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

[JSRG]

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".

Regardless, the main point I was making was that it was claimed that in regards to Iran's religious regime, it was said it was "put there by America if memory serves" when such is not the case; Iran's religious regime came about because Iranians revolted against the guy the US was backing.

 

[Whyayeman]

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

I might have agreed with you in 1990.

However, since Putin's grasping of totalitarian powers Russian agents have committed atrocities in Europe. The Russian stance has become much more aggressive against its neighbours, to the degree that Finland, Latvia and Sweden have joined NATO. I would not describe these counries - neutral until recently - as bullies.

 

[Chesterton]

I might have agreed with you in 1990.

However, since Putin's grasping of totalitarian powers Russian agents have committed atrocities in Europe. The Russian stance has become much more aggressive against its neighbours, to the degree that Finland, Latvia and Sweden have joined NATO. I would not describe these counries - neutral until recently - as bullies.

Russia's stance was never aggressive until it's neighbors increasingly sided with it's former enemy, America, which after 1990 had no reason to continue to be an enemy, but continues to act like one. The atrocity of the Ukraine war is 100% the fault of NATO.

 

[7thKeeper]

Russia's stance was never aggressive until it's neighbors increasingly sided with it's former enemy, America, which after 1990 had no reason to continue to be an enemy, but continues to act like one. The atrocity of the Ukraine war is 100% the fault of NATO.

Oh? Care to point out how they've continued to be or act like an enemy towards Russia? By letting nations who wish to join NATO join? There's a reason why the Baltics were eager to join after the collapse of the USSR.
The atrocities in Ukraine are 100% Putins fault, no one elses.

 

[Larniavc]

The atrocity of the Ukraine war is 100% the fault of NATO.

That’s like blaming the abused wife for inciting the abuse but not doing what the abuser wanted.

Pure victim blaming. At no point since the 90s has Russia been in danger of being invaded.

Just when in those last 40 years has there been a hint that NATO would invade Russia?

Saying “Russia feels threatened” is a non sequitur. Just exactly what eventuality did Russia feel threatened about? Be specific.

 

[Larniavc]

There's a reason why the Baltics were eager to join after the collapse of the USSR.

Russia is a rogue nation that simply cannot be trusted. Bleeding heart liberal that I am I have to conclude that Russia only understands force.

 

[7thKeeper]

That’s like blaming the abused wife for inciting the abuse but not doing what the abuser wanted.

Pure victim blaming. At no point since the 90s has Russia been in danger of being invaded.

Not even that. It's more like the abuser blaming the neighbours for having to abuse his wife, because the neighbours had a watch program going on and the wife was thinking about joining it.

 

[JSRG]

Russia's stance was never aggressive until it's neighbors increasingly sided with it's former enemy, America, which after 1990 had no reason to continue to be an enemy, but continues to act like one. The atrocity of the Ukraine war is 100% the fault of NATO.

This is utter nonsense... such blatantly obvious utter nonsense that it's hard to believe someone could claim this unless they were a Russian propagandist. Even if NATO and America bear some role in provoking the Ukraine war, it is absurd to say that NATO bears 100% of the blame of the atrocity of the Ukraine war, because at least some of the blame has to go to the country that is actually performing the atrocity of the Ukraine war, namely Russia.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh? Care to point out how they've continued to be or act like an enemy towards Russia? By letting nations who wish to join NATO join?

Often times, countries want a "one nation buffer" between them an a "hostile entity"...regardless of who's the "good guy" or "bad guy" objectively.

For the same reason we'd want a buffer.

Remember the issues it created when Cuba sided with the soviets? We had understandable concerns about another nation (so close to our borders) who's taking orders orders from "the other side" that we'd rather keep at a good safe distance.

Ukraine joining NATO would obviously present the same set of concerns for Russia, it would be a country who, in all likelihood end up taking orders from the US and UK and letting us set up military bases there in exchange for aid.

Their "buffer zone" would go from 800 miles to zilch.


