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.

 

[jatz14]

Political option to do what exactly? If Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova join NATO, do you seriously think NATO is then going to invade Russia? Europe was heavily dependent on Russia oil & gas and was more than willing to have Western companies there and vice versa. All that those countries around Russia joining NATO and the EU does, as far as a threat, is to show dictatorships don't lead to as good a country as democracy does. Now yes THAT is a threat to Putin, but not a justification for war.

If war is justified if politics doesn't work, mean that NATO is justified to invade Russia if asking them nicely to leave doesn't work? If not, why is one 'exhaustion of politics' valid and not another? Maybe it's just war for preservation of your own government isn't justified. The reality is, if Russia left Ukraine (, Georgia and Moldova) tomorrow and they all joined the EU and NATO, Russia as a country would continue to exist. Putin may be rolled, but despite his thinking so, he's not Russia.

As for the Irony of praising Gorbachev, when Putin wants to undo everything he did and Putin despised him and everything he did.

This comes down simply to, the rest of the Empires of Europe got out of the colonial conquest 'game' after the Second world war, with only Russia yet to each the point the rest of the world did three quarters of a century ago.

He isn't wrong though, I'm pretty sure the political options for creating an empire were exhausted, so the only way left to Putin was war.

And Europe wasn't very happy about that, crazy mixed up war mongering Europe.

Standing in the way of imperial dreams, what did they expect?

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

 

[Zidane98]

Just look at those really well trained Russian soldiers.

 

[Zidane98]

 

[Rayzorwire]

Your lies about Russian language in Ukraine are ever so obvious here.

You keep calling me a liar, mate, but as I pointed out yesterday, very little of what I posted were my words.

They're direct quotes from sources which nobody could possibly say are pro-Putin.

So, again, another direct question for you to skip: was the Estonian military, the ISW, the BBC or The Times lying in the information you claimed were "lies" yesterday?

As for what I posted on the Russian language issue in Ukraine post-Maidan, happy to further clarify.

This is where it all started:

Language policy in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Constitution of Ukraine, adopted by the Verkhovna Rada on 28 June 1996, states at article 10: "The state language of Ukraine is the Ukrainian language. The State ensures the comprehensive development and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social life throughout the entire territory of Ukraine. In Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed".[22]

So from 1996, Russian and other minority languages are guaranteed protection under the constitution. This is the policy independent Ukraine develops under.

In 2012 the Law on the Principles of the State Language Policy is enacted (same link as above), classifying Russian and numerous other languages as Regional languages. This allows areas with over 10% language speakers to do government business, appear in court etc. in those languages - a facility similar to what most countries have.

Post-Maidan in 2014, the law is repealed, though importantly:

Since then, various Ukrainian cities and regions have declared Russian a regional language in their jurisdictions, these being the municipalities of Odesa, Kharkiv, Kherson, Mykolaiv, Zaporizhia, Sevastopol, Dnipropetrovsk, Luhansk and Krasny Luch; and the Oblasts of Odesa, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Dnipropetrovsk.


Some familiar names in there, huh?

Europe was furious at the repeal of the law and that act's context within the emerging unrest - they harped on about this stuff for a long time and some of us followed it the whole way - from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe - the #1 EU agency which monitored the civil war from 2014 onwards:


Meanwhile, the decisions taken yesterday by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to cancel the 2012 law on the “Principles of the State Language Policy” could lead to further unrest, especially in a context where language policy is such a divisive issue. The High Commissioner urged the authorities to take measures to ensure that the concerns of all ethnic and linguistic groups are being taken into account. She encouraged the authorities to refrain from taking any hasty actions that could lead to further escalation.

“At this crucial time in its history, Ukraine needs leaders, laws and policies that unite rather than divide. Like my predecessors, I call on the Ukrainian authorities to adopt a balanced and inclusive approach towards language policy. The authorities have to consult widely to ensure that future language legislation accommodates the needs and positions of everyone in Ukrainian society, whether they are speakers of Ukrainian, Russian or other languages,” Thors said. Consultations should also encompass international organizations, including the Council of Europe and the OSCE, to ensure that any new language legislation meets European standards.

