Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[Gethelred]

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:

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

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: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/backdrop-to-the-war-in-ukraine.1302028/ If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[wannabejack]

'Not one inch eastward'

It’s amazing how you can disregard signed treaties and memorandums (“memo’s”) but bring up an informal promise as something binding.
Edit:
Actually, it's not amazing, it's true to form.

 

[IlovethePies]

It’s amazing how you can disregard signed treaties and memorandums (“memo’s”) but bring up an informal promise as something binding.
Edit:
Actually, it's not amazing, it's true to form.

So it's OK for NATO to informally promise that it wont move eastwards, and then simply do the opposite?

And at the same time you admit that NATO did break its promise, and move eastward (despite "informally" pledging not to do so?)

Yet you claim that Russia had nothing to fear, despite NATO lying about its intentions?

 

[Zidane98]

So it's OK for NATO to informally promise that it wont move eastwards, and then simply do the opposite?

And at the same time you admit that NATO did break its promise, and move eastward (despite "informally" pledging not to do so?)

Yet you claim that Russia had nothing to fear, despite NATO lying about its intentions?

NATO never made any such promise.

Stop posting outright lies.

The one inch eastward comment referred to NATO base on former East German territory.

That commitment is still honoured to this very day.

Unlike the human piece of fascist filth Putin and his signed treaties / obligations.

 

[Aussie in exile]

So it's OK for NATO to informally promise that it wont move eastwards, and then simply do the opposite?

And at the same time you admit that NATO did break its promise, and move eastward (despite "informally" pledging not to do so?)

Yet you claim that Russia had nothing to fear, despite NATO lying about its intentions?

So is it in black and white like the agreement russia signed not to attack Ukraine?

 

[Zidane98]

So is it in black and white like the agreement russia signed not to attack Ukraine?

According to tankies and vatniks those agreements mean nothing while a conversation over the phone with no formal agreement means everything and must be strictly adhered to.

 

[Aussie in exile]

According to tankies and vatniks those agreements mean nothing while a conversation over the phone with no formal agreement means everything and must be strictly adhered to.

Which shows how dumb they are.

 

[wannabejack]

Which shows how dumb they are.

I'm leaning more towards liars who show no shame or guilt about their dishonesty.

 

[Baldur]

"Putin: The goals of the special military operation will, of course, be completed. We would prefer to do it and remove the root causes of the conflict using diplomacy. But if the opposing country and their foreign patrons refuse to have a constructive discussion, Russia will achieve liberating its historic lands militarily."

There it is, out of Putin's own mouth. The aim is and always has been to retake all the lands that where once part of the Russian empire.

 

[IlovethePies]

Here is what has actually happened:

After the dissolution of the USSR, Western leaders repeatedly insisted in public that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Those verbal assurances and private understandings are documented in numerous diplomatic accounts.

What followed, however, was the gradual incorporation of former Warsaw Pact states and several republics of the USSR into NATO, NATO’s enlargement of military infrastructure into Eastern Europe, and the promotion of Ukraine and Georgia as future candidates for membership. The post‑1991 process therefore betrayed those earlier assurances in practice and produced the political reality of NATO military presence on Russia’s borders.


The US and NATO expanded eastward continuously after 1991 as part of a geopolitical strategy to secure markets, lay claim to resources and position their finance capital to advantage. The immediate aim of imperialism above all else was to prevent the emergence of a Eurasian econonomic power competitor.


NATO's eastward expansion took place in the context of a massive explosion of US/NATO military aggression from the 1990's onwards: (1st Gulf War, operations in Somalia, former Yugoslavia (in which there was an actual confrontation between Russian and US troops at Pristina airport), war on Afghanistan, second Gulf War, continuous drone strikes carried out by both Bush and Obama in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia during the 2000's,

and then, in 2011, 3 years before the Maidan coup, the US/NATO intervention into Libya, and then - in 2014 (the same year of Maidan), the US intervention into Syria.

Under conditions where NATO and the US were rampaging around the world, devastating whole regions for oil, natural resources, markets and key geopolitical advantages, why would anyone be surprised that the Putin regime viewed all of the past assurances given by Western leaders at the time of the liquidation of the Soviet Union as a deception and a betrayal?

It is incredible to think that posters here hang their arguments on whether or not documents were signed between imperialist gangsters and criminal Russian oligarchs.

 

[IlovethePies]

"Putin: The goals of the special military operation will, of course, be completed. We would prefer to do it and remove the root causes of the conflict using diplomacy. But if the opposing country and their foreign patrons refuse to have a constructive discussion, Russia will achieve liberating its historic lands militarily."

There it is, out of Putin's own mouth. The aim is and always has been to retake all the lands that where once part of the Russian empire.

