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]

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

If Russia cannot provide radar coverage over Crimea, F-16's will cause havoc.

There does seem to be something in dictatorships whereby they consider it better to be seen as incompetent instead of defeated. I recall a doco on the sinking of the Bismark, the surviving crew appeared to regard it as some point of honour that they scuttled themselves before the British sunk them.

 

[jatz14]

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.





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.

Of course he is harping on about it. It seems his imperial dreams are quite old, no doubt explaining Russia winding its military up, while Europe was winding down.

And why not criticise? Costs nothing, and if it results in the West building 1 less tank, your 1 tank to the good.

You keep interpreting Putin's words as the words of a man seeking peace and reconciliation, who being rebuffed, was forced to start a war instead.

I see a man who knew conflict was coming, who spent billions trying to manipulate the politics of the countries around him to his favour. And I would interpret everything he said in that light.

Please don't build weapons, you will be less likely to interfere in my plans if your weak.

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

 

[Zidane98]

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

If this is true that's absolute ingenuity by the Ukranians. Deliberately coax the orc radar aircraft closer than normal. Then use a brief burst from a shorter range S300 to get a general idea where the A-50 is and quickly shut it down.


Then, activate the long range patriot and take it down before they could escape.


It is telling that with some of the orc's most embarrassing defeats in this war they try to pass it off as an accident.


Think Moskva sinking which the orcs never admitted was taken out by an opportunistic neptune missile attack.

 

[wannabejack]

Russia Bans Ukrainian in Occupied Territory Schools, Medvedev Posts ‘Genocidal’ Tirade

Former Russian President Medvedev just warned Ukrainians that if they keep on fighting, they will be wiped out and no longer exist as a nation - so it’s better to join Russia.

www.kyivpost.com

So russia is protecting russian-language speakers in Ukraine and other parts of Europe from persecution but apparently it's ok for them to persecute Ukrainian-language speakers in Ukraine.

"Authorities in the Russian-occupied areas of the Luhansk region have issued a “government” order that bans the use of all Ukrainian-language books and educational materials in schools, and ordered that all such materials to be removed from school libraries.

Moscow initially denied it was involved in the military intervention, but later admitted its fighters took over the territory to “protect” Russian-language speakers supposedly persecuted by Ukraine’s national government."

 

[jatz14]

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.

T90s have fairly good protective measures against TOW missiles. It's possible that damage to that system caused the turret to spin, as it automatically orientates the turret to the direction the TOW is coming from.

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

 

[Zidane98]

Russia Bans Ukrainian in Occupied Territory Schools, Medvedev Posts ‘Genocidal’ Tirade

Former Russian President Medvedev just warned Ukrainians that if they keep on fighting, they will be wiped out and no longer exist as a nation - so it’s better to join Russia.

www.kyivpost.com

So russia is protecting russian-language speakers in Ukraine and other parts of Europe from persecution but apparently it's ok for them to persecute Ukrainian-language speakers in Ukraine.

"Authorities in the Russian-occupied areas of the Luhansk region have issued a “government” order that bans the use of all Ukrainian-language books and educational materials in schools, and ordered that all such materials to be removed from school libraries.

Moscow initially denied it was involved in the military intervention, but later admitted its fighters took over the territory to “protect” Russian-language speakers supposedly persecuted by Ukraine’s national government."

Every accusation from the Russians is a confession. They've been discriminating against Ukranian speakers in Russia also for years as well as in occupied territories of Ukraine. They're also guilty of brutally employing Russification against locals. Speaking Ukraine, mentioning Zelensky's name, wearing blue / yellow are likely enough to get you a jail sentence from the orcs in occupied Ukraine.

 

[wannabejack]

Ukraine to ‘throw Moscow from the skies’ after drone strikes by Putin’s forces – live

Russia claimed that Ukraine fired at least 12 drones across the border, targeting the Voronezh and Belgorod regions

www.independent.co.uk

Russia-Ukraine war – live: Kyiv targets St Petersburg oil facility in rare drone attack on Putin’s home city

Russian media claimed three drones were fired toward the city, two of which were downed in the Gulf of Finland, while one outlet claimed there had been a fire after a third drone exploded between two fuel tanks.

