1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SOC.CULTURE.CHINA

  • Is the 2022 Russo-Ukraine war a preventive war?

    From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 12 03:38:31 2022
    "Preventive war occurs when a state launches a military conflict to prevent another state or other international actor from becoming a threat. This type of war differs from the more typical situation in which states go to war after a period of crisis or
    as a reaction to a particular event. Preventive wars are not in response to a specific crisis or direct threat to security, but rather to a perception of a potential change in the future balance of power between a state and its likely adversaries.
    Preventive war differs as well from preemptive war, in which a state attacks in order to disrupt an enemy about to attack first. The difference between prevention and preemption is often a blurred one, but preemption always occurs just before the
    outbreak of hostilities and is directed against an enemy clearly in the process of preparing an attack, whereas prevention can occur during times of relative peace.

    Although preventive war is a fairly rare path to war, there are nonetheless many examples of it throughout history.
    ...
    One of the most controversial examples of preventive war took place in 2003, when the United States led a coalition to war against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
    including nuclear weapons. This decision to go to war was in keeping with what some observers believe is a new American doctrine of preventive war (sometimes referred to as the "Bush Doctrine.")"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 14 05:35:14 2022
    On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 11:38:33 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    "Preventive war occurs when a state launches a military conflict to prevent another state or other international actor from becoming a threat. This type of war differs from the more typical situation in which states go to war after a period of crisis
    or as a reaction to a particular event. Preventive wars are not in response to a specific crisis or direct threat to security, but rather to a perception of a potential change in the future balance of power between a state and its likely adversaries.
    Preventive war differs as well from preemptive war, in which a state attacks in order to disrupt an enemy about to attack first. The difference between prevention and preemption is often a blurred one, but preemption always occurs just before the
    outbreak of hostilities and is directed against an enemy clearly in the process of preparing an attack, whereas prevention can occur during times of relative peace.

    Although preventive war is a fairly rare path to war, there are nonetheless many examples of it throughout history.
    ...
    One of the most controversial examples of preventive war took place in 2003, when the United States led a coalition to war against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
    including nuclear weapons. This decision to go to war was in keeping with what some observers believe is a new American doctrine of preventive war (sometimes referred to as the "Bush Doctrine.")"

    "Preventive war" has not been mentioned in describing Russian aggression against Ukraine in Western media. Nevertheless, the current Russo-Ukraine conflict is still a preventive war no different from US aggression in Iraq as well as Afghanistan per
    Western current norm and standard.

    Iraq was invaded on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan was invaded, not because Afghanistan as a nation or the ruling party had done anything to harm the US, but because it
    might allow Al-Qaeda to use the country to launch further attacks on the US.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bmoore@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 14 11:39:02 2022
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:35:16 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 11:38:33 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    "Preventive war occurs when a state launches a military conflict to prevent another state or other international actor from becoming a threat. This type of war differs from the more typical situation in which states go to war after a period of crisis
    or as a reaction to a particular event. Preventive wars are not in response to a specific crisis or direct threat to security, but rather to a perception of a potential change in the future balance of power between a state and its likely adversaries.
    Preventive war differs as well from preemptive war, in which a state attacks in order to disrupt an enemy about to attack first. The difference between prevention and preemption is often a blurred one, but preemption always occurs just before the
    outbreak of hostilities and is directed against an enemy clearly in the process of preparing an attack, whereas prevention can occur during times of relative peace.

    Although preventive war is a fairly rare path to war, there are nonetheless many examples of it throughout history.
    ...
    One of the most controversial examples of preventive war took place in 2003, when the United States led a coalition to war against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
    including nuclear weapons. This decision to go to war was in keeping with what some observers believe is a new American doctrine of preventive war (sometimes referred to as the "Bush Doctrine.")"
    "Preventive war" has not been mentioned in describing Russian aggression against Ukraine in Western media. Nevertheless, the current Russo-Ukraine conflict is still a preventive war no different from US aggression in Iraq as well as Afghanistan per
    Western current norm and standard.

    Iraq was invaded on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan was invaded, not because Afghanistan as a nation or the ruling party had done anything to harm the US, but because it
    might allow Al-Qaeda to use the country to launch further attacks on the US.

    What is your point?

