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.

 

[Bloods86]

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

Hungary's leadership is pro Russia sure, because they've tried to stamp out democracy, and see Putin as a figure to admire.

Turkey has similar authoritarian themes, but has specific issues with Sweden that are a key factor there.

 

[Jello_B]

I read it as coming out of hope that sanctions are having effect with deteriorating infrastructure.

Edit and saw your other post re someone dodging a missile was that recent (after may 22) or during the Russian false flag/ overreaction to change of language in eastern provinces of Ukraine?

Sorry I’m not 100% sure what you mean. It was a family member a couple of months ago.

 

[wannabejack]

What Putin Fears Most | Journal of Democracy

Forget his excuses. Russia’s autocrat doesn’t worry about NATO. What terrifies him is the prospect of a flourishing Ukrainian democracy.

www.journalofdemocracy.org

When NATO announced in 2002 its plan for a major (and last big) wave of expansion that would include three former Soviet republics—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—Putin barely reacted. He certainly did not threaten to invade any of the countries to keep them out of NATO. Asked specifically in late 2001 whether he opposed the Baltic states’ membership in NATO, he stated, “We of course are not in a position to tell people what to do. We cannot forbid people to make certain choices if they want to increase the security of their nations in a particular way.”7

Putin even maintained the same attitude when it was a question of Ukraine someday entering the Atlantic Alliance. In May 2002, when asked for his views on the future of Ukraine’s relations with NATO, Putin dispassionately replied,
I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day, the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.

A decade later, under President Medvedev, Russia and NATO were cooperating once again. At the 2010 NATO summit in Lisbon, Medvedev declared,
The period of distance in our relations and claims against each other is over now. We view the future with optimism and will work on developing relations between Russia and NATO in all areas . . . [as they progress toward] a full-fledged partnership.
At that summit, he even floated the possibility of Russia-NATO cooperation on missile defense. Complaints about NATO expansion never arose.

From the end of the Cold War until Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, NATO in Europe was drawing down resources and forces, not building them up. Even while expanding membership, NATO’s military capacity in Europe was much greater in the 1990s than in the 2000s. During this same period, Putin was spending significant resources to modernize and expand Russia’s conventional forces deployed in Europe. The balance of power between NATO and Russia was shifting in favor of Moscow.

These episodes of substantive Russia-NATO cooperation undermine the argument that NATO expansion has always and continuously been the driver of Russia’s confrontation with the West during the last three decades. The historical record simply does not support the thesis that an expanding NATO bears sole blame for Russian antagonism with the West and Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine since 2014. Rather, we must look elsewhere to understand the genuine source of Putin’s hostility to Ukraine and its Western partners.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Sorry I’m not 100% sure what you mean. It was a family member a couple of months ago.

Recent then. To clarify my question it was whether a missile was fired on them during the fake war phase before 2014 (when Ukraine did the language change and Russia got twisty knickers and overreacted)

 

[Mobbs]

40 more Scalp (basically Storm Shadow) missiles coming to Ukraine from France.

 

[CD Xbow]

40 more Scalp (basically Storm Shadow) missiles coming to Ukraine from France.

.......and the miserable Germans refuses to send their equivalent (Taurus). OT but I just sore this report that Pakistan has attacked 7 sites within Iran.
Seven people killed as Pakistan launches retaliatory air strikes against Iran
I thought it was pretty gutsy of Iran to target Pakistan in the first place, it is after all a nuclear power. The world does seem to have hit a period on increased turbulence of late. I suspect much of it has been done with Russian encouragement.

 

[Sir_Loin]

.......and the miserable Germans refuses to send their equivalent (Taurus). OT but I just sore this report that Pakistan has attacked 7 sites within Iran.
Seven people killed as Pakistan launches retaliatory air strikes against Iran
I thought it was pretty gutsy of Iran to target Pakistan in the first place, it is after all a nuclear power. The world does seem to have hit a period on increased turbulence of late. I suspect much of it has been done with Russian encouragement.

Listening to the Telegraphs Ukraine podcast there’s a big difference in donating equipment through the EU compared to doing it unilaterally.

Didn’t quite get the numbers but if you do it through the EU you can balance the books better than if you did it on your own. Rayzorwire can probably set it straight (sincerely).

