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.

 

[Chief]

I can see why your charm wins people over

 

[Sir_Loin]

I can see why your charm wins people over

I’m an acquired taste Chef

 

[BlueE]

What don't you like about the peace plan, it would bring peace

You want Ukraine to hand over some women and children to be tortured and r*ped to keep the Russian army busy?

Now I know why that two year old tantrum .gif suits you.

 

[Zidane98]

Now I know why that two year old tantrum .gif suits you.

What's wrong with the peace plan of Putin withdrawing from territory that he agreed in writing is Ukranian and not attacking Ukraine with military hardware that was transferred to Ukraine under the Budapest agreement?


Russia withdrawing completely from Ukraine would result in instant peace for all. What is the problem with this peace plan? Please enlighten us.


Yet Putin chooses to continue to pursue his ambitions of creating USSR 2.0 lite at the expense of his people.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

You mean in response to "this generous and realistic "peace plan" Zelensky brought with him to Davos"?



LOL.

Why does your avatar remind me of this gif?

https://media.giphy.com/media/s4T64Kx2p0fhm/giphy.jpg

1. Withdrawal from occupied territory
2. Reparation for damages inflicted
3. Prosecution for war crimes.

I would think that those three caveats mentioned are entirely reasonable to an objective eye.

 

[Cap]

Now I know why that two year old tantrum .gif suits you.

I mean, can you answer question or do you need to deflect.

What's the problem with the peace plan?

 

[Bloods86]

It's not "hedging", with a trove of declassified security documents that show in detail multiple security assurances against NATO expansion were given to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Khol, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major and Warner.

However the "hedging" could apply to how the West then treated these assurances.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3]

This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.

The “Tutzing formula” immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east.

The Soviets would need much more time to work with their domestic opinion (and financial aid from the West Germans) before formally signing the deal in September 1990.

The conversations before Kohl’s assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries, and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” (See Document 2)

Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev.

Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)

Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8)

Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” (See Document 9)

The Brookings link you've given is three years before these security documents were declassified and collated for the National Security Archives and can be expected to put their own biases on the reporting with Gorbachev perhaps saving face for not getting the assurances in a written agreement. Further quotes from the same interview he says

Gorbachev: "Everything that could and should be done to consolidate this political commitment has been done. And done. The final settlement agreement with Germany states that no new military structures will be created in the eastern part of the country, no additional troops will be deployed, and no weapons of mass destruction will be stationed. This has been observed all these years.

So there is no need to portray Gorbachev and the then Soviet leadership as naive people who were fooled. If there was naivety, then later, when this question arose, and Russia at first “did not object.”

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."

You've just highlighted the parts I was already referring to. I.e. "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."

There is nothing in there that comes close to being as definitive or explicit as Gorbachev's statement that I've quoted.

Even your latter quote refers to the "violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances that were given to us". The "spirit", not literal assurances that NATO would never move eastward. Gorbachev can think NATO expasion was a mistake, sure, but that isn't what is being claimed.

Anyway, I don't even really care. NATO expansion, even if there were assurances against it, is not a legitimate reason for Russia to invade its neighbours. I get that's one of the reasons provided, but we all know it's absurd, and Russia is actively making their concerns worse, if it is even a concern (it's not really, it just forms a useful narrative).

The "not eastward" claim is also odd in the literal sense, if it wasn't talking about East Germany specifically, given Norway and Turkey were already members.

 

[jatz14]

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?

You quote nice articles.

Quote the one talking about the French military industrial complex going into a war footing.

Quote the one about the Baltic states putting minefields along their whole Russian border.

Quote Germany injecting massive amounts of new funds into its military after years of being comfortable with their military decline.

For decades, Finland decided the best way to stay out of a conflict with the USSR was to stay out of NATO. But now, in the days of imperial Russia, it couldn't join NATO fast enough. Why? Why is Finlands assessment that being neutral is now less safe than being in Nato?

Why would they think a neutral Finland is more likely to be attacked?

European defence agency reports the largest ever growth in military budgets, and that's after 6 years of growth.

How does that fit with your theory? The only threat to most European NATO countries is Russia, and not only has military expenditure been rising, it's now rising faster, but they aren't worried about Russia. Cool.

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

 

[Bloods86]

You mean in response to "this generous and realistic "peace plan" Zelensky brought with him to Davos"?



LOL.