    Do you support Russia in the war in Ukraine? Did you support the US in the war in Iraq in 2003? To be consistent with your logic your answer must be yes-yes or no-no. Otherwise you are inconsistent. Agreed?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to bmoore on Mon Mar 14 12:54:02 2022
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 6:39:04 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:35:16 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 11:38:33 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    "Preventive war occurs when a state launches a military conflict to prevent another state or other international actor from becoming a threat. This type of war differs from the more typical situation in which states go to war after a period of
    crisis or as a reaction to a particular event. Preventive wars are not in response to a specific crisis or direct threat to security, but rather to a perception of a potential change in the future balance of power between a state and its likely
    adversaries. Preventive war differs as well from preemptive war, in which a state attacks in order to disrupt an enemy about to attack first. The difference between prevention and preemption is often a blurred one, but preemption always occurs just
    before the outbreak of hostilities and is directed against an enemy clearly in the process of preparing an attack, whereas prevention can occur during times of relative peace.

    Although preventive war is a fairly rare path to war, there are nonetheless many examples of it throughout history.
    ...
    One of the most controversial examples of preventive war took place in 2003, when the United States led a coalition to war against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
    including nuclear weapons. This decision to go to war was in keeping with what some observers believe is a new American doctrine of preventive war (sometimes referred to as the "Bush Doctrine.")"
    "Preventive war" has not been mentioned in describing Russian aggression against Ukraine in Western media. Nevertheless, the current Russo-Ukraine conflict is still a preventive war no different from US aggression in Iraq as well as Afghanistan per
    Western current norm and standard.

    Iraq was invaded on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan was invaded, not because Afghanistan as a nation or the ruling party had done anything to harm the US, but because
    it might allow Al-Qaeda to use the country to launch further attacks on the US.
    What is your point?

    Do you support Russia in the war in Ukraine? Did you support the US in the war in Iraq in 2003? To be consistent with your logic your answer must be yes-yes or no-no. Otherwise you are inconsistent. Agreed?

    Actually, the two cases are not totally the same.
    Ukraine is just next to Russia. Iraq and Afghanistan thousands of miles away. To be sure, Al Qaeda had used Afghanistan as the base to launch the 9/11 bombings. But its success should be of the low probability kind.
    Ukraine is geographically the gateway to invade Russia. Russian enemies had been attacked via by both Sweden and the German.

    In addition, Russia and Ukraine has a serious border problem. When the USSR imploded, internal border suddenly became international border.
    This is why Ukraine has a large population of ethnic Russians insides its border.

    My answer to your question is neither yes-yes or no-no but 30% and 70%.
    I would have a 70% of ordering the attack if I were Putin and 30% ordering the attack on Afghanistan if I were Bush.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bmoore@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 14 13:50:59 2022
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 6:39:04 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:35:16 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 11:38:33 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    "Preventive war occurs when a state launches a military conflict to prevent another state or other international actor from becoming a threat. This type of war differs from the more typical situation in which states go to war after a period of
    crisis or as a reaction to a particular event. Preventive wars are not in response to a specific crisis or direct threat to security, but rather to a perception of a potential change in the future balance of power between a state and its likely
    adversaries. Preventive war differs as well from preemptive war, in which a state attacks in order to disrupt an enemy about to attack first. The difference between prevention and preemption is often a blurred one, but preemption always occurs just
    before the outbreak of hostilities and is directed against an enemy clearly in the process of preparing an attack, whereas prevention can occur during times of relative peace.

    Although preventive war is a fairly rare path to war, there are nonetheless many examples of it throughout history.
    ...
    One of the most controversial examples of preventive war took place in 2003, when the United States led a coalition to war against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
    including nuclear weapons. This decision to go to war was in keeping with what some observers believe is a new American doctrine of preventive war (sometimes referred to as the "Bush Doctrine.")"
    "Preventive war" has not been mentioned in describing Russian aggression against Ukraine in Western media. Nevertheless, the current Russo-Ukraine conflict is still a preventive war no different from US aggression in Iraq as well as Afghanistan per
    Western current norm and standard.

    Iraq was invaded on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan was invaded, not because Afghanistan as a nation or the ruling party had done anything to harm the US, but because
    it might allow Al-Qaeda to use the country to launch further attacks on the US.
    What is your point?

    Do you support Russia in the war in Ukraine? Did you support the US in the war in Iraq in 2003? To be consistent with your logic your answer must be yes-yes or no-no. Otherwise you are inconsistent. Agreed?
    Actually, the two cases are not totally the same.
    Ukraine is just next to Russia. Iraq and Afghanistan thousands of miles away.
    To be sure, Al Qaeda had used Afghanistan as the base to launch the 9/11 bombings. But its success should be of the low probability kind.
    Ukraine is geographically the gateway to invade Russia. Russian enemies had been attacked via by both Sweden and the German.

