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

 

[barreness]

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.

Just being realist here; if you want to suggest that broken treaties and promises are enough evidence to never accept another one then all parties are in the same position.

There was a gentlemen's agreement type areas at the back end of the cold war(turning point being the Cuban missile crisis) that held for quite a while. Clinton was the one to first throw this out tbh, and repeated by all other following US presidents. The Balkanisation of the USSR and shock doctrine/economic collapse made the US feel invulnerable

 

[barreness]

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.

The whole interview is informative, the last paragraph you quote is the important bit

It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990

 

[barreness]

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.

It's kinda ironic that the 2(now 3) countries that actually had Soviet tanks roll through during the cold war have excluded themselves from this 'loan'.

Russian stooges or don't see them as a real threat? Could take either side but obviously don't want a part of this money pit.

Power has shifted to the east, think you live in the 90's end of history/great man dictators must be cut down type stuff. We're a quarter of the way through this century

 

[barreness]

This was honoured in the final treaty agreement of Germany.

No NATO bases on further East German territory - honoured to this very day.

You lose - again.

I just hope both teams have fun

 

[barreness]

By drawing forces from other points in their front. Ukraine took land back right away.

They have no reserves to speak of.

I don't think the nutters they have drawn in from other countries are making up for the many thousands killed and wounded.

I'm not sure where you get your war sources from but this is way off. Things are bleak af for Ukrainians and have been for a few years.

1200km front so they can get localised supremacy, as we've seen in Kupyansk recently. However this requires a draw down from somewhere else; Siversk has fallen after three years of holding, Hulipole is almost certainly gone, Pokrovsk we don't talk about

 

[barreness]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ukraine-carry-out-new-exchange-bodies-2025-12-19/
Ukraine and Russia have carried out a new exchange of bodies of dead soldiers, Ukrainian and Russian officials said on Friday.
Kremlin aide Vladimir Medinsky said Russia had handed over to Ukraine the remains of 1,000 Ukrainian servicemen and had received the bodies of 26 Russian soldiers from Kyiv.

Another body swap. Think it's roughly 10k Ukrainians to 300 Russians this year.

While not a good analysis for casualty ratios it does point to continued Russian advances and Ukrainian deaths far above the official numbers

 

[Chief]

And Ukraine have found Russian soldiers in with the bodies received. More about Russians not having to pay families, instead marking them AWOL.

 

[Zidane98]

I just hope both teams have fun

This isn't a game, strange comment.

 

[wannabejack]

The whole interview is informative, the last paragraph you quote is the important bit

It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990

The important bits are that russia broke a signed treaty and “memo”.
You put more importance on what might or might not have been said and the “spirit of the statements and assurances made" than signed documents.

 

[wannabejack]

Just being realist here; if you want to suggest that broken treaties and promises are enough evidence to never accept another one then all parties are in the same position.

.....

If signing a treaty stops the war that’s fine but it will not make Ukraine safe from another invasion by russia. Ukraine must prepare for another invasion.

 

[wannabejack]

The whole interview is informative, the last paragraph you quote is the important bit

It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990

You place a lot of importance on “the statements and assurances made”.

Before the invasion in February 2022, russia repeatedly made assurances it had no intention of invading Ukraine. These statements were made during diplomatic talks.
It was much more than a "violation" of the assurances, it was a lie.
How much importance do you place on these repeated assurances?

 

[barreness]

You place a lot of importance on “the statements and assurances made”.

It was important to close the cold war in a mostly peaceful fashion. Also allowed countries like Ukraine and other SSR's to exit the Union without Russia causing a stink

Before the invasion in February 2022, russia repeatedly made assurances it had no intention of invading Ukraine. These statements were made during diplomatic talks.
It was much more than a "violation" of the assurances, it was a lie.

Yeh, it was a lie evidently.

How much importance do you place on these repeated assurances?

Putin's 2007 Munich speech, the leaked 'Nyet means nyet', and finally the 2021 'ultimatum'. Not like there wasn't many warnings

The US knew that expansion of NATO into Ukraine and Georgia would cause war. They chose to do so anyway

 

[barreness]

And Ukraine have found Russian soldiers in with the bodies received. More about Russians not having to pay families, instead marking them AWOL.