Why does your avatar remind me of this gif?

https://media.giphy.com/media/s4T64Kx2p0fhm/giphy.jpg

That Greenwald and others don't frame this as the right and just outcome, but one that just isn't realistic at this time, shows how much their minds/integrity are warped these days.

 

[EagleMan87]

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.

Ok, so once again; Russia is the likely aggressor in any conflict with NATO. Glad we got that cleared up.

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.

I'm sure there are politicians and lawyers out there who could justify any transgression and make a whole lot of sense doing so.

Hell, I remember the West justifying their invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and didn't buy those.
I don't buy China's justification for invading Taiwan.
And I don't buy the justifications for Russia invading its neighbours.

 

[jatz14]

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.

The entire reason China props up NK is to have a buffer state between them and the Democratic South. It's why buffer states are called buffer states.

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

 

[jatz14]

You mean in response to "this generous and realistic "peace plan" Zelensky brought with him to Davos"?



LOL.

Why does your avatar remind me of this gif?

https://media.giphy.com/media/s4T64Kx2p0fhm/giphy.jpg

****ing Ukrainians. Want the invader to leave. Want the people that destroyed the country to help pay for it.

Morons, the only logical route to peace is to reward the aggressor for his aggression, cross your fingers, hope he doesn't do it again.

Like, if a guy is raping your wife, the best way to deescalate is to get him a beer, and wipe his dick when he is done.

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

 

[Visions]

You mean in response to "this generous and realistic "peace plan" Zelensky brought with him to Davos"?



LOL.

Why does your avatar remind me of this gif?

https://media.giphy.com/media/s4T64Kx2p0fhm/giphy.jpg

The horror that a sovereign nation wants a plan that reclaims their internationally recognised borders and repatriations from an illegal invasion from a bordering country that has destroyed the lives and assets of millions of their own citizens!

My lord, the amount of people on this board who are as deluded as Putin himself is astonishing.

 

[Baldur]

Look at the weather map, 5mins in. This time General Winter is not helping Russia.

 

[Jello_B]

1. Withdrawal from occupied territory
2. Reparation for damages inflicted
3. Prosecution for war crimes.

I would think that those three caveats mentioned are entirely reasonable to an objective eye.

Yer but that ain’t going to happen so something more realistic needs to be developed to stop the war, or elect to keep fighting. It’s a waste of time.
You can’t go into a negotiation with your anchor being “I’ll pay you $10 for that Porsche 911”.

 

[Andre]

You mean in response to "this generous and realistic "peace plan" Zelensky brought with him to Davos"?



LOL.

Why does your avatar remind me of this gif?

https://media.giphy.com/media/s4T64Kx2p0fhm/giphy.jpg

Yes, Zelensky has completely missed how negotiations are done. The starting point should have been all this, plus Vyborg returned to Finland, Kalingrad to Germany, the Kuril islands to Japan and a public apology to Poland for dividing it up with the Nazis, then negotiate down to just what he's asked for.

Actually screw that, all the above should be what the West and Ukraine demand from Russia.

 

[BlueE]

You've just highlighted the parts I was already referring to. I.e. "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."

There is nothing in there that comes close to being as definitive or explicit as Gorbachev's statement that I've quoted.

Even your latter quote refers to the "violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances that were given to us". The "spirit", not literal assurances that NATO would never move eastward. Gorbachev can think NATO expasion was a mistake, sure, but that isn't what is being claimed.

Anyway, I don't even really care. NATO expansion, even if there were assurances against it, is not a legitimate reason for Russia to invade its neighbours. I get that's one of the reasons provided, but we all know it's absurd, and Russia is actively making their concerns worse, if it is even a concern (it's not really, it just forms a useful narrative).

The "not eastward" claim is also odd in the literal sense, if it wasn't talking about East Germany specifically, given Norway and Turkey were already members.

Not sure how declassified documents that show the Soviets were promised multiple times can be called hedging and not sure where you got those direct quotes from? “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Three times Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” "Genscher made clear ... NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

The documents finally, and authoritatively, reveal that, “the truth, and the promises broken, are much more expansive than previously known: all of the Western powers involved — the US, the UK, France, Germany itself — made the same promise to Gorbachev on multiple occasions and in various emphatic ways.”