Putin is a Russian chauvinist who tries to win support for his policies by appealing to nationalism and to the despicable traditions of Tsarist history and also to those of Stalinism.

Like Zelensky in Ukraine, Putin is compelled to pander to fascist elements - within the Russian state and military, within the Russian political elite and oligarchy

While NATO was reassuring the ex Stalinist bureaucrats ( now oligarchs ) who were busy liquidating the Soviet Union, that NATO's borders would not move one inch eastward, no political figure in Russia was seeking the "liberation of historic lands". On the contrary, they were willingly dismembering the Soviet Union and partitioning off "the historic lands". They were openly hoping and expecting to be welcomed into NATO itself.

The nature of political discourse within Russia has been transformed over the last 30 years, due to the aggressive imperialist encirclement led by NATO of Russia. The explosion of NATO/US imperialist military aggression since 1991, aiming either to occupy militarily key geostrategic locations, or subordinate ex Soviet republics politically via their political puppets, has inevitably led to the rise of extreme Russian nationalism as the Putin government acts to defend the class interests of the Russian oligarchs.

 

[Zidane98]

"Putin: The goals of the special military operation will, of course, be completed. We would prefer to do it and remove the root causes of the conflict using diplomacy. But if the opposing country and their foreign patrons refuse to have a constructive discussion, Russia will achieve liberating its historic lands militarily."

There it is, out of Putin's own mouth. The aim is and always has been to retake all the lands that where once part of the Russian empire.

Been saying this for a long time.

**** this human fascist piece of human excrement.

Send as many willing troops, air force assets as possible to Ukraine. Europe's freedom depends on it. Tell Russia you've got 2 months to leave or face annihilation.

Enough is enough. No more negotiations.

 

[PieBeast]

Russia is in no position to make demands.

Looks like you sir have a lot of spare moolah, how many bridges would you like to buy of me?

 

[Aussie in exile]

Here is what has actually happened:

After the dissolution of the USSR, Western leaders repeatedly insisted in public that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Those verbal assurances and private understandings are documented in numerous diplomatic accounts.

What followed, however, was the gradual incorporation of former Warsaw Pact states and several republics of the USSR into NATO, NATO’s enlargement of military infrastructure into Eastern Europe, and the promotion of Ukraine and Georgia as future candidates for membership. The post‑1991 process therefore betrayed those earlier assurances in practice and produced the political reality of NATO military presence on Russia’s borders.


The US and NATO expanded eastward continuously after 1991 as part of a geopolitical strategy to secure markets, lay claim to resources and position their finance capital to advantage. The immediate aim of imperialism above all else was to prevent the emergence of a Eurasian econonomic power competitor.


NATO's eastward expansion took place in the context of a massive explosion of US/NATO military aggression from the 1990's onwards: (1st Gulf War, operations in Somalia, former Yugoslavia (in which there was an actual confrontation between Russian and US troops at Pristina airport), war on Afghanistan, second Gulf War, continuous drone strikes carried out by both Bush and Obama in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia during the 2000's,

and then, in 2011, 3 years before the Maidan coup, the US/NATO intervention into Libya, and then - in 2014 (the same year of Maidan), the US intervention into Syria.

Under conditions where NATO and the US were rampaging around the world, devastating whole regions for oil, natural resources, markets and key geopolitical advantages, why would anyone be surprised that the Putin regime viewed all of the past assurances given by Western leaders at the time of the liquidation of the Soviet Union as a deception and a betrayal?

It is incredible to think that posters here hang their arguments on whether or not documents were signed between imperialist gangsters and criminal Russian oligarchs.

It really is simple if little legs putin wants peace all he has to do is withdraw russian and north korean troops from Ukrainian land and sign a peace agreement saying saying russia wont be attacking anymore sovereign countries

 

[Aussie in exile]

Putin is a Russian chauvinist who tries to win support for his policies by appealing to nationalism and to the despicable traditions of Tsarist history and also to those of Stalinism.

Like Zelensky in Ukraine, Putin is compelled to pander to fascist elements - within the Russian state and military, within the Russian political elite and oligarchy

While NATO was reassuring the ex Stalinist bureaucrats ( now oligarchs ) who were busy liquidating the Soviet Union, that NATO's borders would not move one inch eastward, no political figure in Russia was seeking the "liberation of historic lands". On the contrary, they were willingly dismembering the Soviet Union and partitioning off "the historic lands". They were openly hoping and expecting to be welcomed into NATO itself.

The nature of political discourse within Russia has been transformed over the last 30 years, due to the aggressive imperialist encirclement led by NATO of Russia. The explosion of NATO/US imperialist military aggression since 1991, aiming either to occupy militarily key geostrategic locations, or subordinate ex Soviet republics politically via their political puppets, has inevitably led to the rise of extreme Russian nationalism as the Putin government acts to defend the class interests of the Russian oligarchs.