A claim made by Zelensky in an earlier body swap. He's stopped making noise about this. Think the current strategy is to slow down identification to a crawl

It's very much Ukraine that can't pay families, they're flat broke. It's ~$350k per dead soldier, 3.5 billion just for these troops let alone the ones they recover themselves. There's still 16k MIA from the battle of Bakhmut from 2 and a half years ago. No body, no payout

 

[wannabejack]

MSN

Salaries and one-time bonuses were a chief reason why so many agreed to go to war, but they can be cut off as soon as they are captured. Thousands are now in financial limbo.

Earlier this year, one of the first criminal cases into surrender was opened when a Russian soldier, Roman Ivanishin, was sentenced to 15 years in a high-security penal colony after returning from Ukrainian captivity as part of a prisoner swap. The charges included voluntary surrender, attempting to voluntarily surrender and desertion from a military unit.

The conditions upon return can be so dire that some families have lobbied to keep their sons out of prisoner exchanges. The conditions in Ukrainian POW camps are much more humane than in Russian POW camps for Ukrainians, where torture has been at times systematic.

 

[Zidane98]

Some revealing documents about Putin when Ukraine was still a puppet state of Russia:



Basically Putin always wanted to invade Ukraine and always believed it to be a possession of the Russian empire. Never about NATO either - that's clearly a lie and anyone who amplified that lie must be an agent of Russian propaganda.

His fascist ideas and rhetoric have no place these days - the era of empire expansion is over.

 

[Aussie in exile]

It was important to close the cold war in a mostly peaceful fashion. Also allowed countries like Ukraine and other SSR's to exit the Union without Russia causing a stink

Yeh, it was a lie evidently.

Putin's 2007 Munich speech, the leaked 'Nyet means nyet', and finally the 2021 'ultimatum'. Not like there wasn't many warnings

The US knew that expansion of NATO into Ukraine and Georgia would cause war. They chose to do so anyway

Have you forgooten already that Sweden and Finalnd joined NATO, AFTER russias illegal invasion of Ukraine?

 

[IlovethePies]

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.

It is a thread about the backdrop of the war in Ukraine.
Excluding a discussion about what caused the war (NATO's expansion eastward and ongoing threat to dismember Russia) is an absurdity that only Zidane could suggest.

 

[Zidane98]

It is a thread about the backdrop of the war in Ukraine.
Excluding a discussion about what caused the war (NATO's expansion eastward and ongoing threat to dismember Russia) is an absurdity that only Zidane could suggest.

Read above comrade.

Putin already had delusions about Ukraine revealed during correspondence in 2001 when in no way could any vatnik argue NATO was relevant.

Basically he believes that Ukraine is a possession of his and owed to whatever Russian Empire replaced his beloved USSR.

Anyone that resists is subject to genocide in his eyes.

Putin is the Hitler of modern times. It's time Adolf Putin learns the days of empirical expansion are finished.

 

[IlovethePies]

Read above comrade.

Putin already had delusions about Ukraine revealed during correspondence in 2001 when in no way could any vatnik argue NATO was relevant.

Basically he believes that Ukraine is a possession of his and owed to whatever Russian Empire replaced his beloved USSR.

Anyone that resists is subject to genocide in his eyes.

Putin is the Hitler of modern times. It's time Adolf Putin learns the days of empirical expansion are finished.

I read the transcript. Though you are not my comrade, you have acted in a comradely manner in fact by providing a historical document which completely supports my argument and therefore invalidates yours. This is because in the end, the truth always has a way of piercing the screen of lies, just like a ray of light will also find the flaw in the fabric.

Here are the key passages:

1) At the very start, Putin says: "...i'd like to mention that accession to NATO by a country like Ukraine will create for the long term a field of conflict for you and us, long-term confrontation."

In other words, over 20 years before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin warned that the attempt by NATO to integrate Ukraine would lead to long term confrontation between NATO and Russia.

2) (start of second paragraph): "This creates many problems for Russia. This creates the threat of military bases and new military systems being deployed in the proximity of Russia. It creates uncertainties and threats for us. And relying on the anti-NATO forces within Ukraine, Russia would be working on stripping NATO of the possiblity of enlarging."

In other words, over 20 years before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin warned NATO that the policy of his government would be to prevent the possibility of Ukraine entering NATO.