 

[Zidane98]

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

Next they'll be celebrating Trump being a deluded vatnik as a win for Putin.

 

[Rayzorwire]

You've watched it more closely than I have, no doubt, but I can't see any point at which Putin has used peace talks or treaties as anything but breathing room to gather strength for his next attack.

From Putin and Russia's perspective, that's exactly what Ukraine and NATO did to them by multiplying the size of Ukraine's army significantly between 2014 and the outbreak of the war, heavily integrating NATO equipment and training, all the while increasing its military production, spending enormously on hardware and accepting a gigantic increase in foreign military aid.

Merkel admitted in her De Spiegel interview last year that Germany and France only co-signed both Minsk treaties to allow Ukraine time to build up its military, so it could 'defend' against Russia. That admission was an enormous own goal, IMO, in terms of each sides' legitimacy and legal justifications for their actions and something which nobody had heard said on the public record before (though long suspected).

IMO, it's important to recognise that Ukraine's army had only about 20% of the capability (not just hardware, training and morale were massive issues) back in 2014 compared to what it did before Russia invaded in 2022 (and then it got another massive boost in capacity from the US and NATO).

So by the time Russia actually faced them in the field of battle in the first months of the war, I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say Ukraine had 20X the capability they had back in 2014, plus the Donbass had become literally the most fortified place on earth.

Multiply that added capability several times over again when you throw in access to Western intelligence and communications systems.

Putin could have seized a massive chunk of Ukraine in 2014 when he captured Crimea. Instead, he settled for reversing Ukraine's seizure of independent Crimea and co-signing the Minsk peace treaties twice. He limited support for the Donbass breakaway republics to allowing mercenaries to operate and providing limited equipment and support.

Numerous times during the civil war, the only thing which stopped Ukraine having the better balance of forces and recapturing more or all of the Donbass, was the fact that significant parts of the army crossed sides and stole as much equipment as they could in the process. If Russia had intervened in any more significant way during say the first half of the civil war when Ukraine was far weaker, that also would have tipped the balance of forces and Ukraine would have lost.

So I think there really is a decent case (and Russia certainly sees it that way), to say that Putin did actually want peace and a settled border when he signed the Minsk treaties and largely stayed out of the civil war.

The 'land grabbing maniac' perspective doesn't really hold very much water, IMO, after you also take into account that he could have taken far more territory, far more easily, straight after he seized Crimea in 2014 when the West was on the hop about how to collectively respond, while Ukraine was also caught by surprise and literally unable to effectively militarily respond.

So, fight now or fight later, Putin will go to war to take what he wants to build his empire.

Prior to this conflict, as far as I'm aware, Putin hasn't actually said that he wants to expand Russia in any significant way in any direct, accurate quote - and I have looked high and low (I'd love for anyone to provide one). The 'quote' which Western sources use to claim he did say he 'regrets losing the USSR' (which apparently therefore means he must want an empire back again!), was from the following 2005 speech to a domestic audience:


"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself."


That is the Russian translation, which for Western citizens, a copy of which may as well be on the moon if you try and find it in a search engine, while accessing it direct from the Kremlin is problematic for obvious reasons.

Our Western press translated his words quite differently:

The Associated Press translation is a little different, subbing "catastrophe" for "disaster," and calling the breakup the "greateast geopolitical catastrophe of the century."

Did Vladimir Putin call the breakup of the USSR 'the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century?'

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s handling of the uprising in Ukraine is not surprising if you look at telling comments

www.politifact.com

So for starters, as far as anyone Russian is concerned, most especially Putin, he never said "the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." For whatever reason, our Western media decided to translate him that way (I guess they could argue that they speak better Russian than the Russians!).

What he actually said is really very different - and this is a long way from being an isolated case of...shall we call it 'lost in translation?'

Then, best I can tell, a whole other layer of spin was added by the Bush era Washington hawks, where, seeing it was "the greatest disaster ever", then surely every waking minute of Putin's bloody rule must be spent scheming to get his 'empire' back.

It's stuck ever since and I mean really - look at the original source.

Honestly mate, with stuff like this, the Russians do genuinely think we're off our collective rockers. I only check out second-hand reports now and then from bi-lingual sources who monitor Russian media, but we do kinda hand them their propaganda on a platter and it's little wonder they really do think our leaders are nuts.

