. We still refer to it as an Invasion.

Much like Iran did in the instance we're talking about. They jumped in the fray because they wanted to influence the outcome of the conflict.


To your first question:
Crimea was actually part of Russia up until the mid-1950's. It was "Gifted" to Ukraine under the pretenses that they would remain a long term ally to Russia. Obviously that didn't end up happening with the somewhat-forced breakup of the Soviet Union.

This NPR article from 2014 delves into it:

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/02/27/283481587/crimea-a-gift-to-ukraine-becomes-a-political-flash-point

It'd be like if the US, as a showing of alliance and friendship, gave Florida to Mexico (and all the resources and valuable shipping ports that came with it) as a way to assist an ally. And then 35 years later, that gets forcible dissolved and Mexico decided to align themselves with our enemies. There'd be some people calling for getting that territory back.

 

[JSRG]

Russia (and funnily enough America) has a proud and noble history of breaking treaties when it suits them. Iran does not seem to.

I abhor Iran as an excellent example of what happens to a country when religious people are in charge (put there by America if memory serves) but in terms of not invading other sovereign nations they are a poor country to compare to the Russian 'it's just a training exercise' Federation.

"When religious people are in charge" is an odd phrase, considering that "religious people are in charge" of plenty of countries I'd assume you'd have little problem with--perhaps you mean extremely religious people (Iran is after all explicitly an Islamic Republic, it's in the name "Islamic Republic of Iran"), or at least ones that are trying to strongly implement their religious beliefs into .

But assuming you mean "religious people" in that sense (e.g. the Islamic Republic of Iran), the US didn't put them in charge. The US actually did the opposite; they were backers of the guy who was in charge before, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, also known as "the Shah". Pahlavi was pretty friendly to US interests, so the US supported him. However, in 1979 he got overthrown in the Iranian Revolution, which then put the "religious people" in charge and created the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I suppose someone could argue that the US may have indirectly put the "religious people" in charge, as their actions in supporting Pehlavi (who was a dictator) could have turned aided in the revolution and maybe Iran wouldn't have gone as full-on fundamentalist after the revolution... but that's a much more complicated topic and I don't think that's what you were referring to.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"When religious people are in charge" is an odd phrase, considering that "religious people are in charge" of plenty of countries I'd assume you'd have little problem with--perhaps you mean extremely religious people (Iran is after all explicitly an Islamic Republic, it's in the name "Islamic Republic of Iran"), or at least ones that are trying to strongly implement their religious beliefs into .

I don't know that it's even a matter of just "extremely religious"...it's specific religions/religious values that tend to create the problems.

For instance, the Amish are what I'd call extremely religious. If the Amish had their own country, it'd be highly unlikely that anyone would be losing sleep laying awake at night worrying about the Amish..

Certain specific religions have certain teachings and proclivities that necessitate additional secular checks on religious authority to prevent bad things from happening.


...and on the flip side, there are some systems of governance that have atheism and the rejection of religion baked in that aren't places where people would want to live either. For instance, a lot of the former Eastern Bloc countries (that were implementing anti-religion policies of Leninism)...I doubt anyone was thinking "Yeah, this getting locked up for dissent and being spied on by the Stasi is pretty bad, but at least the Lutherans aren't running things".