NATO has grown since little legs putins illegal invasion of Ukraine. That worked out well for him didn't it

 

[Zidane98]

 

[Zidane98]

Here is what has actually happened:

After the dissolution of the USSR, Western leaders repeatedly insisted in public that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Those verbal assurances and private understandings are documented in numerous diplomatic accounts.

What followed, however, was the gradual incorporation of former Warsaw Pact states and several republics of the USSR into NATO, NATO’s enlargement of military infrastructure into Eastern Europe, and the promotion of Ukraine and Georgia as future candidates for membership. The post‑1991 process therefore betrayed those earlier assurances in practice and produced the political reality of NATO military presence on Russia’s borders.


The US and NATO expanded eastward continuously after 1991 as part of a geopolitical strategy to secure markets, lay claim to resources and position their finance capital to advantage. The immediate aim of imperialism above all else was to prevent the emergence of a Eurasian econonomic power competitor.


NATO's eastward expansion took place in the context of a massive explosion of US/NATO military aggression from the 1990's onwards: (1st Gulf War, operations in Somalia, former Yugoslavia (in which there was an actual confrontation between Russian and US troops at Pristina airport), war on Afghanistan, second Gulf War, continuous drone strikes carried out by both Bush and Obama in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia during the 2000's,

and then, in 2011, 3 years before the Maidan coup, the US/NATO intervention into Libya, and then - in 2014 (the same year of Maidan), the US intervention into Syria.

Under conditions where NATO and the US were rampaging around the world, devastating whole regions for oil, natural resources, markets and key geopolitical advantages, why would anyone be surprised that the Putin regime viewed all of the past assurances given by Western leaders at the time of the liquidation of the Soviet Union as a deception and a betrayal?

It is incredible to think that posters here hang their arguments on whether or not documents were signed between imperialist gangsters and criminal Russian oligarchs.

I will remind you that this is a thread about Ukraine.

This isn't the thread to stroke your delusional conspiracy theories about the US as some sort of justification for Putin being a modern day Hitler desperate to expand his empire and genocide anyone who dare opposes his dreams.

And before you post lies about Ukraine only fighting because of US support I will remind you that the current military assistance deal for Ukraine of $45 billion sees the US funding a paltry $800 million or in real terms 1.5%.

This is an absolute fact you cannot bullshit about either.

Do try and deviate off your script every now and then comrade.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Perhaps little legs you showed a bit of respect to Ukraine, and frankly nobody of intelligence believes you whan you say no more wars.

Putin vows no more wars if West treats Russia with respect

Russia's leader said during a TV marathon that claims that an attack on Europe was planned were "nonsense".

www.bbc.com

 

[wannabejack]

Perhaps little legs you showed a bit of respect to Ukraine, and frankly nobody of intelligence believes you whan you say no more wars.

Putin vows no more wars if West treats Russia with respect

Russia's leader said during a TV marathon that claims that an attack on Europe was planned were "nonsense".

www.bbc.com

He has long accused Nato of going back on an alleged 1990 Western promise to then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev before the fall of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev later denied the remark had been made.

Mikhail Gorbachev: I am against all walls

The first and last president of the Soviet Union spoke with RBTH about the past and how it should inform the present.

www.rbth.com

RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.

The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

 

[wannabejack]

Russia Falls Further Behind in the Space Race as Kazakhstan Turns to China | OilPrice.com

Kazakhstan’s successful nanosatellite launch with China underscores Astana’s growing doubts about Russia’s delayed Soyuz-5 rocket and reflects a broader shift in the global space-launch market away from Moscow.

oilprice.com

• Kazakhstan’s Dier-5 satellite launch with China highlights a pragmatic pivot toward faster and more reliable space partners.
• Persistent delays in Russia’s Soyuz-5 rocket threaten the long-standing Baiterek program and Moscow’s regional influence.
• Russia’s global launch market share has collapsed to under 5 percent, reflecting structural decline amid U.S. and Chinese dominance.

Some observers see the Kazakh-Chinese initiative as a tacit vote of no-confidence in a more than two-decade-long Kazakh-Russian venture, dubbed Baiterek, to develop Kazakhstan’s space program.

 

[wannabejack]

Budanov stated that under Russia’s original plans, preparations for large-scale actions against Europe were expected to be completed by 2030. However, those timelines have now been revised and shortened to 2027.

At the same time, according to Ukrainian intelligence, Poland is currently not viewed as a target for occupation, but rather as a target for military strikes and a campaign without territorial seizure.

 

[Baldur]

Took one look at Poland's defence spending and backed off, bullies do not like hard targets ready and willing to defend themselves.

