Europe War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here:

Europe - Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/war-in-ukraine-thread-4-thread-rules-updated.1376293/page-146

www.bigfooty.com

If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or starts to derail the thread, report the post to us and we'll move it over there.

Seeing as multiple people seem to have forgotten, abuse is against the rules of BF. Continuous, page long attacks directed at a single poster in this thread will result in threadbans for a week from this point; doing so again once you have returned will make the bans permanent and will be escalated to infractions.

This thread still has misinformation rules, and occasionally you will be asked to demonstrate a claim you have made by moderation. If you cannot, you will be offered the opportunity to amend the post to reflect that it's opinion, to remove the post, or you will be threadbanned and infracted for sharing misinformation.

Addendum: from this point, use of any variant of the word 'orc' to describe combatants, politicians or russians in general will be deleted and the poster will receive a warning. If the behaviour continues, it will be escalated. Consider this fair warning.

Finally: If I see the word Nazi or Hitler being flung around, there had better have a good faith basis as to how it's applicable to the Russian invasion - as in, video/photographic evidence of POW camps designed to remove another ethnic group - or to the current Ukrainian army. If this does not occur, you will be threadbanned for posting off topic

This is a sensitive area, and I understand that this makes for fairly incensed conversation sometimes. This does not mean the rules do not apply, whether to a poster positing a Pro-Ukraine stance or a poster positing an alternative view.

Behave, people.

 

[Zidane98]

Sure is, but if I was a Ukranian, I'd probably prefer something like the effort they'd make to defend Israel.

How about you?

Why does the UK and US' pledge to defend Israel directly involve their warships and planes, while their pledge to Ukraine only involves a hands-off, we ain't getting directly involved approach?

Are Ukrainians less important than Israeli's? Don't deserve as much help?

What's the angle here? I'm genuinely asking in good faith for your perspective.

There is no good faith posting here.


The US are not sending soldiers to fight Hamas terrorists in the Gaza strip. Their involvement does not directly involve their warships & planes. The Israeli air force has a big enough air force on its own. The US air force has assets stationed in Romania that routinely patrol the Black Sea. The US airforce has surveillance aircraft in the region that assist Ukranian forces with intelligence.


The US has extensively supported Ukraine against a fascist invader who clearly harbors desires to incorporate Ukraine into the new fabled "Great Russian" empire.

They have provided more support than any other nation in total to Ukraine. Y


All this aside, you have ignored my question I posed to you about what Russia is doing under its legal obligations under the Budapest agreement.


What is Russia doing with the 44 TU-160 Blackjack bombers it accepted from Ukraine and Ukraine's stock of KH-55 cruise missiles under its agreement to defend Ukraine and respect its territorial sovereignty?


If you want to viewed as a poster who isn't here to spread pro Russian propaganda and want to be seen as posting honestly you should answer the question. Without deflecting to another issue.

 

[mcnulty]

There is no good faith posting here.

I thought I’d come across Razor before so I checked it out and yep…couple of years ago he was all over the Covid boards spruiking ivermectin. Same tactics.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Apparently things are going just great for Putin in his imperial conquest of Ukraine.

What a better world we'd live in if all conflicts were decided by snowball fights

"Right, see you at the back of the Mt Hotham shelter sheds at recess"

 

[Zidane98]

What a better world we'd live in if all conflicts were decided by snowball fights

"Right, see you at the back of the Mt Hotham shelter sheds at recess"

Melbourne Demons fans would be there instantly.

 

[Chief]

Sure Johnson and Sunak aren’t glowing leaders, but if this Russian apologist was in charge, it would have been a disaster for Ukraine.

How old is the video itself? There's no date on it.

 

[BlueE]

Maybe read what I write for a start.

What you are quoting does not support your conclusions. Nowhere in what you've quoted are quoted assurances that NATO would not expand, from NATO representatives directly to Soviet reps. In comparison, we have Gorbachev on record saying definitively there were none, aside from discussions about East Germany.