Just like we think theirs are.

What is better for Ukrainians? Merge with Russia or orient more towards the West?

Pre-2014 I would have said Russia for sure.

Modern Ukraine was built with a massive advantage only the Soviet nations had - access to cost price oil, uranium, coal, gas, minerals, construction materials etc., whereas in the West, even the US had to buy and contruct much of their civil infrastructure at the cost of privatised capitalism. Not all, but a sizeable chunk of those resources are within Russian territory. So in effect, Russia subsidised the building of the entire Soviet Union, Ukraine included.

Ukraine has no sizeable, easily expoitable resources in the way Russia does, so it has always made the most sense for Ukraine - a country with a very energy dependent export sector - to have close ties and a sweetheart resources deal with Russia.

Beyond that, like many ex-soviet countries, very little of Ukraine's manufacturing standards (back in 2014 or now) meet EU requirements, so where is the market for Ukraine's products? In the ex-soviet bloc - at least until that changes, which takes a decade or two, maybe even more.

IMO, this was the primary reason Yanukovych turned away from the EU negotiations in 2014 - Russia said they would have to put in a hard border and tarriffs so cheap EU goods didn't crush the Russian market. That would have effectively bankrupted Ukraine down the track with the loss of export revenues and increase in import costs alone, let alone the administrative burden (it's a massive border to monitor as we know).

So between energy (now largely brought from half a world away at many times the cost) and the basics of economic needs, it has really never made sense for Ukraine not to work in closer partnership with Russia than any other neighbour or prospective ally. Not to mention all the cultural ties and shared history (certainly not all good, but a long way from all bad as many former USSR citizens felt in common that they were ALL the victims of Soviet government more than victims of the Russian people themselves)

Post-2014, I can't imagine things will heal for a generation on the Ukranian side, if ever.

So Ukraine's future is undoubtedly with the West.

I think the best thing for Ukranians would have been the best economic thing - close ties with Russia and no hard border. I don't see a realistic way for them to economically prosper in the future otherwise and I doubt how much the West (where elections bring change every 3-5yrs) can genuinely promise to heavily subsidise them indefinitely (though some 'aid' is in the form of repayable loans)

If Ukraine really wanted EU membership so much back in 2014 (and I think a majority of Ukranians genuinely did for genuinely laudable reasons), it was obvious to anyone on top of all the relevant facts that it was going to take years of negotiations between Ukraine, Russia and the EU to make it even remotely fair and workable for all parties - after all, it would have been a massive economic and societal change for all three parties which absolutely dwarfed Brexit.

 

[Jello_B]

From Putin and Russia's perspective, that's exactly what Ukraine and NATO did to them by multiplying the size of Ukraine's army significantly between 2014 and the outbreak of the war, heavily integrating NATO equipment and training, all the while increasing its military production, spending enormously on hardware and accepting a gigantic increase in foreign military aid.

Merkel admitted in her De Spiegel interview last year that Germany and France only co-signed both Minsk treaties to allow Ukraine time to build up its military, so it could 'defend' against Russia. That admission was an enormous own goal, IMO, in terms of each sides' legitimacy and legal justifications for their actions and something which nobody had heard said on the public record before (though long suspected).

IMO, it's important to recognise that Ukraine's army had only about 20% of the capability (not just hardware, training and morale were massive issues) back in 2014 compared to what it did before Russia invaded in 2022 (and then it got another massive boost in capacity from the US and NATO).

So by the time Russia actually faced them in the field of battle in the first months of the war, I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say Ukraine had 20X the capability they had back in 2014, plus the Donbass had become literally the most fortified place on earth.

Multiply that added capability several times over again when you throw in access to Western intelligence and communications systems.

Putin could have seized a massive chunk of Ukraine in 2014 when he captured Crimea. Instead, he settled for reversing Ukraine's seizure of independent Crimea and co-signing the Minsk peace treaties twice. He limited support for the Donbass breakaway republics to allowing mercenaries to operate and providing limited equipment and support.

Numerous times during the civil war, the only thing which stopped Ukraine having the better balance of forces and recapturing more or all of the Donbass, was the fact that significant parts of the army crossed sides and stole as much equipment as they could in the process. If Russia had intervened in any more significant way during say the first half of the civil war when Ukraine was far weaker, that also would have tipped the balance of forces and Ukraine would have lost.

