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.

 

[Baldur]

More details on this event

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Yes what I quoted supports the conclusions I quoted from a variety of experts who'd gathered the declassified security documents for a conference in 2017 and further analysis reported after that.

He was definitely given multiple assurances from a wide variety of Western nations as shown by the original documents I quoted from, that NATO would not expand.

Yes Gorbachev is on record in 2014 but you only included a small section of what he said in that interview. He and the Soviet leadership were being called naïve and fooled, because they didn't get the assurances that NATO would not expand towards the Soviet union, or one inch further east in a written agreement. He then said;

"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.""

They are his words in the same interview reported in 2014. So perhaps go and look at the original declassified security documents to clarify. Many others did and came to the above conclusions.

What doesn't make sense is how NATO could expand east from Norway and Turkey into Germany, but they could into the Soviet Union.

This is like the town burglar complaining because the local Neighbourhood Watch program has expanded.

 

[Rayzorwire]

So why the histrionics?

Not sure what your question is actually asking?

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

Are you suggesting Russia started Ukraine's civil war?

On what evidence?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

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.




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

It’s funny that Russia are now taking Ukraine’s coal fields. It’s almost like Russia have been trying to undermine any move Ukraine make to be self sufficient and build a successful economy all along.

 

[Chief]

Are you suggesting Russia started Ukraine's civil war?

On what evidence?

I thought it was well known that Russia was supporting one side?

 

[CD Xbow]

Not sure what your question is actually asking?




Are you suggesting Russia started Ukraine's civil war?

On what evidence?

Yes. There is no doubt, the facts of Russian involvement are documented in the public domain. You would have been be a silly billy to believe otherwise, the sort of person who believes Ivermectin works with Covid.

War in Donbas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2014 Russian sabotage activities in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Crankyhawk]

Not sure what your question is actually asking?




Are you suggesting Russia started Ukraine's civil war?

On what evidence?

Sent in Russian commandos to agitate and provoke.

 

[Chief]

Sent in Russian commandos to agitate and provoke.

I'm beginning to anticipate his answers.

Were they perhaps Russia's flower-toting defensive agitating provocateur commandos?

 

[Rayzorwire]

It’s funny that Russia are now taking Ukraine’s coal fields. It’s almost like Russia have been trying to undermine any move Ukraine make to be self sufficient and build a successful economy all along.

Coal is a one-off deal, I'd imagine Russia prized Ukraine's ridiculously fertile soil above all else, they do play the long game.

I thought it was well known that Russia was supporting one side?

Ok, well there you go.

You don't really expect continued detailed responses to one line questions in return which ignore so much, do you?

the sort of person who believes Ivermectin works with Covid.

Putting you on ignore.

Not like it's the first time you and your buddy have tried to drag the thread down with this type of off-topic, designed to discredit, wholly invented crap.

Not giving you any more chances to prove you're incapable of polite conversation or debate.

 

[Chief]

Ok, well there you go.

You don't really expect continued detailed responses to one line questions in return which ignore so much, do you?

I don't know a lot of the history.

You said "started" - i don't know anything about that. I've just seen a lot about them supporting the chaps in the East.

You respond to that how you like, but what you gave wasn't a response.

 

[Bloods86]

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.

Boohoo, poor Russia. Imagine someone you've just invaded trying to strengthen themselves with the help of allies.

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

Some of your finest propaganda work here.

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.

Think harder. If Putin wanted peace, he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine in 2014, then further in 2022. He longed for peace, dreamed of it, could have had it, but alas Ukraine deployed large magnets to pull Russian tanks over the border.

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.

Yeah, well that's what will happen when a warmongering neighbour invades you multiple times, targets your civilians, commits massacres, kidnaps your children, rapes you, endangers nuclear power facilities, and leaves mines throughout your land.

 

[Baldur]

Very rarely in human history are conflicts a simple matter of good vrs evil, whereby it is clear what the verdict of history will be. Offhand I can think of three, The American Civil war, The Second World War, and this war.