Again, for the 3rd time (I was quoting my first response in my 2nd response, not someone else), all you have are:

- hedging around the topic of assurances, i.e. assurances are mentioned, but there's no direct references to assurances being made about general expansion

- references to the opinions of western leaders about what should happen or what the Soviets might not like, are not proof that they promised this to the Soviets

- or "joining the dots" between conversations with several parties, again no quotes of direct assurances

My point about Norway and Turkey is that they joined NATO in the 40s and 50s (along with Greece), so in the 90s, references to not expanding east if meant in a general sense, rather than east into East Germany, wouldn't make any sense. Either NATO would be more accurate, or the Soviets would/should have objected. Every potential member, aside from maybe Georgia is west of NATOs reach as of the 50s.

Yes what I quoted supports the conclusions I quoted from a variety of experts who'd gathered the declassified security documents for a conference in 2017 and further analysis reported after that.

He was definitely given multiple assurances from a wide variety of Western nations as shown by the original documents I quoted from, that NATO would not expand.

Yes Gorbachev is on record in 2014 but you only included a small section of what he said in that interview. He and the Soviet leadership were being called naïve and fooled, because they didn't get the assurances that NATO would not expand towards the Soviet union, or one inch further east in a written agreement. He then said;

"The decision of the United States and its allies to expand NATO eastward was finally formed in 1993. I called it a big mistake from the very beginning. Of course, this was a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances that were given to us in 1990. As for Germany, they were legally enshrined and they are being respected.""

They are his words in the same interview reported in 2014. So perhaps go and look at the original declassified security documents to clarify. Many others did and came to the above conclusions.

What doesn't make sense is how NATO could expand east from Norway and Turkey into Germany, but they could into the Soviet Union.

 

[Crankyhawk]

There’s a weird nexus happening between the far left and the far right, and it’s coalescing around Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Hamas.

Horseshoe theory in action.

they are just far

far ked

 

[LittleG]

The NATO defensive pact in essence is for defending yourself from invasion. There are no provisions for jointly invading another country except if a member of the alliance is invaded.

You have nothing to fear from a defensive pact, except IF you are the aggressor who created the need for the pact in the first place.

 

[Chief]

Given the targeting of civilians, kidnapping of children, rapes, massacres and extensive mining efforts, I don't think there's much debate over this in Ukraine.

The argument seems to be "Russians don't want Ukraine to join NATO, so it's best for the people of Ukraine to capitulate and dissolve their country, merging with Russia".

 

[Mofra]

It's Russia that is the cancerus tumour, and needs to be dealt with.

Not Russia. Their current dictatorship.

I'm willing to bet every poor Vlad press-ganged into service would love the war to be over and to just go home.

This is all on Putin wanting to remain in power / alive.

 

[Bloods86]

Yes what I quoted supports the conclusions I quoted from a variety of experts who'd gathered the declassified security documents for a conference in 2017 and further analysis reported after that.

He was definitely given multiple assurances from a wide variety of Western nations as shown by the original documents I quoted from, that NATO would not expand.

Yes Gorbachev is on record in 2014 but you only included a small section of what he said in that interview. He and the Soviet leadership were being called naïve and fooled, because they didn't get the assurances that NATO would not expand towards the Soviet union, or one inch further east in a written agreement. He then said;

"The decision of the United States and its allies to expand NATO eastward was finally formed in 1993. I called it a big mistake from the very beginning. Of course, this was a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances that were given to us in 1990. As for Germany, they were legally enshrined and they are being respected.""

They are his words in the same interview reported in 2014. So perhaps go and look at the original declassified security documents to clarify. Many others did and came to the above conclusions.

What doesn't make sense is how NATO could expand east from Norway and Turkey into Germany, but they could into the Soviet Union.

I did ask if you could point me to quotes that supported your claims, but you haven't and I've explained why what you've quoted aren't the slam dunk assurances from NATO to Soviets about general expansion.

If there are other quotes that are definitive, why not provide them instead of these other ones that hedge around the topic of assurances, or just talk about conversations in general (no quotes) or the opinions of western leaders (again, not an assurance).