Putin sets a new red line on NATO expansion

Since its assurances not to move "one inch" outside Germany, the alliance as moved 600 miles closer to Russia.

responsiblestatecraft.org

Gorbachev in the same article quoted by Brookings, was very aware of being criticised for only getting the written promises on Germany, talking about how quickly the unification of Germany occurred and sought to pass on blame for being naive and fooled into believing western promises.

Gorbachev: "So there is no need to portray Gorbachev and the then Soviet leadership as naive people who were fooled. If there was naivety, then later, when this question arose, and Russia at first “did not object.” ...

"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.""

Not sure how it's odd "that NATO should rule out an expansion of it's territory (including Turkey or Norway) to the East, that is, moving it closer to Soviet borders".

 

[wannabejack]

Yer but that ain’t going to happen so something more realistic needs to be developed to stop the war, or elect to keep fighting. It’s a waste of time.
You can’t go into a negotiation with your anchor being “I’ll pay you $10 for that Porsche 911”.

Should you pay a thief anything for the Porsche he stole from you.

 

[BlueE]

That Greenwald and others don't frame this as the right and just outcome, but one that just isn't realistic at this time, shows how much their minds/integrity are warped these days.

What is and isn't realistic in this thread is ironic, because this is a thread with posters who's beliefs or opinions that agree with their own are reinforced are supported and alternative ideas not considered, leading to a very warped view.

It's Greenwald and others who have been consistently presenting an independent opinion from the start, highlighting peace talks from 2015 on, that Putin had agreed to support Ukraine neutral and the Donbass areas independent with security guarantees from Europe as long as Ukraine did not join NATO. Those ones that Ukraine had no intention of signing and Germany indicted they were only using them to stall.

Then wrote about the March 2022 peace agreements, (one month after the war started) on the same terms as above that Ukraine had agreed to, but quickly pulled out of after UK and US intervention.

You need to read some more of Razor's posts to perhaps understand the irony in Greenwald's posts.

 

[jatz14]

Yer but that ain’t going to happen so something more realistic needs to be developed to stop the war, or elect to keep fighting. It’s a waste of time.
You can’t go into a negotiation with your anchor being “I’ll pay you $10 for that Porsche 911”.

You also cannot go into a negotiation with your anchor being, Keep that Porsche you stole from me, don't steal any more, pretty please.

Because the guy who stole it in the first place WILL, steal more, and promises not to are worthless.

You can break Ukraine's objectives down into 2 things.

Reclaim as much that was taken as possible. This isn't just a fanciful wish either. Russia wants to leave Ukraine so little it fails as an independent state and is forced into Russia's orbit. It's why they wanted the coast. Ukraine cannot allow this, and if they have to fight on for this, they will.

The second is, make Russia consider the whole exercise a mistake. Make them pay a hundred dollars for every 10 dollars of dirt they gain.

Make Putin wish he hadn't done it in the first place. Because if he regrets it and considers it a mistake, he is likely not to want to repeat it.

If Putin gets a negotiated deal that lets him think, I've done it, it was all worth it. Then this will all happen again, and Ukraine knows this.

So, it's simple. A negotiated deal that lets Russia consider it achieved a victory, and which lets it control territory in Ukraine from which to threaten the rest of Ukraine, is a bad deal for Ukraine. Your saving 1 life today, in order to lose 2 tomorrow.

From Ukraine's perspective, better to keep fighting and dying now while Russia is weakened, than fight and die in 10 years after they rebuild their military, and fix their mistakes.

We get a negotiated deal when Russia needs the deal more than Ukraine, and Ukraine will not meaningfully negotiate until then.

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

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

What is and isn't realistic in this thread is ironic, because this is a thread with posters who's beliefs or opinions that agree with their own are reinforced are supported and alternative ideas not considered, leading to a very warped view.

It's Greenwald and others who have been consistently presenting an independent opinion from the start, highlighting peace talks from 2015 on, that Putin had agreed to support Ukraine neutral and the Donbass areas independent with security guarantees from Europe as long as Ukraine did not join NATO. Those ones that Ukraine had no intention of signing and Germany indicted they were only using them to stall.

Then wrote about the March 2022 peace agreements, (one month after the war started) on the same terms as above that Ukraine had agreed to, but quickly pulled out of after UK and US intervention.

You need to read some more of Razor's posts to perhaps understand the irony in Greenwald's posts.