Nevertheless, there have always been people for their own perverted reasons whom have taken the wrong side in these conflicts. The right in the USA at present refuses to admit that the Civil War was about slavery. Japan refuses to come to grips with their war guilt. That the Russian people largely refuses to see the evil in their actions is expected.

But that non-Russian people in democratic nations should have such a perverted ethical compass that they refuse to see the evil that Russia is doing. I wish I could say it surprises me, but it does not, some have always found evil attractive and others some measure of self-belief in being shocking and contrary. This is why trolls exist after all, people that find pleasure in being shocking for its own sake.

But make no mistake, those people have earned and deserve the contempt of all ethical people.

 

[Chief]

Putin hasn't actually said that he wants to expand Russia in any significant way in any direct, accurate quote

Maybe, but he's trying to do it. Raping and pillaging and all that.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Coal is a one-off deal, I'd imagine Russia prized Ukraine's ridiculously fertile soil above all else, they do play the long game.




Ok, well there you go.

You don't really expect continued detailed responses to one line questions in return which ignore so much, do you?




Putting you on ignore.

Not like it's the first time you and your buddy have tried to drag the thread down with this type of off-topic, designed to discredit, wholly invented crap.

Not giving you any more chances to prove you're incapable of polite conversation or debate.

Nothing to do with me. Words matter.

Maybe, but he's trying to do it. Raping and pillaging and all that.

I guess a simple google search would give a well referenced article about Putin’s direct quotes and motivations.

What is Russia's Vladimir Putin planning?

The BBC's Steve Rosenberg looks at what might be on the Russian leader's mind amid growing tensions.

www.bbc.com

It couldn’t be clearer and look at the date of the article. Fascinating. It’s just bad luck Ukraine borders Russia.

 

[Chief]

Yea I haven't really turned my mind to this question in a while, I suppose given I didn't think it was a question at all.

So Putin talks about regret of loss of the empire, sponsors celebration of its empire-building leaders, but his actual land grabs are just a coincidence?

It sounds ridiculous.

Not wanting to go over everything I read or watched back at the start, while little to none of what Rayzor is saying rings true I can't recall the details so thanks to others who provide links.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Coal is a one-off deal, I'd imagine Russia prized Ukraine's ridiculously fertile soil above all else, they do play the long game.

they want the whle package. Everything they steal weakens Ukraine so it’s all of value to a Russia.
If electric cars ever become mainstream and we see the end of Ethanol then fertile land won’t be anywhere near as valuable in the future, the lithium reserves they are taking will though.
To march on Kiev the way they did shows they have some pretty massive ambitions though.

 

[Zidane98]

Yea I haven't really turned my mind to this question in a while, I suppose given I didn't think it was a question at all.

So Putin talks about regret of loss of the empire, sponsors celebration of its empire-building leaders, but his actual land grabs are just a coincidence?

It sounds ridiculous.

Not wanting to go over everything I read or watched back at the start, while little to none of what Rayzor is saying rings true I can't recall the details so thanks to others who provide links.

He also released a ridiculously deluded manifesto that says Ukraine is not a sovereign nation and really is Russia's possession from the days of the USSR.


Fact checking Putin on this nonsense is easy

“There is no Ukraine”: Fact-Checking the Kremlin’s Version of Ukrainian History

The notion that Ukraine is not a country, but a historical part of Russia, appears to be deeply ingrained in the minds of Russian leadership.

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Putin has never hidden his desire to create a "USSR 2.0 lite".

 

[Baldur]

This is the Russia Putin desires to recreate

This is why Poland, the Baltic states and Finland are so concerned.

 

[LittleG]

One of the people in my life is Crimean Tatar. Her family identifies as anything but Russian; which is interesting because she would teach me Russian to talk with her family.

They’re opinion is that any government not from Russia IS the best government. Independent Crimea would never last long against Russia, so Ukraine was their hope.