    In addition, Russia and Ukraine has a serious border problem. When the USSR imploded, internal border suddenly became international border.
    This is why Ukraine has a large population of ethnic Russians insides its border.

    My answer to your question is neither yes-yes or no-no but 30% and 70%.
    I would have a 70% of ordering the attack if I were Putin and 30% ordering the attack on Afghanistan if I were Bush.

    Hmm. So Afghanistan was harboring the international criminal behind the World Trade Center destruction and Ukraine is angering Putin but no one in Russia has been attacked. Such sound logic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Oleg Smirnov@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 14 23:54:03 2022
    bmoore, <news:23a47e2d-f919-4609-a625-20bc43826d68n@googlegroups.com>
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:

    the attack on Afghanistan if I were Bush.

    Hmm. So Afghanistan was harboring the international criminal behind the
    World Trade Center destruction and Ukraine is angering Putin but no one in Russia has been attacked. Such sound logic.

    Donbas was attacked for about 8 years with thousands of casualties.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bmoore@21:1/5 to Oleg Smirnov on Mon Mar 14 14:54:57 2022
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 1:56:36 PM UTC-7, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
    bmoore, <news:23a47e2d-f919-4609...@googlegroups.com>
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:

    the attack on Afghanistan if I were Bush.

    Hmm. So Afghanistan was harboring the international criminal behind the World Trade Center destruction and Ukraine is angering Putin but no one in Russia has been attacked. Such sound logic.
    Donbas was attacked for about 8 years with thousands of casualties.

    Pfft.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to Oleg Smirnov on Mon Mar 14 16:21:56 2022
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 8:56:36 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
    bmoore, <news:23a47e2d-f919-4609...@googlegroups.com>
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:

    the attack on Afghanistan if I were Bush.

    Hmm. So Afghanistan was harboring the international criminal behind the World Trade Center destruction and Ukraine is angering Putin but no one in Russia has been attacked. Such sound logic.
    Donbas was attacked for about 8 years with thousands of casualties.

    Have yet to read those reports on English media.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to bmoore on Mon Mar 14 16:19:54 2022
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 8:51:01 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:54:04 PM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 6:39:04 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:35:16 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 11:38:33 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    "Preventive war occurs when a state launches a military conflict to prevent another state or other international actor from becoming a threat. This type of war differs from the more typical situation in which states go to war after a period of
    crisis or as a reaction to a particular event. Preventive wars are not in response to a specific crisis or direct threat to security, but rather to a perception of a potential change in the future balance of power between a state and its likely
    adversaries. Preventive war differs as well from preemptive war, in which a state attacks in order to disrupt an enemy about to attack first. The difference between prevention and preemption is often a blurred one, but preemption always occurs just
    before the outbreak of hostilities and is directed against an enemy clearly in the process of preparing an attack, whereas prevention can occur during times of relative peace.

    Although preventive war is a fairly rare path to war, there are nonetheless many examples of it throughout history.
    ...
    One of the most controversial examples of preventive war took place in 2003, when the United States led a coalition to war against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
    , including nuclear weapons. This decision to go to war was in keeping with what some observers believe is a new American doctrine of preventive war (sometimes referred to as the "Bush Doctrine.")"
    "Preventive war" has not been mentioned in describing Russian aggression against Ukraine in Western media. Nevertheless, the current Russo-Ukraine conflict is still a preventive war no different from US aggression in Iraq as well as Afghanistan
    per Western current norm and standard.

    Iraq was invaded on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan was invaded, not because Afghanistan as a nation or the ruling party had done anything to harm the US, but
    because it might allow Al-Qaeda to use the country to launch further attacks on the US.
    What is your point?

    Do you support Russia in the war in Ukraine? Did you support the US in the war in Iraq in 2003? To be consistent with your logic your answer must be yes-yes or no-no. Otherwise you are inconsistent. Agreed?
    Actually, the two cases are not totally the same.
    Ukraine is just next to Russia. Iraq and Afghanistan thousands of miles away.
    To be sure, Al Qaeda had used Afghanistan as the base to launch the 9/11 bombings. But its success should be of the low probability kind.
    Ukraine is geographically the gateway to invade Russia. Russian enemies had been attacked via by both Sweden and the German.

    In addition, Russia and Ukraine has a serious border problem. When the USSR imploded, internal border suddenly became international border.
    This is why Ukraine has a large population of ethnic Russians insides its border.