Restraint, responsibility and dialogue needed in Ukraine, including Crimea, says OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities

THE HAGUE, 24 February 2014 – OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Astrid Thors today expressed her satisfaction that solutions to end the violence and loss of life in Ukraine are emerging. However, she cautioned that the situation remains very fragile.

www.osce.org

None of the post-Maidan governments have included leaders who promoted laws and policies that united rather than divided and the language laws were very firmly a part of this attempt to divide - a fact no European countries disagreed with back at the time Ukraine was enacting them.

In 2019 Poroschenko was still at it and Zelensky endorsed the even harsher laws:

Language policy in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2019 Law on Protecting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language​

Signed by	Petro Poroshenko
Signed	15 May 2019
Effective	16 July 2019[95]
Bill title	5670-d, "On Protecting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language"
First reading	4 October 2018
Second reading	25 April 2019
Status: In force	The law "On Protecting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language" made the use of Ukrainian compulsory (totally or within certain quotas) in the work of some public authorities, in the electoral procedures and political campaigning, in pre-school, school and university education, in scientific, cultural and sporting activities, in book publishing and book distribution, in printed mass media, television and radio broadcasting, in economic and social life (commercial advertising, public events), in hospitals and nursing homes, and in the activities of political parties and other legal entities (e.g. non-governmental organizations) registered in Ukraine.[12] Some special exemptions are provided for the Crimean Tatar language, other languages of indigenous peoples of Ukraine, the English language and the other official languages of the European Union; as languages of minorities that are not EU official languages, Russian, Belarusian and Yiddish are excluded from the exemptions.[12]

Oh yes, they really did include Yiddish, I wonder why?

And again, how did Europe react?

Well, I could post a bunch of articles expressing their outrage, but to save length and time I'll skip ahead and just post the fact I expressed earlier - that in order to join the EU, Ukraine had to change its post-Maidan language laws, which as I quoted earlier, all of Europe found divisive and objectionable.

Language policy in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2023 changes to national minorities' rights​

On 8 December 2022, the Ukrainian parliament passed a bill that amend some laws on the rights of national minorities in light of the Council of Europe’s expert assessment and in order to meet one of the European Commission’s criteria for the opening of Ukrainian European Union membership negotiations.[14]


So the repeated introduction of divisive anti-minority language laws post-Maidan was only finally ended because Ukraine had to meet EU standards.

As repeatedly demonstrated, they'd really prefer not to meet those standards.

It's OK to be proud of your country, language etc., but the standard of civilised societies is that you also allow for minority languages to have a protected status and don't attempt to erase them in favour of only your national language.

You also don't go out of your way to make it hard or impossible for your citizens to do the basic communicating with government which is every person's human right.

This is simple, basic human decency stuff, isn't it?

Oh, and just to save some back and forth, are Wikipedia and the OCSE lying this time?

 

[Rayzorwire]

So, Russia invading Georgia in 2008 is better for global peace than sovereign nations joining NATO to protect themselves against Russia?

As the Estonian intelligence article and the ISW article I posted yesterday pointed out, NATO can't protect itself against Russia (beyond resorting to nukes of course) without a currently impossible massive US contribution.

And the former article also pointed out that none of the NATO nations are ordering replacement military hardware, ammunition etc, or even beginning to ramp up their own manufacturing capacities.

So it would seem that either they're insane/incompetent, or they're extremely confident that Putin has no intention of crossing into their borders any year soon.

Which do you think it is?

BTW, you might notice that the South Ossetia/Abkhazia situation that lead up to the Russo-Georgian War is quite similar to the Donbass/Luhansk one that lead to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Almost like they're out of the same playbook or something...

LOL, most certainly yes - but whose playbook?

 

[Rayzorwire]

Interesting you'd try to claim some sort of superior level of knowledge via age, then reference Gorbachev with admiration and the (false) "not one inch eastward (of Germany)" narrative, when the man himself said there was never such an agreement. It's fiction.

Seems we have yet another case of invisible links to provide actual evidence we can all evaluate again.

You blokes are so adept at hiding those links from us!

