Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Everyone please amplify one's relaxed states and listen to the missile

[Telgin]

I'd recommend laying off the calls for violence too.  People have been banned for it before.

I'm not going to pretend to have the answers, but that's not it.

[Great Order]

Year, Ukrainian Ranger got banned for that.

[anewaname]

So, that 300 billion in frozen Russian assets... I figure that Trump lapdogs are working on freeing that up for Russia...

From this reuters article:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Kukies said the G7 could discuss longstanding proposals to use $300 billion of Russian sovereign assets frozen in Europe for the reconstruction of Ukraine, "but the discussions are just starting. It's probably a bit early to say."

Sources have told Reuters that Moscow could agree in a future peace deal to using the frozen assets for reconstruction provided that part of the money is spent in parts of Ukraine now controlled by Russian forces.

I took those two sentences to mean those supporting Russia and those supporting Ukraine are engaged in the "lift sanctions on Russia and release their funds" versus "maintain sanctions and take their funds" argument where they both have already declared their intent to veto the other, and there will be parties interested in delaying an end to that argument because they want Russia to have time to work on Kursk.

[Strongpoint]

Romania said "nope" to participation of a Russian asset in their elections. I cherish such rare good news nowadays. One less betrayal to worry about.

[lemon10]

Yeah, semantic issues.
To simplify I would say acting in your interests is doing what you think is smart (or will otherwise help your country).
Acting according to your values is doing what you think is right/ideologically correct ignoring if you think its a good idea for your country.

So invading a country because they are Muslims and you think it will help your relationship with the pope or because you think they are a future threat or because you want their land is acting according to your interests.
Invading a country because they are Muslims heretics is acting according to your values.

Deciding to kill all the birds because you think it will help improve farm output is (very idiotically trying to) act in your interests.
---
Deciding what the smartest/best thing to do isn't a values thing at all, and that's what countries usually do/try to do. All of your historical examples were countries weighing their interests to decide which was the smartest thing to do. Peace is important vs power is important are interest decisions (pacifists aside).

For a good alliance you want to share as many interests as possible, so ideally even a warmongering idiot with opposite values will go "Yeah, we probably should still team up with [ally] and not piss them off".
Since values often fluctuate wildly between administrations/leaders (especially given many don't actually care about their nominal values) basing an alliance on values is just a bad idea.

If you get someone that loves sucking off your primary enemy as your leader (cries in American)? Yeah, your screwed either way.

I feel like it's a moral get out of jail free card people only bring out when a country is doing something shitty. "That's just the way countries work." The geopolitical equivalent of "you can't choose your family." No one ever says "it's in our interests" when a country pays fair market price for some minerals.

I would in fact say yes, this is a very clear and obvious example of a country acting in their interests.

This whole current US gov is like the purest form of this cynicism. It is in America's interests to browbeat their allies, to force Ukraine into disadvantageous treaties, to give up free trade for protectionism and isolationism in lieue of multilateralism. But you could just as easily argue it's America's interests to empower their allies, support Ukraine at the negotiating table, support free trade and at the very least bilateral cooperation, if not multilateral.

Does Trump truly believe everything he's doing is in America's best interests? Dunno, maybe? Dude is senile and likely delusional, its entirely possible.
However by any half intelligent metric of "is what Trump doing internationally in America's best interests" the answer is a clear overwhelming no.
So no, "its in America's best interests" is not an excuse for anything that's happening unless your an idiot.

[Strongpoint]

Ukraine will not agree to a ceasefire on land, where Putin could restore manpower and resume fighting later, says Serhiy Leshchenko, advisor to the President’s Office.

A) Negotiations will be short
B) I am starting to suspect that we plan a big offensive



The frontline situation has been improving in the past weeks. Russian advance is way slower than it was and we are having more and more successful local counterattacks. One big exception is Kursk front that doesn't go well. Russians are throwing A LOT there with the clear goal to push Ukrainian troops from Russian territory for political goals

[wobbly]

Re: Interests vs values. I disagree that it's just semantics. It'd be more in Australia's interest to be allied with China right now. It's values, politics and history that are preventing that shift.