A Ukrainian military source has since told Reuters that the drones hit their targets, adding that the longer range attacks were part of a “new phase” of war.

Edit:

Ukraine war latest: Ukraine reportedly hits oil depot near Saint Petersburg with homegrown drone

Key developments on Jan. 18: * Ukrainian drone reportedly hits oil depot near Russia’s Saint Petersburg, minister says it was homegrown * WSJ: Biden makes concessions to Republicans on immigration to secure Ukraine aid * Minister: France to deliver more Caesar howitzers, guided bombs to...

kyivindependent.com

Ukraine’s Strategic Industries Minister Oleksandr Kamyshin said later the same day that the drone had been produced in Ukraine, a rare public acknowledgment of an attack on Russian soil by a Ukrainian official.

"We're able to make something that costs $350 apiece and something that would fly tonight to Saint Petersburg… Yes, we hit the target tonight, and this thing flew exactly 1,250 kilometers (to do that)," Kamyshin said at a public discussion in Davos.

The drone strike demonstrates that "military facilities in Saint Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast are within reach of Ukrainian forces," according to the source.

 

[BlueE]

I did ask if you could point me to quotes that supported your claims, but you haven't and I've explained why what you've quoted aren't the slam dunk assurances from NATO to Soviets about general expansion.

If there are other quotes that are definitive, why not provide them instead of these other ones that hedge around the topic of assurances, or just talk about conversations in general (no quotes) or the opinions of western leaders (again, not an assurance).

I was implicitly referring to Gorbachev's "spirit of statements and assurances" comments, among other quotes you provided, in my last response. It's a general reference to the "spirit of" assurances, not actual assurances. There Gorbachev might be talking about actual assurances (East Germany) and it's his personal view that the "spirit of" that was no general expansion, but that's on him.

If you are the one making a claim, back it up, I don't have to go do the research for you.

It also doesn't matter if NATO assured them about general expansion anyway, clearly Russia doesn't actually fear NATO expansion or they wouldn't move their borders closer to NATO or behave like they are, scaring smaller neighbours into joining.

I think now you're just being willfully ignorant or deceptive in changing the goal posts form "assurances, "definite assurances" to now "slam dunk assurances"!

Definite assurances, promises and the Soviets were "led to believe", that the general expansion of NATO would not occur "one inch east, towards the " And they came directly from many Western Nations, not NATO, about not expanding NATO towards the Soviet Union. As documented with direct quotes naming diplomats, countries, times, dates, in the declassified documents and disseminated in the 2017 investigations and further analysis I've posted.

But now it's "slam dunk assurances"! LOL. Nothing is "slam dunk" until it is written and signed and that has been the complaint of the Russians ever since. Many in Russia blame Gorbachev, for being naïve and foolish, because he believed the "spirit of the statements and assurances that were given to us in 1990."

Literally in the next sentence, Gorbachev makes it clear and again takes credit for the different matter of conditions for the unification of Germany, "As for Germany, they were legally enshrined and they are being respected."

Again, the declassified papers make it clear the conditions reunifying Germany was a separate and different issue.

"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."

... “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.

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4

Hey all, 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...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Zidane98]

Ukraine to ‘throw Moscow from the skies’ after drone strikes by Putin’s forces – live

Russia claimed that Ukraine fired at least 12 drones across the border, targeting the Voronezh and Belgorod regions

www.independent.co.uk

Russia-Ukraine war – live: Kyiv targets St Petersburg oil facility in rare drone attack on Putin’s home city

Russian media claimed three drones were fired toward the city, two of which were downed in the Gulf of Finland, while one outlet claimed there had been a fire after a third drone exploded between two fuel tanks.

A Ukrainian military source has since told Reuters that the drones hit their targets, adding that the longer range attacks were part of a “new phase” of war.

Edit:

Ukraine war latest: Ukraine reportedly hits oil depot near Saint Petersburg with homegrown drone

Key developments on Jan. 18: * Ukrainian drone reportedly hits oil depot near Russia’s Saint Petersburg, minister says it was homegrown * WSJ: Biden makes concessions to Republicans on immigration to secure Ukraine aid * Minister: France to deliver more Caesar howitzers, guided bombs to...

kyivindependent.com

Such a shame that one of those drones couldn't have be redirected towards Vlad's palace.