I was implicitly referring to Gorbachev's "spirit of statements and assurances" comments, among other quotes you provided, in my last response. It's a general reference to the "spirit of" assurances, not actual assurances. There Gorbachev might be talking about actual assurances (East Germany) and it's his personal view that the "spirit of" that was no general expansion, but that's on him.

If you are the one making a claim, back it up, I don't have to go do the research for you.

It also doesn't matter if NATO assured them about general expansion anyway, clearly Russia doesn't actually fear NATO expansion or they wouldn't move their borders closer to NATO or behave like they are, scaring smaller neighbours into joining.

 

[Zidane98]

Regardless of what happens in Ukraine if Putin was genuinely concerned about NATO then he has failed spectacularly. Finland (and soon to be Sweden) are both neighboring nations that have joined NATO after they witnessed what happened to a Ukraine that did nothing more than not want to be a puppet state of Russia any longer.

Putin's actions have directly lead to NATO enlargement. Anyone that claims Putin fears NATO is effectively claiming Russia has lost the war already.

 

[Bloods86]

Regardless of what happens in Ukraine if Putin was genuinely concerned about NATO then he has failed spectacularly. Finland (and soon to be Sweden) are both neighboring nations that have joined NATO after they witnessed what happened to a Ukraine that did nothing more than not want to be a puppet state of Russia any longer.

Putin's actions have directly lead to NATO enlargement. Anyone that claims Putin fears NATO is effectively claiming Russia has lost the war already.

It's hard to understand people hellbent on proving a supposed broken promise about what NATO has done to the poor Russians, when Russia since the 90s has shown its neighbours exactly why NATO membership is so attractive (Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine).

 

[jatz14]

The NATO defensive pact in essence is for defending yourself from invasion. There are no provisions for jointly invading another country except if a member of the alliance is invaded.

You have nothing to fear from a defensive pact, except IF you are the aggressor who created the need for the pact in the first place.

I think the reason is, the Warsaw pact was a defensive pact too, but the idea it wouldn't have done what Moscow wanted, regardless of the terms of the pact, would have been ridiculous to Russians.

Hence, it's easy for them to imagine NATO taking offensive action against them, if Washington wanted to.

But this isn't how Western alliances work. There is virtually no prospect of this happening. Washington would need to get individual agreement from countries outside the NATO framework for offensive actions in Europe, and that's not likely either.

Even the actions in the ex Yugoslavia states only happened because it was limited, which wouldn't be the case against Russia.

However, as others have pointed out, if fear if NATO was a motivator for this war,then this war has been a tactical and strategic catastrophe for Russia, and they would have backed out if it as soon as possible.

That they are still fighting to consolidate territorial gains is pretty comprehensive proof that territorial gains was always the objective.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[LittleG]

I think the reason is, the Warsaw pact was a defensive pact too, but the idea it wouldn't have done what Moscow wanted, regardless of the terms of the pact, would have been ridiculous to Russians.

Hence, it's easy for them to imagine NATO taking offensive action against them, if Washington wanted to.

But this isn't how Western alliances work. There is virtually no prospect of this happening. Washington would need to get individual agreement from countries outside the NATO framework for offensive actions in Europe, and that's not likely either.

Even the actions in the ex Yugoslavia states only happened because it was limited, which wouldn't be the case against Russia.

However, as others have pointed out, if fear if NATO was a motivator for this war,then this war has been a tactical and strategic catastrophe for Russia, and they would have backed out if it as soon as possible.

That they are still fighting to consolidate territorial gains is pretty comprehensive proof that territorial gains was always the objective.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think anyone trying to justify war as to do with NATO expansion; needs help.

 

[awaremind]

I think the reason is, the Warsaw pact was a defensive pact too, but the idea it wouldn't have done what Moscow wanted, regardless of the terms of the pact, would have been ridiculous to Russians.

Hence, it's easy for them to imagine NATO taking offensive action against them, if Washington wanted to.

But this isn't how Western alliances work. There is virtually no prospect of this happening. Washington would need to get individual agreement from countries outside the NATO framework for offensive actions in Europe, and that's not likely either.