    My answer to your question is neither yes-yes or no-no but 30% and 70%.
    I would have a 70% of ordering the attack if I were Putin and 30% ordering the attack on Afghanistan if I were Bush.
    Hmm. So Afghanistan was harboring the international criminal behind the World Trade Center destruction and Ukraine is angering Putin but no one in Russia has been attacked. Such sound logic.

    The Battle of Stalingrad was the deadliest battle during the WWII. How did the German get to attack Stalingrad? How else but passed through Ukraine?
    President Bush's famous words were "Either You're With Me or You're Against Me. " From Russia's historical point of view, the same applies to modern day Ukraine, fair or unfair.
    If you still don't understand, please read "John Mearsheimer on why the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to Byker on Tue Mar 15 04:22:08 2022
    On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 12:07:32 AM UTC, Byker wrote:
    "Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message news:t0oa62$8ql$1...@os.motzarella.org...

    Donbas was attacked for about 8 years with thousands of casualties.
    On whose side?

    And of course, the age old question.
    If a tree falls in a forest, and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

    And people are always more sensitive to the suffering of their own.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ltlee1@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 28 11:30:52 2022
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 3:54:04 PM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 6:39:04 PM UTC, bmoore wrote:
    On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 5:35:16 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
    On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 11:38:33 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
    "Preventive war occurs when a state launches a military conflict to prevent another state or other international actor from becoming a threat. This type of war differs from the more typical situation in which states go to war after a period of
    crisis or as a reaction to a particular event. Preventive wars are not in response to a specific crisis or direct threat to security, but rather to a perception of a potential change in the future balance of power between a state and its likely
    adversaries. Preventive war differs as well from preemptive war, in which a state attacks in order to disrupt an enemy about to attack first. The difference between prevention and preemption is often a blurred one, but preemption always occurs just
    before the outbreak of hostilities and is directed against an enemy clearly in the process of preparing an attack, whereas prevention can occur during times of relative peace.

    Although preventive war is a fairly rare path to war, there are nonetheless many examples of it throughout history.
    ...
    One of the most controversial examples of preventive war took place in 2003, when the United States led a coalition to war against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
    including nuclear weapons. This decision to go to war was in keeping with what some observers believe is a new American doctrine of preventive war (sometimes referred to as the "Bush Doctrine.")"
    "Preventive war" has not been mentioned in describing Russian aggression against Ukraine in Western media. Nevertheless, the current Russo-Ukraine conflict is still a preventive war no different from US aggression in Iraq as well as Afghanistan per
    Western current norm and standard.

    Iraq was invaded on the grounds that Saddam Hussein's regime continued to work on developing weapons of mass destruction. Afghanistan was invaded, not because Afghanistan as a nation or the ruling party had done anything to harm the US, but because
    it might allow Al-Qaeda to use the country to launch further attacks on the US.
    What is your point?

    Do you support Russia in the war in Ukraine? Did you support the US in the war in Iraq in 2003? To be consistent with your logic your answer must be yes-yes or no-no. Otherwise you are inconsistent. Agreed?
    Actually, the two cases are not totally the same.
    Ukraine is just next to Russia. Iraq and Afghanistan thousands of miles away.
    To be sure, Al Qaeda had used Afghanistan as the base to launch the 9/11 bombings. But its success should be of the low probability kind.
    Ukraine is geographically the gateway to invade Russia. Russian enemies had been attacked via by both Sweden and the German.

    In addition, Russia and Ukraine has a serious border problem. When the USSR imploded, internal border suddenly became international border.
    This is why Ukraine has a large population of ethnic Russians insides its border.

    My answer to your question is neither yes-yes or no-no but 30% and 70%.
    I would have a 70% of ordering the attack if I were Putin and 30% ordering the attack on Afghanistan if I were Bush.


    “It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire [95].” ― Zbigniew Brzeziński, Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of
    Global Power

    From Russia's point of view, Ukraine joining NATO is like USSR placing nuclear weapon in Cuban.
    Cuban missiles constituted an existential threat the US. Ukraine as part of NATO would also be an
    existential threat to Russia. Similarly, Russia would confront the US just like the US had confronted
    Russia.

    Putin's choice was confronting US which dominated NATO BEFORE or AFTER Ukraine has joined
    NATO. Putin chose Before. The advantage is that Russia get to take the Donbas region. And its
    strong show of military determination could preclude EU nations from accepting Ukraine into NATO.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)