So I think there really is a decent case (and Russia certainly sees it that way), to say that Putin did actually want peace and a settled border when he signed the Minsk treaties and largely stayed out of the civil war.

The 'land grabbing maniac' perspective doesn't really hold very much water, IMO, after you also take into account that he could have taken far more territory, far more easily, straight after he seized Crimea in 2014 when the West was on the hop about how to collectively respond, while Ukraine was also caught by surprise and literally unable to effectively militarily respond.





Prior to this conflict, as far as I'm aware, Putin hasn't actually said that he wants to expand Russia in any significant way in any direct, accurate quote - and I have looked high and low (I'd love for anyone to provide one). The 'quote' which Western sources use to claim he did say he 'regrets losing the USSR' (which apparently therefore means he must want an empire back again!), was from the following 2005 speech to a domestic audience:


"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself."


That is the Russian translation, which for Western citizens, a copy of which may as well be on the moon if you try and find it in a search engine, while accessing it direct from the Kremlin is problematic for obvious reasons.

Our Western press translated his words quite differently:

The Associated Press translation is a little different, subbing "catastrophe" for "disaster," and calling the breakup the "greateast geopolitical catastrophe of the century."

Did Vladimir Putin call the breakup of the USSR 'the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century?'

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s handling of the uprising in Ukraine is not surprising if you look at telling comments

www.politifact.com

So for starters, as far as anyone Russian is concerned, most especially Putin, he never said "the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." For whatever reason, our Western media decided to translate him that way (I guess they could argue that they speak better Russian than the Russians!).

What he actually said is really very different - and this is a long way from being an isolated case of...shall we call it 'lost in translation?'

Then, best I can tell, a whole other layer of spin was added by the Bush era Washington hawks, where, seeing it was "the greatest disaster ever", then surely every waking minute of Putin's bloody rule must be spent scheming to get his 'empire' back.

It's stuck ever since and I mean really - look at the original source.

Honestly mate, with stuff like this, the Russians do genuinely think we're off our collective rockers. I only check out second-hand reports now and then from bi-lingual sources who monitor Russian media, but we do kinda hand them their propaganda on a platter and it's little wonder they really do think our leaders are nuts.

Just like we think theirs are.





Pre-2014 I would have said Russia for sure.

Modern Ukraine was built with a massive advantage only the Soviet nations had - access to cost price oil, uranium, coal, gas, minerals, construction materials etc., whereas in the West, even the US had to buy and contruct much of their civil infrastructure at the cost of privatised capitalism. Not all, but a sizeable chunk of those resources are within Russian territory. So in effect, Russia subsidised the building of the entire Soviet Union, Ukraine included.

Ukraine has no sizeable, easily expoitable resources in the way Russia does, so it has always made the most sense for Ukraine - a country with a very energy dependent export sector - to have close ties and a sweetheart resources deal with Russia.

Beyond that, like many ex-soviet countries, very little of Ukraine's manufacturing standards (back in 2014 or now) meet EU requirements, so where is the market for Ukraine's products? In the ex-soviet bloc - at least until that changes, which takes a decade or two, maybe even more.

IMO, this was the primary reason Yanukovych turned away from the EU negotiations in 2014 - Russia said they would have to put in a hard border and tarriffs so cheap EU goods didn't crush the Russian market. That would have effectively bankrupted Ukraine down the track with the loss of export revenues and increase in import costs alone, let alone the administrative burden (it's a massive border to monitor as we know).

So between energy (now largely brought from half a world away at many times the cost) and the basics of economic needs, it has really never made sense for Ukraine not to work in closer partnership with Russia than any other neighbour or prospective ally. Not to mention all the cultural ties and shared history (certainly not all good, but a long way from all bad as many former USSR citizens felt in common that they were ALL the victims of Soviet government more than victims of the Russian people themselves)

Post-2014, I can't imagine things will heal for a generation on the Ukranian side, if ever.

So Ukraine's future is undoubtedly with the West.