I think some people just realise Putin is a liar and expansionist so all this other crap is just that. Had Putin only invaded the Donbas region then I could understand some arguments. He didn’t though, he marched on Kiev and thankfully was defeated.

 

[jatz14]

What is and isn't realistic in this thread is ironic, because this is a thread with posters who's beliefs or opinions that agree with their own are reinforced are supported and alternative ideas not considered, leading to a very warped view.

It's Greenwald and others who have been consistently presenting an independent opinion from the start, highlighting peace talks from 2015 on, that Putin had agreed to support Ukraine neutral and the Donbass areas independent with security guarantees from Europe as long as Ukraine did not join NATO. Those ones that Ukraine had no intention of signing and Germany indicted they were only using them to stall.

Then wrote about the March 2022 peace agreements, (one month after the war started) on the same terms as above that Ukraine had agreed to, but quickly pulled out of after UK and US intervention.

You need to read some more of Razor's posts to perhaps understand the irony in Greenwald's posts.

Ukraine had no intention of signing because they didn't believe him.

Europe doesn't need Russia's permission to offer guarantees to Ukraine, and guarantees from Europe outside of NATO don't mean much. It was a meaningless concession.

The bit with the bite is, NATO to stay out of Ukraine.

Like the wolf offering the deal where the sheep agrees to stay away from the shepherd.

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

 

[Bloods86]

Not sure how declassified documents that show the Soviets were promised multiple times can be called hedging and not sure where you got those direct quotes from? “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Three times Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” "Genscher made clear ... NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

The documents finally, and authoritatively, reveal that, “the truth, and the promises broken, are much more expansive than previously known: all of the Western powers involved — the US, the UK, France, Germany itself — made the same promise to Gorbachev on multiple occasions and in various emphatic ways.”

Putin sets a new red line on NATO expansion

Since its assurances not to move "one inch" outside Germany, the alliance as moved 600 miles closer to Russia.

responsiblestatecraft.org

Gorbachev in the same article quoted by Brookings, was very aware of being criticised for only getting the written promises on Germany, talking about how quickly the unification of Germany occurred and sought to pass on blame for being naive and fooled into believing western promises.

Gorbachev: "So there is no need to portray Gorbachev and the then Soviet leadership as naive people who were fooled. If there was naivety, then later, when this question arose, and Russia at first “did not object.” ...

"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.""

Not sure how it's odd "that NATO should rule out an expansion of it's territory (including Turkey or Norway) to the East, that is, moving it closer to Soviet borders".

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.

 

[Bloods86]

What is and isn't realistic in this thread is ironic, because this is a thread with posters who's beliefs or opinions that agree with their own are reinforced are supported and alternative ideas not considered, leading to a very warped view.

It's Greenwald and others who have been consistently presenting an independent opinion from the start, highlighting peace talks from 2015 on, that Putin had agreed to support Ukraine neutral and the Donbass areas independent with security guarantees from Europe as long as Ukraine did not join NATO. Those ones that Ukraine had no intention of signing and Germany indicted they were only using them to stall.

Then wrote about the March 2022 peace agreements, (one month after the war started) on the same terms as above that Ukraine had agreed to, but quickly pulled out of after UK and US intervention.

You need to read some more of Razor's posts to perhaps understand the irony in Greenwald's posts.

If you think Greenwald is "independent" for going along with a proposal for Ukraine to allow itself to be dictated to by its invader, and cede its own territory to its invader, then you may want to go look up the word in a dictionary.

Are people still trying out the "Boris Johnson sabotaged a finalised peace deal" nonsense? There were several rounds of talks in 2022, Russia had rebuffed Ukrainian requests for presidential level negotiations until agreements were more advanced, and Johnson's visit coincided with recent news about Russia's war crimes e.g. in Bucha. That couldn't possibly have influenced Ukraine's impression of how genuine Russia was being... But hey, no need for honesty I guess.

I like how you're presenting Ukraine as being underhanded here, not Russia, who promised they weren't invading (after denying their previous invasions), then did it again.

 

[Rayzorwire]

So there are no NATO countries bordering Russia?

Of course there are, but in the past (speaking since the fall of the USSR), NATO itself has self-imposed and mutually agreed to limitations on how much they can be militarised.

For Russia, the Polish bases were a crossing of the red line and the ambition to install bases in Ukraine is even more so.

If you lived in Moscow, how close would be too close for a nuke capable missile facility?