 

[BlueE]

Are certain posters capable of synthesising information and then putting into a post that doesn’t bore the shite out of people. FFS think for yourself for once and stop posting reams of total crap that you’re either too lazy to read or are too stupid to interpret.

Not sure if this is a lazy way of referring to me or Razor because we both post information that requires reading to back up what we're saying, I the link to the declassified national security documents I first posted has its own analysis based on a panel of slavic experts synthesising and discussing the documents.

Bloods admitted not reading all and wanted quotes, of which there were many to back up the analysis.

But all you only had to do was open the first link and read a few paragraphs if you wanted synthesis of the information.

"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner"

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

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.”

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

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

nsarchive.gwu.edu

 

[BlueE]

For the few here that don't exist in the vacuum where you only want opinions or information that reinforces your own and have perhaps started to question government and media propaganda, because of the US media support given to Israel, this is an interesting read.

Media Rewrites Ukraine’s Dark History

Video transcript: Plus, an interview with journalist David Zweig on his reporting of the new files that show how Twitter rigged the online debate surrounding COVID

greenwald.substack.com

Try as hard as you can to set aside your views of whether the U.S. should or should not be intervening in that war by lavishing Ukraine with $100 billion and counting, and all sorts of sophisticated weaponry, as it treats the border conflict between two other countries on the other side of the world as its own proxy war.

And even try to leave aside your views about whether you believe Russia invaded Ukraine without any provocation or justification, or whether you believe that the U.S. and the EU – deliberately or otherwise – provoked the Russians by continuing to hint about Ukrainian membership in NATO, or helping to change the regime in Kyiv in 2014, from a pro-Moscow to a pro-EU government, or in general running amok and all but governing this vital country right on the most vulnerable part of the Russian border. The reason I ask you to leave all that aside is because it does not - or at least should not – affect the subject I'm about to examine, even though it's nominally about the war in Ukraine.

 

[wannabejack]

For the few here that don't exist in the vacuum where you only want opinions or information that reinforces your own and have perhaps started to question government and media propaganda, because of the US media support given to Israel, this is an interesting read.

Media Rewrites Ukraine’s Dark History

Video transcript: Plus, an interview with journalist David Zweig on his reporting of the new files that show how Twitter rigged the online debate surrounding COVID

greenwald.substack.com

Try as hard as you can to set aside your views of whether the U.S. should or should not be intervening in that war by lavishing Ukraine with $100 billion and counting, and all sorts of sophisticated weaponry, as it treats the border conflict between two other countries on the other side of the world as its own proxy war.

And even try to leave aside your views about whether you believe Russia invaded Ukraine without any provocation or justification, or whether you believe that the U.S. and the EU – deliberately or otherwise – provoked the Russians by continuing to hint about Ukrainian membership in NATO, or helping to change the regime in Kyiv in 2014, from a pro-Moscow to a pro-EU government, or in general running amok and all but governing this vital country right on the most vulnerable part of the Russian border. The reason I ask you to leave all that aside is because it does not - or at least should not – affect the subject I'm about to examine, even though it's nominally about the war in Ukraine.

It's amazing how he says to ignore all the horrendous things that russia has done in Ukraine
I only read some of the article
Just a bit from the article
There are valid criticisms of how that referendum was conducted -- given that Crimea still had Russian troops on its territory when the voting was held – but nobody seriously doubts that the vast majority of the people in Crimea identify as Russian and prefer to be ruled by Moscow rather than Kyiv. Close to 85% of people in Crimea speak Russian as their first language while only 3% speak Ukrainian. And the same is true – and has long been true – of people in the provinces of Eastern Ukraine, including in the Donbas region.

Just because they speak russian doesn't mean they don't classify themselves as Ukrainian.