I think the best thing for Ukranians would have been the best economic thing - close ties with Russia and no hard border. I don't see a realistic way for them to economically prosper in the future otherwise and I doubt how much the West (where elections bring change every 3-5yrs) can genuinely promise to heavily subsidise them (though some 'aid' is in the form of repayable loans)

If Ukraine really wanted EU membership so much back in 2014 (and I think a majority of Ukranians genuinely did for genuinely laudable reasons), it was obvious to anyone on top of all the relevant facts that it was going to take years of negotiations between Ukraine, Russia and the EU to make it even remotely fair and workable for all parties - after all, it would have been a massive economic and societal change for all three parties which absolutely dwarfed Brexit.

Mate I don’t always agree with the opinions you derive, but the effort you put in deriving them is impressive.

 

[Chief]

so it could 'defend' against Russia

So defending against Russia is wrong? Or you think they were going to take back the bits Russia already took? Or we're going to be able to stop the Russian incursions?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

From Putin and Russia's perspective, that's exactly what Ukraine and NATO did to them by multiplying the size of Ukraine's army significantly between 2014 and the outbreak of the war, heavily integrating NATO equipment and training, all the while increasing its military production, spending enormously on hardware and accepting a gigantic increase in foreign military aid.

Merkel admitted in her De Spiegel interview last year that Germany and France only co-signed both Minsk treaties to allow Ukraine time to build up its military, so it could 'defend' against Russia. That admission was an enormous own goal, IMO, in terms of each sides' legitimacy and legal justifications for their actions and something which nobody had heard said on the public record before (though long suspected).

IMO, it's important to recognise that Ukraine's army had only about 20% of the capability (not just hardware, training and morale were massive issues) back in 2014 compared to what it did before Russia invaded in 2022 (and then it got another massive boost in capacity from the US and NATO).

So by the time Russia actually faced them in the field of battle in the first months of the war, I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say Ukraine had 20X the capability they had back in 2014, plus the Donbass had become literally the most fortified place on earth.

Multiply that added capability several times over again when you throw in access to Western intelligence and communications systems.

Putin could have seized a massive chunk of Ukraine in 2014 when he captured Crimea. Instead, he settled for reversing Ukraine's seizure of independent Crimea and co-signing the Minsk peace treaties twice. He limited support for the Donbass breakaway republics to allowing mercenaries to operate and providing limited equipment and support.

Numerous times during the civil war, the only thing which stopped Ukraine having the better balance of forces and recapturing more or all of the Donbass, was the fact that significant parts of the army crossed sides and stole as much equipment as they could in the process. If Russia had intervened in any more significant way during say the first half of the civil war when Ukraine was far weaker, that also would have tipped the balance of forces and Ukraine would have lost.

So I think there really is a decent case (and Russia certainly sees it that way), to say that Putin did actually want peace and a settled border when he signed the Minsk treaties and largely stayed out of the civil war.

The 'land grabbing maniac' perspective doesn't really hold very much water, IMO, after you also take into account that he could have taken far more territory, far more easily, straight after he seized Crimea in 2014 when the West was on the hop about how to collectively respond, while Ukraine was also caught by surprise and literally unable to effectively militarily respond.





Prior to this conflict, as far as I'm aware, Putin hasn't actually said that he wants to expand Russia in any significant way in any direct, accurate quote - and I have looked high and low (I'd love for anyone to provide one). The 'quote' which Western sources use to claim he did say he 'regrets losing the USSR' (which apparently therefore means he must want an empire back again!), was from the following 2005 speech to a domestic audience:


"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself."


That is the Russian translation, which for Western citizens, a copy of which may as well be on the moon if you try and find it in a search engine, while accessing it direct from the Kremlin is problematic for obvious reasons.

Our Western press translated his words quite differently:

The Associated Press translation is a little different, subbing "catastrophe" for "disaster," and calling the breakup the "greateast geopolitical catastrophe of the century."

Did Vladimir Putin call the breakup of the USSR 'the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century?'

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s handling of the uprising in Ukraine is not surprising if you look at telling comments

www.politifact.com

So for starters, as far as anyone Russian is concerned, most especially Putin, he never said "the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." For whatever reason, our Western media decided to translate him that way (I guess they could argue that they speak better Russian than the Russians!).

What he actually said is really very different - and this is a long way from being an isolated case of...shall we call it 'lost in translation?'

Then, best I can tell, a whole other layer of spin was added by the Bush era Washington hawks, where, seeing it was "the greatest disaster ever", then surely every waking minute of Putin's bloody rule must be spent scheming to get his 'empire' back.