What on earth wasn't admirable about being the man most responsible for ending the Cold War?

 

[Smeg Head]

As the Estonian intelligence article and the ISW article I posted yesterday pointed out, NATO can't protect itself against Russia (beyond resorting to nukes of course) without a currently impossible massive US contribution.

And the former article also pointed out that none of the NATO nations are ordering replacement military hardware, ammunition etc, or even beginning to ramp up their own manufacturing capacities.

So it would seem that either they're insane/incompetent, or they're extremely confident that Putin has no intention of crossing into their borders any year soon.

Which do you think it is?




LOL, most certainly yes - but whose playbook?

2 nukes can wipe out 20% of Russia's population though, they are actually more vunerable to a Nuclear war than the US

 

[Rayzorwire]

Political option to do what exactly? If Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova join NATO, do you seriously think NATO is then going to invade Russia?

I think that if Ukraine joined NATO there would be missile bases in Ukraine in no time, just like there is in Poland.

Russia is not anywhere near as worried about NATO launching a land invasion (for obvious reasons) as they are having missiles able to hit their capital from so close it compromises their ability to guarantee they can effectively counteract them.

It's 5-6 minutes from the NATO base in Poland on Russia's border to strike Moscow. How close are they supposed to let NATO creep?

The Russian public has a very firm answer on that and who is leading the country is irrelevant to that avalanche of public sentiment.

Europe was heavily dependent on Russia oil & gas and was more than willing to have Western companies there and vice versa.

It was a good relationship for both sides.

Russia didn't choose to stop it and I think we can be fairly certain that Putin did not expect the EU to pursue sanctions to the extent where it has become a massive millstone around their neck which is literally breaking numerous economies and making serious poverty far more widespread throughout the union.

Russia was on the verge of completing the second Nordstream pipeline to supply even more gas to Europe, they've been investing heavily in the relationship and I'm sure they had hoped for it to continue indefinitely.

If war is justified if politics doesn't work, mean that NATO is justified to invade Russia if asking them nicely to leave doesn't work?

To clarify, I didn't say it was justified, I quoted a saying which is effectively a statement of the inevitable - when the politics ends, war begins.

NATO is not powerful enough to defend itself from, let alone invade Russia, as the ISW article from yesterday pointed out, so it's a rhetorical question really, isn't it? I guess they'd be welcome to try and maybe they would if the balance of forces was different.

They've certainly shown no hesitation to militarily interfere well outside their region when they think they can get away with it.

If not, why is one 'exhaustion of politics' valid and not another?

Never claimed it was valid if you re-read what I wrote.

Maybe it's just war for preservation of your own government isn't justified.

I agree, happening in Israel right now.

The reality is, if Russia left Ukraine (, Georgia and Moldova) tomorrow and they all joined the EU and NATO, Russia as a country would continue to exist.

Sure it would, but its citizens would live under the threat of NATO's missiles. Do you suppose they feel any different about missiles aimed at them than people in the West do? Nope, everybody hates it and wants to minimise the risk to themselves and their country.

Enough tens of millions of Russian soldiers have died resisting invasions from their neighbours to the West over the centuries that they're a bit sensitive about trusting that it will never happen again.

Putin may be rolled, but despite his thinking so, he's not Russia.

His approval ratings would suggest otherwise on both counts.

 

[Nothing]

Why?

Some pan Asian events in Asia are held in English, as it's the most common, common language. They aren't held in Mandarin.

The same way that in India, people from different regions of the country often have to converse in English.

No one in Asia, outside Chinese speaking regions is doing anything in Mandarin.

Most people in most Asian countries have at least a smattering of English skills and relatively few speak Mandarin at any level.

That China is becoming powerful doesn't mean that the conditions for Mandarin becoming a universal language have, or will, emerge.

Any way, waaay of topic.

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

Your response was more than my pithy comment deserved.

 

[CD Xbow]

As the old saying goes, wars start when politics become exhausted. Whether you or I agree or not, Putin felt he'd exhausted every single political option when he invaded. Unless we go back and examine what political options he did take, no common understanding can occur and peace is as far away as ever.