On the basis of what is in this transcript, there are no other valid conclusions.

There is no evidence whatsoever for your absurd conclusion: "Basically, he believes that Ukraine is a possession of his and owed to whatever Russian Empire replaced his beloved USSR." This is just your fantasy projected on to the historical record.

What does Putin say in the rest of the conversation? First, Putin points out that Ukraine's borders have changed many times, and it contains a wide mixture of ethnicities within its current borders, including a very large minority of ethnic Russians.

Then he says that there are large numbers of forces within Ukraine -( most importantly, within the Ukrainian oligarchy itself) - who are anti-NATO, and would support an alliance with Russia against NATO.

He is therefore warning NATO, 20 years before the outbreak of war, that any moves by NATO to include Ukraine in the its military alliance would cross a red line as far as the Kremlin was concern, and would be uncompromisingly opposed by his regime through collaboration with anti-NATO and pro-Russian forces within Ukraine.

Since then, how did NATO respond? By systematically advising and funding its Ukrainian political proxies and providing training and weaponry to the Ukrainian military. This process culminated in the Maidan coup which installed NATO's political proxies into the Ukrainian state apparatus in 2014. Since then, the pro-NATO faction of the Ukrainian oligarchy has dominated the state apparatus, and collaborated with NATO fully in turning Ukraine into a platform for NATO military expansion into Russia.

Thankyou for providing this documentary evidence which sheds further light on how this war evolved historically.

It adds further empirical proof of the truth: this war was provoked by the intent of NATO to position military forces on Russia's critical eastern border with Ukraine in order to overthrow the Putin government and instal proxy governments allowing US/European corporate interests to take control of the vast resources, markets and cheap labour supplies contained within Russia.

As I have stressed many times, this in no way implies my support for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. This was a criminal and barbaric response which has only served to drive a wedge between the Ukrainian and Russian people. But it was the criminal response to an equally criminal policy by NATO and its political proxies in Ukraine.

 

[Chief]

1) At the very start, Putin says: "...i'd like to mention that accession to NATO by a country like Ukraine will create for the long term a field of conflict for you and us, long-term confrontation."

In other words, over 20 years before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin warned that the attempt by NATO to integrate Ukraine would lead to long term confrontation between NATO and Russia.

If true, he still had no right to invade Ukraine. Not an excuse. He invaded Ukraine long before, anyway, with supplies and manpower to cause trouble.

(As usual, ignoring the other NATO member countries on Putinistan's border already.)

 

[wannabejack]

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 is incredible to think that posters here hang their arguments on” “verbal assurances and private understandings”.
These were verbal assurances made during negotiations, not a formal, legally binding treaty commitment.

Yet these posters are happy to ignore signed formal “documents” and treaties.
Treaties are legally binding international agreements.

 

[IlovethePies]

“It is incredible to think that posters here hang their arguments on” “verbal assurances and private understandings”.
These were verbal assurances made during negotiations, not a formal, legally binding treaty commitment.

Yet these posters are happy to ignore signed formal “documents” and treaties.
Treaties are legally binding international agreements.

I base my arguments on what has actually happened and on political reality.

My arguments depend neither on "verbal assurances" nor worthless "international treaties" which are torn up every day of the week, as Trump is now demonstrating in practice.

 

[Chief]

Yet these posters are happy to ignore signed formal “documents” and treaties.
Treaties are legally binding international agreements.

They have to be made law first, otherwise you'd have diplomats and other unelected people making, say, Australian law through signing.

 

[wannabejack]

They have to be made law first, otherwise you'd have diplomats and other unelected people making, say, Australian law through signing.

I should have said UN treaty. UN treaties (conventions, covenants, protocols) are legally binding international agreements for countries?

UNTC

On May 31, 1997, the treaty was signed in Kyiv by the then-presidents of Russia and Ukraine, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma, but it only came into force after both parliaments ratified it in April 1999.
In Article 2 of the treaty both sides agreed to respect their respective territorial integrity and existing borders.

 

[Chief]

it only came into force after both parliaments ratified it in April 1999

Yes: Parliaments have to adopt treaties. Vote on laws that put them into effect. Otherwise governments or unelected officials could dodge around parliament and make national laws just by signing treaties.