It's stuck ever since and I mean really - look at the original source.

Honestly mate, with stuff like this, the Russians do genuinely think we're off our collective rockers. I only check out second-hand reports now and then from bi-lingual sources who monitor Russian media, but we do kinda hand them their propaganda on a platter and it's little wonder they really do think our leaders are nuts.

Just like we think theirs are.





Pre-2014 I would have said Russia for sure.

Modern Ukraine was built with a massive advantage only the Soviet nations had - access to cost price oil, uranium, coal, gas, minerals, construction materials etc., whereas in the West, even the US had to buy and contruct much of their civil infrastructure at the cost of privatised capitalism. Not all, but a sizeable chunk of those resources are within Russian territory. So in effect, Russia subsidised the building of the entire Soviet Union, Ukraine included.

Ukraine has no sizeable, easily expoitable resources in the way Russia does, so it has always made the most sense for Ukraine - a country with a very energy dependent export sector - to have close ties and a sweetheart resources deal with Russia.

Beyond that, like many ex-soviet countries, very little of Ukraine's manufacturing standards (back in 2014 or now) meet EU requirements, so where is the market for Ukraine's products? In the ex-soviet bloc - at least until that changes, which takes a decade or two, maybe even more.

IMO, this was the primary reason Yanukovych turned away from the EU negotiations in 2014 - Russia said they would have to put in a hard border and tarriffs so cheap EU goods didn't crush the Russian market. That would have effectively bankrupted Ukraine down the track with the loss of export revenues and increase in import costs alone, let alone the administrative burden (it's a massive border to monitor as we know).

So between energy (now largely brought from half a world away at many times the cost) and the basics of economic needs, it has really never made sense for Ukraine not to work in closer partnership with Russia than any other neighbour or prospective ally. Not to mention all the cultural ties and shared history (certainly not all good, but a long way from all bad as many former USSR citizens felt in common that they were ALL the victims of Soviet government more than victims of the Russian people themselves)

Post-2014, I can't imagine things will heal for a generation on the Ukranian side, if ever.

So Ukraine's future is undoubtedly with the West.

I think the best thing for Ukranians would have been the best economic thing - close ties with Russia and no hard border. I don't see a realistic way for them to economically prosper in the future otherwise and I doubt how much the West (where elections bring change every 3-5yrs) can genuinely promise to heavily subsidise them indefinitely (though some 'aid' is in the form of repayable loans)

If Ukraine really wanted EU membership so much back in 2014 (and I think a majority of Ukranians genuinely did for genuinely laudable reasons), it was obvious to anyone on top of all the relevant facts that it was going to take years of negotiations between Ukraine, Russia and the EU to make it even remotely fair and workable for all parties - after all, it would have been a massive economic and societal change for all three parties which absolutely dwarfed Brexit.

Hadn’t Ukraine almost halved their gas imports from Russia in the three years before Crimea was annexed and were set to be completely off Russian gas in about 5 more years?
Unfortunately Russia invaded and stole Crimea’s Trillion dollar reserves of natural resources from Ukraine so that put an end to that

 

[Rayzorwire]

There is no good faith posting here.


The US are not sending soldiers to fight Hamas terrorists in the Gaza strip. Their involvement does not directly involve their warships & planes.

It really does when you consider that the US navy and its other territorial assets are effectively protecting Israel's airspace and actively trying to shoot down or eliminate every missile or hostile action heading their way from what is now numerous directions.

And FWIW, doing so in exactly the way Zelensky has pleaded for since day one.

When Israel's shipping is blocked, The US sends the navy and aircraft carriers.

When Ukraine's is...not so much US naval response.

I mean, to be clear, I totally agree that I was and am very much taking the piss by leaving out that, as you very rightly say, US or UK boots on the ground or air defence or any of the stuff I've mentioned would take us very much closer to nuclear war than ever before, however, no boots on the ground is hardly the only difference.

 

[EagleMan87]

Merkel admitted in her De Spiegel interview last year that Germany and France only co-signed both Minsk treaties to allow Ukraine time to build up its military, so it could 'defend' against Russia. That admission was an enormous own goal, IMO, in terms of each sides' legitimacy and legal justifications for their actions and something which nobody had heard said on the public record before (though long suspected).