It's usually not an easy thing to define the genesis of a conflict, but in this case, I don't think it's difficult at all.

For those of us who are old enough to remember, there's a very strong case to say Gorbachev did more for the benefit of humanity than any other person who lived in the 20C. Prostrated himself before the West to the utter horror of most of his countrymen, inflicted economic and social chaos on them, brought the entire Soviet bloc to the verge of ruin.

The USSR could have bumbled along poorly for decades longer, maybe even had a revival despite having destroyed much of their credibility with their own people, but he realised something had to change and he had the power to do it.

There was such a wonderful feeling all around the world. The Cold War was over - the future was gonna be bright, prosperous and peaceful, surely?

So how did the West thank Gorbachev and Russia by extension?

We went from agreeing not to move NATO 'an inch east of Germany' to the era of Clinton enormous NATO expansion (to combat who and what exactly?), to now having a nuke capable missile base in Poland 100km from the Russian border and wanting to install more in Ukraine. The same Western Alliance who felt it was acceptable to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war over missiles in Cuba being too close to America, has zero qualms about doing the exact same thing to Russia except even closer and effectively saying - 'what are you gonna do about it?'

Putin tried to join NATO (naively thinking it could evolve to be something more than an entirely anti-Russian organisation now the USSR had fallen), he's made endless speeches publicly and privately about red lines and not militarising his borders or neighbours, leaving major powers to their own sphere of influence etc. - what good have any of his political attempts for different outcomes done?

Which political option hadn't he already exhausted?

The same bloke who got letters every other day from family members of the 14,000 people killed in the Donbass during Ukraine's 8yr civil war? A war we never used to hear about in the media because everything about it was murky and impossible to put into context for a Western audience without a half hour history lesson to begin.

These days our media have conveniently fixed the need for a history lesson by entirely removing all the Russian context from the sotry.

War is the worst of choices, but the West has gone in up to its neck for far less than what caused Putin to act.





And yet, every time he's been asked, since the outset of the conflict, Putin has said Russia is willing to sit down for peace talks.

When you ask Zelensky, he says, after we take back the Donbass and Crimea, we might think about it.

Is Putin really the sole impediment to peace?

Is Putin really the sole impediment to peace?

Yes, Putin is the sole impediment to peace. It's pretty straight forward, he started the war, he can stop it. If he never invaded there would be no war. No rational Russian leader would continue this slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Russians and devastation of their economy. Putin has to continue it to maintain his political position, history has not been kind to Tsars who loose wars.

'It's usually not an easy thing to define the genesis of a conflict, but in this case, I don't think it's difficult at all.'

I agree. The genesis of this conflict lies with Russian imperialism, a dictators ego and sick dreams of resurrecting a dead empire.

'The USSR could have bumbled along poorly for decades longer, maybe even had a revival despite having destroyed much of their credibility with their own people, but he realised something had to change and he had the power to do it.'

Absolute rubbish. A tiny crack in the wall and the USSR fell rapidly like a house of cards. The USSR was cooked.

Putin tried to join NATO (naively thinking it could evolve to be something more than an entirely anti-Russian organisation now the USSR had fallen)
Putin never seriously tried to join NATO. In 2000 he was said to have floated the idea and that's all it was. Even then he was documented as saying Russia shouldn't have to go through the usual approval process. If your not willing to go through the process then you are not serious about joining.

We went from agreeing not to move NATO 'an inch east of Germany' to the era of Clinton enormous NATO expansion (to combat who and what exactly?),
Not this one again. Mikhail Gorbachev himself, in an interview with claiming that "the question of "NATO expansion" was not discussed at all in those years and did not arise". Though it's pretty clear many Russians believe such assurances were given there seems to be a lack of any formal agreements or documentation. Rule #7 for a happy life, get it in writing.

 

[Smeg Head]

Is Putin really the sole impediment to peace?

Yes, Putin is the sole impediment to peace. It's pretty straight forward, he started the war, he can stop it. If he never invaded there would be no war. No rational Russian leader would continue this slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Russians and devastation of their economy. Putin has to continue it to maintain his political position, history has not been kind to Tsars who loose wars.