 

[wannabejack]

EU to phase out imports of Russian gas | News | European Parliament

The new law adopted on Wednesday will protect the EU’s energy security from weaponisation by the Russian Federation.

www.europarl.europa.eu

Spot-market Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) will be banned from the EU once the regulation enters into force in early 2026, while pipeline gas imports will be phased out by 30 September 2027.

“This is historic: the EU is taking a giant step towards a new era free of Russian gas and oil. Russia can never again use fossil fuel exports as a weapon against Europe…”

“Today's vote sends a clear and powerful message: Europe will never again be dependent on Russian gas. This is a major achievement for the EU and a historic turning point in European energy policy…”

Background
This legislative proposal is a response to Russia’s systematic weaponisation of energy supplies, a pattern documented over nearly two decades and escalating with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The 2022 invasion came with further deliberate market manipulation, including Gazprom’s unprecedented underfilling of EU storage facilities and abrupt halts to pipelines, causing energy prices to spike by up to eight times their pre-crisis levels.

 

[Andre]

EU to phase out imports of Russian gas | News | European Parliament

The new law adopted on Wednesday will protect the EU’s energy security from weaponisation by the Russian Federation.

www.europarl.europa.eu

Spot-market Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) will be banned from the EU once the regulation enters into force in early 2026, while pipeline gas imports will be phased out by 30 September 2027.

“This is historic: the EU is taking a giant step towards a new era free of Russian gas and oil. Russia can never again use fossil fuel exports as a weapon against Europe…”

“Today's vote sends a clear and powerful message: Europe will never again be dependent on Russian gas. This is a major achievement for the EU and a historic turning point in European energy policy…”

Background
This legislative proposal is a response to Russia’s systematic weaponisation of energy supplies, a pattern documented over nearly two decades and escalating with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The 2022 invasion came with further deliberate market manipulation, including Gazprom’s unprecedented underfilling of EU storage facilities and abrupt halts to pipelines, causing energy prices to spike by up to eight times their pre-crisis levels.

Will do legislation, that must then be approved by the Council. Still plenty of time for Hungary and Slovakia to mount challenges, which they'll likely ignore when it comes into effect anyway. As with everything from Europe, I'll believe action has been taken, not talk of action, when it actually happens (and they can enforce it on Hungary and Slovakia or punish them trying to work around it).

 

[StFly]

Will do legislation, that must then be approved by the Council. Still plenty of time for Hungary and Slovakia to mount challenges, which they'll likely ignore when it comes into effect anyway. As with everything from Europe, I'll believe action has been taken, not talk of action, when it actually happens (and they can enforce it on Hungary and Slovakia or punish them trying to work around it).

Slovakia unlikely, depending on how things are done I'd say, Slovakia is looking out for #1, so if the EU placates, they fold and join the EU in all things.
Hungary is trending to Libya a bit, in that there'd be a uprising of sort of Orban would GTFO and run away like the bitch he is. As they're also already getting ostracised a bit, can see a wider EU instance defaulting on Hungary in the short term to supplant a NATO v CRINK in such a situation. They'd be immediately surrounded in such an instance so likely would fold like a bitch.

Slovakia I can see a bit like Turkiye, sit on the fence lean EU and slow distance from Russia, this is similar to India in a way though they lean more towards Russia / China just due to proximity. Is a world where CRINK get bent over and reamed though as ME leans EU due to naval routes, Mongolia then has Japan and EU benching, SEA is backed by well US, OCE, SEA and Japan to then curtail Russia, NK and China from the east, US and EU have west and south and naval and air coverage is then assured.

So yeah Slovakia can see such things, they fold for all money. Hungary is the question, but they are also slowly being made irrelevant to wider EU decisions.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Slovakia unlikely, depending on how things are done I'd say, Slovakia is looking out for #1, so if the EU placates, they fold and join the EU in all things.
Hungary is trending to Libya a bit, in that there'd be a uprising of sort of Orban would GTFO and run away like the bitch he is. As they're also already getting ostracised a bit, can see a wider EU instance defaulting on Hungary in the short term to supplant a NATO v CRINK in such a situation. They'd be immediately surrounded in such an instance so likely would fold like a bitch.

Slovakia I can see a bit like Turkiye, sit on the fence lean EU and slow distance from Russia, this is similar to India in a way though they lean more towards Russia / China just due to proximity. Is a world where CRINK get bent over and reamed though as ME leans EU due to naval routes, Mongolia then has Japan and EU benching, SEA is backed by well US, OCE, SEA and Japan to then curtail Russia, NK and China from the east, US and EU have west and south and naval and air coverage is then assured.

So yeah Slovakia can see such things, they fold for all money. Hungary is the question, but they are also slowly being made irrelevant to wider EU decisions.

Wow, that's some serious geo-politicing there Fly. Needed to read it twice.