Why 'defend'? Do you honestly think Ukraine was planned to attack Russia?

 

[Zidane98]

Putin has come up with a genius plan to prop up the economy

 

[Rayzorwire]

So defending against Russia is wrong? Or you think they were going to take back the bits Russia already took?

I would only be speculating about what Ukraine's motives were, but it would seem regaining Crimea is very much still on their 'must' list.

Or we're going to be able to stop the Russian incursions?

Russia wasn't making any incursions and resisted for 8 years, the Donbass militias gained virtually no territory beyond what they initially seized, who exactly did Ukraine need to defend itself against? Its own rebel population?

Putin has been harping on about this issue since the 2007 Munich Security Council speech - 'who exactly are you all 'defending' yourselves against? Aren't we friends and partners now? The only 'rogue state' currently threatening anyone is North Korea threatening the US and they won't send their missiles over Europe to get there...why do you all need missile 'defence' bases coming always closer to our borders in breach of our past understandings?'

The man had and has a point on this issue, IMO.

 

[Chief]

who exactly did Ukraine need to defend itself against?

Russia? It seems to be their thing.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Why 'defend'? Do you honestly think Ukraine was planned to attack Russia?

No, I don't think Ukraine planned to ever invade Russia, but they did want to have a far more evenly matched army so they could throw their weight around in a military vein more effectively than they could have been able to otherwise.

Of course, a perfectly natural reason for military expenditure increase was that they did have a civil war to win.

 

[Zidane98]

No, I don't think Ukraine planned to ever invade Russia, but they did want to have a far more evenly matched army so they could throw their weight around in a military vein more effectively than they could have been able to otherwise.

Of course, a perfectly natural reason for military expenditure increase was that they did have a civil war to win.

Except their was no civil war. The invader was Russia. Clear evidence of this the Russian military shooting down MH17 from within Ukraine. SAMs simply are not owned or operated by rebel groups.

Ukraine have been fighting Russia since 2014 in Ukraine. DPR/LPR are simply another branch of the Russian government.

 

[EagleMan87]

No, I don't think Ukraine planned to ever invade Russia, but they did want to have a far more evenly matched army so they could throw their weight around in a military vein more effectively than they could have been able to otherwise.

So why the histrionics?

Of course, a perfectly natural reason for military expenditure increase was that they did have a civil war to win.

That was another thing; do you really think it was a Civil War, and that Russia had nothing to do with it?

 

[Baldur]

Interesting video, reminds me of reports from Libya where Technicals (utes with weapons on the back, like chariots) would form a Cantabrian circle (think Indians riding in a circle firing in the old cowboy movies), peppering Main Battle Tanks with fire while moving too fast to be hit by the MBT.

Here the 25mm chain gun of the Bradleys is unable penetrate the armour of the T-90 MBT. But it is quite capable smashing up the outside, damaging the ERA panels, vision slits and causing the white phosphorus smoke launchers to cook off. The result a mission kill as the MBT is combat ineffective.

I wonder why they did not use the TOW anti-tank missiles, maybe they have none left, it was to close for effective use (min range 65m) or they simply did not want to slow down enough to fire one.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Russia? It seems to be their thing.

Back in 2014 they didn't need to massively militarise, IMO.

 

[Chief]

Back in 2014 they didn't need to massively militarise, IMO.

Seeing as everyone is helping them out now, they really didn't.

 

[Cap]

 

[Rayzorwire]

Hadn’t Ukraine almost halved their gas imports from Russia in the three years before Crimea was annexed and were set to be completely off Russian gas in about 5 more years?

The two governments were barely speaking a lot of the eight years before the 2022 conflict, so yes, Ukraine did diversify their suppliers, but importantly, those suppliers were on the Russian energy teat too, so it was six of one and half a dozen of another. Most of Europe is hooked up to the same grid and able to supply Ukraine just as Russia could, but selling at a higher price than buying straight off Russia.

Now that option is off the table obviously.

Many of the other resources I mentioned, Europe was far less able to supply at prices cost effective for Ukraine.

Unfortunately Russia invaded and stole Crimea’s Trillion dollar reserves of natural resources from Ukraine so that put an end to that

The resources Ukraine stole from once independent Crimea, more accurately.