'It's usually not an easy thing to define the genesis of a conflict, but in this case, I don't think it's difficult at all.'

I agree. The genesis of this conflict lies with Russian imperialism, a dictators ego and sick dreams of resurrecting a dead empire.

'The USSR could have bumbled along poorly for decades longer, maybe even had a revival despite having destroyed much of their credibility with their own people, but he realised something had to change and he had the power to do it.'

Absolute rubbish. A tiny crack in the wall and the USSR fell rapidly like a house of cards. The USSR was cooked.

Putin tried to join NATO (naively thinking it could evolve to be something more than an entirely anti-Russian organisation now the USSR had fallen)
Putin never seriously tried to join NATO. In 2000 he was said to have floated the idea and that's all it was. Even then he was documented as saying Russia shouldn't have to go through the usual approval process. If your not willing to go through the process then you are not serious about joining.

We went from agreeing not to move NATO 'an inch east of Germany' to the era of Clinton enormous NATO expansion (to combat who and what exactly?),
Not this one again. Mikhail Gorbachev himself, in an interview with claiming that "the question of "NATO expansion" was not discussed at all in those years and did not arise". Though it's pretty clear many Russians believe such assurances were given there seems to be a lack of any formal agreements or documentation. Rule #7 for a happy life, get it in writing.

USSR asked to join way back too.

 

[Bloods86]

Seems we have yet another case of invisible links to provide actual evidence we can all evaluate again.

You blokes are so adept at hiding those links from us!

What on earth wasn't admirable about being the man most responsible for ending the Cold War?

I'm pointing out your inconsistency and you know it. If you admire him, why not believe him?

“The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

 

[Rayzorwire]

How do you square away what Russia has done on other regions? Grozny etc… I don’t disagree with a lot you wrote, anyone that thinks that “much Russia just wanted to kill Ukrainians” isn’t adding much. But I don’t think Putin is wholesome in his behaviour. He seems like a murderous power hungry dictator. Some good some bad.

What leader of a major power has ever been "wholesome?"

Even a supposed 'saint' like Ghandi, if you search for the threads you're after to utterly discredit him, pull hard enough and ignore what good he did, you'll reveal an absolute monster.

Netanyahu and Biden oversaw the killing of 20K civilians in what, the first month?

Does that make them 50X the 'monster' Putin is?

To put it another way, on another aspect Putin is often criticised over, Russia has a major demographic gap issue stemming from the years immediately after the USSR's collapse.

If you were the leader of Russia and your primary moral consideration is the ongoing prosperity and security of the country for the benefit of current and future citizens, do you go out of your way to encourage the kind of nuclear family relationships that steadily built Russia's population in the past, or do you gamble that the same levels of tolerance toward LGBT+ relationships we see in the West will prevent a serious demographic problem unfolding down the track?

In that context, is a degree of intolerance for one thing and an encouragement of another immoral?

They're not easy questions.

As to Putin being a dictator, it's often said, but Russian politics is every bit as complex and arguably more complex than US politics. Can we reduce the US system to a one word sentence we heard from a biased journalist, like maybe 'the US system switches dictator every four years, chosen from one of two possibilities who the vast majority of the population don't want as their next dictator.'

Would that be a fair summation of the breadth and depth of the US system?

I have no doubt Putin's done plenty of really bad things, I guess the only way to really measue his morality is to know his history really intimately and ask yourself each step of the way - 'what would I have done?'

It's always a very interesting exercise and a great way to deeper understanding of characters and scenarios.

 

[Bloods86]

It's 5-6 minutes from the NATO base in Poland on Russia's border to strike Moscow. How close are they supposed to let NATO creep?
...
His approval ratings would suggest otherwise on both counts.

Are you seriously trying these on? Absurd.

Maybe if Russia doesn't want NATO closer, they should stop invading countries to move closer to NATO, and giving reason for long-time abstentions like Finland and Sweden to join.

You're really bringing up approval ratings of an authoritarian leader who has state media control and kills, gaols or bans any meaningful political and social opposition?

 

[Bloods86]

What leader of a major power has ever been "wholesome?"