Edit: Also a lot of the arguments I'm seeing about interests ruling the day, seems like stuff that would look good on an academic thesis paper, but not necessarily line up with how the real world works.

Edit.2: It wasn't in the interest of USA to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan. It was merely in the interest of the politicians at the time to look like they were strong and doing something.

[anewaname]

...
Edit.2: It wasn't in the interest of USA to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan. It was merely in the interest of the politicians at the time to look like they were strong and doing something.

It wasn't even in the interest of most politicians at the time to go into Iraq. It was in the interest of the few who's business interests coincided with the foreign oilgarchs who didn't want Iraq to start dumping oil onto the market and drive down the prices towards the 1970's level. Oil prices had doubled between 1970 and 1990 and in 1990 Iraq found itself being blocked from from putting oil on the global market, which it needed to cover its war debt. The few US politicians with those foreign business interests, and their lobbyists and corporate donors,  built a coalition of US politicians to go to war with Iraq for "other" reasons.

[martinuzz]

I apologize for our stupid Dutch parliament that voted against European defense plans.
We don't expect this government or parliament to last much longer.


EDIT: some good news at least, after a meeting between diplomats of Ukraine and the US in Saudi Arabia, the US has promised to immediatly resume their military aid and intelligence sharing.

[Strongpoint]

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia, March 11 (Reuters) - Ukraine has agreed to accept a U.S. proposal for an immediate 30-day ceasefire and to take steps toward restoring a durable peace after Russia's invasion, according to a joint U.S.-Ukraine statement on Tuesday.


The only reason for Russia to agree - They think that the current situation on the frontline doesn't benefit them and they need a breather, a period without Ukrainian attacks

I don't think it is the case and Russia will likely say to fuck off but if they do agree we know why.

Edit: Russia may also agree on that temporary ceasefire in exchange for the permanent lifting of sanctions; after all, the US needs to replace Canadian Potash, Lumber and Aluminium

[martinuzz]

Ukrainian attack drones help Russians expose corruption. This building contractor thought he could get way with making houses near Moscow out of cardboard instead of stones.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Il Palazzo]

^ That's just insulation applied over concrete. What are you on about?

The only reason for Russia to agree - They think that the current situation on the frontline doesn't benefit them and they need a breather, a period without Ukrainian attacks

I don't think it is the case and Russia will likely say to fuck off but if they do agree we know why.

Some of our local talking heads had predicted, back when Trump first floated his 'peace in a day' idea, that he'll try to do it while dangling some meagre carrots, then realise neither side is willing to simply end the war as is, and both can just veto his peace plan. So he'll switch to a stick. He's already waved it at you guys with the cutting of the aid. The hope would be, he'll start waving it at the muscovites now.

But there's a presupposition running behind this thinking, that there's at least a hint of a calculating realpolitiker hiding under that orange muff, and not a bona fide russophile.

[Strongpoint]

Speaking realistically, expected positive outcome of the war was:

We resist Russia until they run out of offensive steam. Ceasefire. What they capture - they keep. We survive. Russia is weakened by the war and diplomatically isolated from "the West" as pariah making it less dangerous. Captured territories are of limited utility like DNR\LNR (and to some extent Crimea), because they are not recognized as Russia internationally. We survive and hope that Russia won't bother us again soon or, better, face problems that will allow us to return our territories.

Why is the mood grim, apart from being defeated and the lost hopes that we could liberate/keep more?

Because it is not what we are looking at. The US plans a diplomatic reset with Russia. Trump and co strongly hint that we also must accept some additional Russian demands. Russia will recover quickly and is almost guaranteed to try again

[martinuzz]

Polish prime minister Tusk has said that Poland will develop it's own nuclear weapons.
He also says he wants to train EVERY military aged man in Poland to combat readiness, and increase the size of it's standing army to over half a million troops.