There's a reason why some of even the most pro-Ukraine voices from policy thinktanks have serious concerns about the prospect of the Ukraine joining NATO.

Why NATO Should Be Cautious About Admitting Ukraine

Members’ interests don’t outweigh the risks.

carnegieendowment.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

Often times, countries want a "one nation buffer" between them an a "hostile entity"...regardless of who's the "good guy" or "bad guy" objectively.

For the same reason we'd want a buffer.

Remember the issues it created when Cuba sided with the soviets? We had understandable concerns about another nation (so close to our borders) who's taking orders orders from "the other side" that we'd rather keep at a good safe distance.

Ukraine joining NATO would obviously present the same set of concerns for Russia, it would be a country who, in all likelihood end up taking orders from the US and UK and letting us set up military bases there in exchange for aid.

Their "buffer zone" would go from 800 miles to zilch.


There's a reason why some of even the most pro-Ukraine voices from policy thinktanks have serious concerns about the prospect of the Ukraine joining NATO.

Why NATO Should Be Cautious About Admitting Ukraine

Members’ interests don’t outweigh the risks.

carnegieendowment.org

I am surprised Rob that you are making the "border/buffer" argument (or rather giving it any credence. Prior to Russia's 2014 invasion, Russia already had direct borders with the NATO nations of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and Norway, not to mention the only passage out of the Black Sea is through NATO member Turkey. That border has expanded since 2022 to include Finland. The "direct border" or "vanishing buffer" zone argument is entirely hollow.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I am surprised Rob that you are making the "border/buffer" argument (or rather giving it any credence. Prior to Russia's 2014 invasion, Russia already had direct borders with the NATO nations of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and Norway, not to mention the only passage out of the Black Sea is through NATO member Turkey. That border has expanded since 2022 to include Finland. The "direct border" or "vanishing buffer" zone argument is entirely hollow.

To say all of the nations that you mention are direct border nations with Russia isn't entirely accurate.

Poland, for instance, borders the Russian Federation exclave "Kaliningrad Oblast", which is disconnected from mainland Russia.

In terms of significant borders that have somwhat close proximity Moscow and the more densely populated parts of Russia (as well as the most advantageous for land advances), the Ukraine and Belarus are the important ones.

Like the Carnegie endowment article mentions, there's a reason why Ukraine is different and NATO talks pertaining to those other countries didn't trigger this same kind of response. It's a border of strategic importance, as well as a "last straw" of sorts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

To say all of the nations that you mention are direct border nations with Russia isn't entirely accurate.

Sure it is. Those places do have land borders with Russia.

Poland, for instance, borders the Russian Federation exclave "Kaliningrad Oblast", which is disconnected from mainland Russia.

I don't think Russia regards Kaliningrad as insignificant. The international relations people think that if a war between Russia and NATO started, the land route between Belarus and Kaliningrad is the most likely trigger point.

In terms of significant borders that have somwhat close proximity Moscow and the more densely populated parts of Russia (as well as the most advantageous for land advances), the Ukraine and Belarus are the important ones.

Considering that Tallinn (Estonia) and Helsinki (Finland, new member) are about 300 km from St. Petersburg and the closest Ukrainian city to Moscow, Sumy is over 500 miles away that argument from the Russians falls empty. (To make it even more obvious, the border with Estonia and Finland is about halfway between St. P and their capitals, whereas Sumy is close to the Russian border.

Like the Carnegie endowment article mentions, there's a reason why Ukraine is different and NATO talks pertaining to those other countries didn't trigger this same kind of response. It's a border of strategic importance, as well as a "last straw" of sorts.

I haven't read it.

 

[7thKeeper]

To say all of the nations that you mention are direct border nations with Russia isn't entirely accurate.

Poland, for instance, borders the Russian Federation exclave "Kaliningrad Oblast", which is disconnected from mainland Russia.