Even a supposed 'saint' like Ghandi, if you search for the threads you're after to utterly discredit him, pull hard enough and ignore what good he did, you'll reveal an absolute monster.

Netanyahu and Biden oversaw the killing of 20K civilians in what, the first month?

Does that make them 50X the 'monster' Putin is?

To put it another way, on another aspect Putin is often criticised over, Russia has a major demographic gap issue stemming from the years immediately after the USSR's collapse.

If you were the leader of Russia and your primary moral consideration is the ongoing prosperity and security of the country for the benefit of current and future citizens, do you go out of your way to encourage the kind of nuclear family relationships that steadily built Russia's population in the past, or do you gamble that the same levels of tolerance toward LGBT+ relationships we see in the West will prevent a serious demographic problem unfolding down the track?

In that context, is a degree of intolerance for one thing and an encouragement of another immoral?

They're not easy questions.

As to Putin being a dictator, it's often said, but Russian politics is every bit as complex and arguably more complex than US politics. Can we reduce the US system to a one word sentence we heard from a biased journalist, like maybe 'the US system switches dictator every four years, chosen from one of two possibilities who the vast majority of the population don't want as their next dictator.'

Would that be a fair summation of the breadth and depth of the US system?

I have no doubt Putin's done plenty of really bad things, I guess the only way to really measue his morality is to know his history really intimately and ask yourself each step of the way - 'what would I have done?'

It's always a very interesting exercise and a great way to deeper understanding of characters and scenarios.

If your "deeper understanding" is that the US is an authoritarian dictatorship in the same vein as modern Russia, you're not living in reality.

And yeah, it's an easy question about whether to stigmatise and persecute minority groups. Don't do it.

"Encouraging the nuclear family", good god, the framing is strong with this one.

 

[BlueE]

I'm pointing out your inconsistency and you know it. If you admire him, why not believe him?

“The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

From the declassified documents in the National Security Archive.

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

 

[Rayzorwire]

2 nukes can wipe out 20% of Russia's population though, they are actually more vunerable to a Nuclear war than the US

Precisely why I said "without resorting to nukes" - we don't wanna go there, do we?

Not this one again. Mikhail Gorbachev himself, in an interview with claiming that "the question of "NATO expansion" was not discussed at all in those years and did not arise". Though it's pretty clear many Russians believe such assurances were given there seems to be a lack of any formal agreements or documentation. Rule #7 for a happy life, get it in writing.

Mother of all pathetic excuses for re-militarising a continent all over again, IMO.

 

[Rayzorwire]

I'm pointing out your inconsistency and you know it. If you admire him, why not believe him?

No real reason to disbelieve him, but the fact remains that there are no shortage of other accounts from the time, from far more acceptable to you Western sources, who all say this promise was made. We both know that, do you really want me to link to them?

And beyond that, it's simple common sense any fool can appreciate that moving the boundary of Cold War tension and conflict from way over in Germany where Russia quite deliberately established it to keep itself safe and well out of range, to a stone's throw from Moscow, is going to cause tension and conflict all over again.

I remember being horrified reading of NATO's expansion way back in the 90's. 'WTF are they thinking? Why start it all up again?'

Russia has clearly said every step of the way that it's a red line to camp NATO on its borders. We just keep ignoring them.

He has also ignored the fact that Russia signed an agreement brokered by the US & UK for transfer of nuclear weapons & TU160 Blackjack bombers in exchange for Russia agreeing to defend Ukraine.

You seem to be blissfully unaware of the massive irony here - ALL signatories are supposed to defend Ukraine.

When exactly will the US and UK be putting boots on the ground to defend Ukraine?

As you say, that's exactly what is stated in the treaty...

 

[Rayzorwire]

If your "deeper understanding" is that the US is an authoritarian dictatorship in the same vein as modern Russia, you're not living in reality.

I was pointing out that it's just as easy to massively ridicule our political systems in a one sentence summary and say that our citizens get no real meaningful choice.

Am I wrong?

The majority of Americans don't want Trump OR Biden, but that's exactly who they're gonna get.