Her house has a Russian family living in it. That family never paid for it or the shop they owned or their car…. Completely dispossessed by Russians and were forced to move to Moscow before they escaped.

Anyone who wants to justify invading Crimea as it should be Russian; is IMO justifying genocide.

 

[Zidane98]

I see there are some posters putting out that Putin was just reversing Crimea being stolen from Russia.


The facts on the matter:

1991 Crimean autonomy referendum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Crimean, when it was still under the rule of the USSR, conducted a referendum which the citizens ultimately voted that Crimea become an autonomous independent republic within Ukranian SSR This was passed by the Ukranian SSR in Feb 1991. This became the Crimean ASSR:

Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (1991–1992) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of note, in September 1991 Crimean parliament declared Crimea to be part of constituent Ukraine.

This was related to the new union treaty, a futile attempt by Gorbachev to save the USSR:

New Union Treaty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This was followed by the declaration of Independence by Ukranian SSR in Aug 1991. This was not enacted until a nationwide referendum had been completed in 1991:

Ukrainian Independence Referendum

Ukraine. Independence Referendum. 1 December 1991 Ukraine held a referendum on the Act of Declaration of Independence on 1 December 1991. An overwhelming majority of 92.3% of voters approved…

soviethistory.msu.edu

54.19% of Crimea voted for independence from the Soviet Union in the Ukranian referendum as well as an overwhelming majority from the rest of the country.

The Crimean ASSR became the Republic of Crimea after the USSR dissolved. Constitutional measures were changed twice but eventually the Republic of Crimea agreed to become an autonomous part of Ukraine.


Anyone suggesting Crimea was stolen from Russia is factually incorrect.

 

[Zidane98]

One of the people in my life is Crimean Tatar. Her family identifies as anything but Russian; which is interesting because she would teach me Russian to talk with her family.

They’re opinion is that any government not from Russia IS the best government. Independent Crimea would never last long against Russia, so Ukraine was their hope.

Her house has a Russian family living in it. That family never paid for it or the shop they owned or their car…. Completely dispossessed by Russians and were forced to move to Moscow before they escaped.

Anyone who wants to justify invading Crimea as it should be Russian; is IMO justifying genocide.

Adding to this historically Crimean was under the rule of the Ottoman empire, hence the indigenous Crimean Tatars.


If Putin wants to go off historical ownership of Crimea then he would have to turn over Crimea to the successor state of the Ottoman empire, Turkey. Because the Russian empire at the time did actually steal Crimea from the Ottoman empire in a bloody war.

 

[jatz14]

Because western alliances never are aggressive … Libya , Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan say Hi!

****ing NATO should have stayed out of Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria.

Oh, wait.

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

 

[Zidane98]

Most tellingly of all (and to the chagrin of our resident vatniks) Putin stated explicitly in 2008 that there was no dispute over Crimea

 

[jatz14]

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.

Except Russia had been expanding its military up to, and since 2014, and the West had not.

And Russia had demonstrated its territorial ambitions in Ukraine.

So, Ukraine took steps to better defend itself from Imperialism, with the help of the West.

Imperial power unimpressed.

OK.

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

 

[Visions]

More details on this event

Plenty of muddying the waters on this. Some are saying that the reason the orcs are claiming friendly fire is to ease the minds of their pilots and keep them flying close to the front line as they “they can fire the crew responsible for it” rather them having them fearful of ongoing surprise enemy missiles from nowhere.

Heres a theory from Tom Cooper on what happened. Basically proposing it was a ambush trap set by the UAF and Patriots were used. But the interesting thing in the article is that it claims the orcs only have 2 operational A-50’s left.

Ukrainian Crews Set A Complex Missile Trap For Russia’s Best Radar Plane

Down one A-50, the Russian air force may have just two of the jets left; the other six A-50s reportedly are in need of upgrade and overhaul. Unless the air force is willing to risk the last two flyable A-50s, it must make peace with its new inability to provide radar coverage over all of Crimea.