In terms of significant borders that have somwhat close proximity Moscow and the more densely populated parts of Russia (as well as the most advantageous for land advances), the Ukraine and Belarus are the important ones.

Bold words, considering that St. Petersburg is within HIMARS range of Finland already.

 

[Chesterton]

This is utter nonsense... such blatantly obvious utter nonsense that it's hard to believe someone could claim this unless they were a Russian propagandist. Even if NATO and America bear some role in provoking the Ukraine war, it is absurd to say that NATO bears 100% of the blame of the atrocity of the Ukraine war, because at least some of the blame has to go to the country that is actually performing the atrocity of the Ukraine war, namely Russia.

You just have to have empathy, and have the ability to be intellectually and objectively honest enough to put yourself in the other guy's shoes, rather than just swallowing what CNN and SNL teach you.

 

[7thKeeper]

You just have to have empathy, and have the ability to be intellectually and objectively honest enough to put yourself in the other guy's shoes, rather than just swallowing what CNN and SNL teach you.

The guys shoes who is performing the atrocities talked about? Yeah...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Bold words, considering that St. Petersburg is within HIMARS range of Finland already.

Are you referring to the border that's densely populated forest? (and on the few roads they do have (Finland currently has the border closed), it'd be a near 13 hour drive over 900Km to a city of 5 million? The Topography and rough terrain up north already acts as a "quasi-deterrent" (The German's learned that lesson when trying to move to Leningrad (now St. Petersburg)

As opposed to the border of Ukraine which is only 470km from Moscow (a city of 13 million and their nation's capital?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you referring to the border that's densely populated forest? (and on the few roads they do have (Finland currently has the border closed), it'd be a near 13 hour drive over 900Km to a city of 5 million? The Topography and rough terrain up north already acts as a "quasi-deterrent" (The German's learned that lesson when trying to move to Leningrad (now St. Petersburg)

As opposed to the border of Ukraine which is only 470km from Moscow (a city of 13 million and their nation's capital?)

To parapharse Doc Brown: Where our missiles are going they don't need roads.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

To parapharse Doc Brown: Where our missiles are going they don't need roads.

NATO Should Not Accept Ukraine—for Ukraine’s Sake

The top five reasons that expanding the Western alliance would make Kyiv even worse off.

foreignpolicy.com

Why NATO Should Be Cautious About Admitting Ukraine

Members’ interests don’t outweigh the risks.

carnegieendowment.org

Why Are Analysts Still Debating Ukrainian Integration into NATO?

www.wilsoncenter.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/01/ukraine-join-nato-too-risky/

Letting Ukraine Join NATO Now Would Risk World War III

Those arguing for Ukraine’s instant admission to NATO are looking for easy, legalistic solutions to a hard political and military challenge.

slate.com

Ukraine Should Not Be in NATO

It's past time for NATO to close the proverbial open door, not keep it open in perpetuity.

www.newsweek.com

NATO’s Ukraine challenge | Brookings

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Brussels on June 4-5, where he met with the leadership of the European Union and NATO.

www.brookings.edu

https://www.cato.org/commentary/dont-let-ukraine-join-nato

I'm not the only one with the opinions I've expressed... policy analysts/thinktanks/journalists from left/center/right have all expressed similar concerns, and outlined the reasons why a Ukrainian membership in NATO "hits different" than that of countries like Lithuania and Finland.


There are a few parallels to the Israel situation as well. Other nations intervening in various ways and saying "no, this plot of land that all involved parties see as having significance belongs to them, we're taking their side" (right or wrong) does create backlash, and it's not the "interveners" who bear the brunt of said backlash.

 

[rjs330]

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

I don't know. This is an agreement right? If Russia renegs on it, the agreement is off and Ukraine can join NATO.

All the agreement would do.at this point is not put NATO on Russias doorstep.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know. This is an agreement right? If Russia renegs on it, the agreement is off and Ukraine can join NATO.

All the agreement would do.at this point is not put NATO on Russias doorstep.

NATO already is.