 

[EagleMan87]

As the Estonian intelligence article and the ISW article I posted yesterday pointed out, NATO can't protect itself against Russia (beyond resorting to nukes of course) without a currently impossible massive US contribution.

And the former article also pointed out that none of the NATO nations are ordering replacement military hardware, ammunition etc, or even beginning to ramp up their own manufacturing capacities.

So it would seem that either they're insane/incompetent, or they're extremely confident that Putin has no intention of crossing into their borders any year soon.

Which do you think it is?

So in answer to my question of 'which is better for global peace', you're saying that NATO is toothless and will likely not invade Russia? Meanwhile Russia has invaded three of its own neighbours since Putin took over.

LOL, most certainly yes - but whose playbook?

Using enclaves of your own people in other countries as a justification to invade. Hmmm, who else apart from Putin has done that in the last 100 years?

 

[Rayzorwire]

So in answer to my question of 'which is better for global peace', you're saying that NATO is toothless and will likely not invade Russia?

Well, part of being 'good for peace' in the sense that NATO wants to be, means you have to be a capable opponent, right?

It's not really that relevant whether I think NATO is toothless or not (I somehow doubt anyone here regards me as an expert on Western V Russian force projection - I certainly don't! ), I've given you the opinion of the head of the ISW, who states that they cannot defend themselves without massive, currently not available US assistance.

Honestly, Mutually Assured Destruction is still the best deterrent to outright global war, so yes, I guess in that sense you could say NATO's nukes are good for peace.

Using enclaves of your own people in other countries as a justification to invade.

I'm not gonna sidetrack things away from Ukraine, but out of curiosity, have you ever actually read a speech in full which Putin has made on any of these issues?

Because let me tell you, the raw, unedited transcript gives very different context (endless context in Putin's case) to what a three line take from a Western journalist, or another in the endless line of in depth Putin attack pieces will.

You may find yourself surprised.

 

[Bloods86]

From the declassified documents in the National Security Archive.

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

I read part of this, it all seems to be hedging around the topic of assurances, referring to the opinion of western leaders about what should happen or what the Soviets might not like, or "joining the dots" between conversations with several parties.

If there's something as definitive, in opposition, as Gorbachev himself saying that the assurances he got were to do with East Germany, not general eastward expansion of NATO, and that he considered the assurances that were made fulfilled, perhaps you could point me to that section.

 

[Bloods86]

No real reason to disbelieve him, but the fact remains that there are no shortage of other accounts from the time, from far more acceptable to you Western sources, who all say this promise was made. We both know that, do you really want me to link to them?

And beyond that, it's simple common sense any fool can appreciate that moving the boundary of Cold War tension and conflict from way over in Germany where Russia quite deliberately established it to keep itself safe and well out of range, to a stone's throw from Moscow, is going to cause tension and conflict all over again.

I remember being horrified reading of NATO's expansion way back in the 90's. 'WTF are they thinking? Why start it all up again?'

Russia has clearly said every step of the way that it's a red line to camp NATO on its borders. We just keep ignoring them.





You seem to be blissfully unaware of the massive irony here - ALL signatories are supposed to defend Ukraine.

When exactly will the US and UK be putting boots on the ground to defend Ukraine?

As you say, that's exactly what is stated in the treaty...

Don't run from Gorbachev now.

If Russia had NATO proximity as a red line or major concern, they would not actively seek to move closer to NATOs borders. Based on their actions to move closer to NATO, and provoke others into joining, we can dismiss those protestations as propaganda for the gullible.

 

[Bloods86]

I was pointing out that it's just as easy to massively ridicule our political systems in a one sentence summary and say that our citizens get no real meaningful choice.

Am I wrong?

The majority of Americans don't want Trump OR Biden, but that's exactly who they're gonna get.

Easy, sure, but it'd be dishonest.

Yes, you can focus on one particular set of candidates, one of whom at least has to go through a primary process, that are unpopular in the current cycle, and pretend that's the sum of the US political system (which admittedly has significant flaws, but it's certainly no Russia).

 

[Chief]

Russia has clearly said every step of the way that it's a red line to camp NATO on its borders. We just keep ignoring them.

So there are no NATO countries bordering Russia?