Even the actions in the ex Yugoslavia states only happened because it was limited, which wouldn't be the case against Russia.

However, as others have pointed out, if fear if NATO was a motivator for this war,then this war has been a tactical and strategic catastrophe for Russia, and they would have backed out if it as soon as possible.

That they are still fighting to consolidate territorial gains is pretty comprehensive proof that territorial gains was always the objective.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

Because western alliances never are aggressive … Libya , Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan say Hi!

 

[Aussie in exile]

Because western alliances never are aggressive … Libya , Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan say Hi!

Your missing the fact that NATO has expanded due to Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine.
In simple terms Putin's actions have expanded NATO.

 

[Bloods86]

Because western alliances never are aggressive … Libya , Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan say Hi!

Except some of those are not "western alliances" directly attacking, which is what Russia would fear, but doesn't, from NATO.

And if Russia stopped invading neighbours, the risk of any kind of fight with NATO would reduce dramatically.

 

[awaremind]

Except some of those are not "western alliances" directly attacking, which is what Russia would fear, but doesn't, from NATO.

And if Russia stopped invading neighbours, the risk of any kind of fight with NATO would reduce dramatically.

Why didn’t Nato accept or at least slowly integrate Russia back when they had a chance? There was substancial goodwill and cooperation between USA some points. I would argue that the Yukos / Khodorkhovsky affair was the turning point. Putin booted the western kleptocratic oligarchs or made them fall in line. The western oligarchs hated this and Cold War Mach 2 started due to putins resistance to the pro-west oligarchs.

 

[awaremind]

Your missing the fact that NATO has expanded due to Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine.
In simple terms Putin's actions have expanded NATO.

And the western alliances actions are bringing the rest of the world (Asia - Japan and sk , Africa, South America ) together… every action has an equal and opposite reaction is physics, but it’s a good analogy for political manuvering too.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Why didn’t Nato accept or at least slowly integrate Russia back when they had a chance? There was substancial goodwill and cooperation between USA some points. I would argue that the Yukos / Khodorkhovsky affair was the turning point. Putin booted the western kleptocratic oligarchs or made them fall in line. The western oligarchs hated this and Cold War Mach 2 started due to putins resistance to the pro-west oligarchs.

Except that fact that due to Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine NATO has expanded.
Putin brought this on himself. It's called self inflicted.
No invasion of Ukraine would have meant no NATO expansion. It's that simple.

 

[awaremind]

Except that fact that due to Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine NATO has expanded.
Putin brought this on himself. It's called self inflicted.
No invasion of Ukraine would have meant no NATO expansion. It's that simple.

If you want to talk about that , this and the other present conflict is causing conflict within the alliance, Hungary and Turkey are looking kind of pro Russia or at best neutral.

 

[EagleMan87]

If you want to talk about that , this and the other present conflict is causing conflict within the alliance, Hungary and Turkey are looking kind of pro Russia or at best neutral.

So weigh up Finland and Sweden joining NATO, versus Hungary and Turkey kind of being pro-Russian. Do you think that's a win?

 

[Aussie in exile]

If you want to talk about that , this and the other present conflict is causing conflict within the alliance, Hungary and Turkey are looking kind of pro Russia or at best neutral.

You are completely missing the point and that is If Putin hadn't illegally invaded Ukraine, NATO wouldn't have expanded. It really is that simple.
NATO expansion is 100% down to Putin.

 

[Bloods86]

And the western alliances actions are bringing the rest of the world (Asia - Japan and sk , Africa, South America ) together… every action has an equal and opposite reaction is physics, but it’s a good analogy for political manuvering too.

Uh... Japan and South Korea are most definitely not moving away from western alliances. Japan is getting closer, and South Korea isn't ditching the US anytime soon, while also supporting Ukraine readily.

I assume you're trying to allude to BRICS and not every/most country on these continents. It's not western agro that is causing some countries to turn to China etc, it's that they are being bribed more by them than the US or others. China, Russia don't have noble, peaceful goals here.

Milei in Argentina, for his faults in nearly everything else, supports Ukraine over Russia, and is skeptical of China.