From a Brookings

Crimea: Six Years Post-Annexation Analysis

Examine the situation in Crimea six years after its illegal annexation by Russia.

www.brookings.edu

The conduct of the referendum proved chaotic and took place absent any credible international observers. Local authorities reported a turnout of 83 percent, with 96.7 percent voting to join Russia. The numbers seemed implausible, given that ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars accounted for almost 40 percent of the peninsula’s population. (Two months later, a leaked report from the Russian president’s Human Rights Council put turnout at only 30 percent, with about half of those voting to join Russia.)
A large number of ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars — some put the total at 140,000 — have left the peninsula since 2014. Crimean Tatars complain of intimidation and oppression as one reason for moving.

Articles about your guy.

Messing with the Truth: Disinformation in the West Spread by Glenn Greenwald

Kremlin disinformation is actively spreading in Europe, supported by Western speakers. Glenn Greenwald, a laureate of the most prestigious journalism...

voxukraine.org

The Con Artists Who Blame Ukraine Aid for America’s Social Problems

RFK Jr., Glenn Greenwald, and other Putin apologists are making disingenuous, pseudo-populist arguments against U.S. support for Ukraine.

newrepublic.com

The Long History of Glenn Greenwald’s Kissing Up to the Kremlin

In his world, it seems America can do nothing right and Vladimir Putin can do nothing wrong.

www.thebulwark.com

 

[Zidane98]

For the few here that don't exist in the vacuum where you only want opinions or information that reinforces your own and have perhaps started to question government and media propaganda, because of the US media support given to Israel, this is an interesting read.

Media Rewrites Ukraine’s Dark History

Video transcript: Plus, an interview with journalist David Zweig on his reporting of the new files that show how Twitter rigged the online debate surrounding COVID

greenwald.substack.com

Try as hard as you can to set aside your views of whether the U.S. should or should not be intervening in that war by lavishing Ukraine with $100 billion and counting, and all sorts of sophisticated weaponry, as it treats the border conflict between two other countries on the other side of the world as its own proxy war.

And even try to leave aside your views about whether you believe Russia invaded Ukraine without any provocation or justification, or whether you believe that the U.S. and the EU – deliberately or otherwise – provoked the Russians by continuing to hint about Ukrainian membership in NATO, or helping to change the regime in Kyiv in 2014, from a pro-Moscow to a pro-EU government, or in general running amok and all but governing this vital country right on the most vulnerable part of the Russian border. The reason I ask you to leave all that aside is because it does not - or at least should not – affect the subject I'm about to examine, even though it's nominally about the war in Ukraine.

This Glenn Greenwald?

Messing with the Truth: Disinformation in the West Spread by Glenn Greenwald

Kremlin disinformation is actively spreading in Europe, supported by Western speakers. Glenn Greenwald, a laureate of the most prestigious journalism...

voxukraine.org

I particularly note this from his interview with Rollingstones:


For five years, he defended the rights of neo-Nazis and considers it one of his major achievements. In 2013, speaking to Rolling Stone about his work, Glenn Greenwald stated, “To me, it’s a heroic attribute to be so committed to a principle that you apply it not when it’s easy … Not when it supports your position, not when it protects people you like, but when it defends and protects people that you hate.“


Unsurprisingly you've just quoted yet another Kremlin mouthpiece.


Another couple of things - The US is not sending troops to fight in Ukraine. Plenty of what the US is supplying to Ukraine is obsolete weaponry that was going to be retired.

The only sosphisticated weaponry so far is cruise missiles in very small numbers.


Most importantly (and totally ignored by yourself) the US brokered a transfer from Ukraine to Russia of 44 TU160 Blackjack bombers, KH-55 cruise missiles and Ukraine's entire nuclear weapons stockpile in exchange for Russia recognising Ukraine's territorial sovereignty & to defend Ukraine from attack.


Now that Russia is attacking Ukraine because Putin is an imperialistic maniac the US has a very real obligation to defend Ukraine under this agreement.


Unlike your imaginary assurances from NATO this agreement was ratified by Ukraine, the US, UK & Russia and subsequently lodged with the UN.

 

[Mobbs]

116 times!

During the past 24 hours, Russian troops shelled the Kherson region 116 times, hitting the territories of factories, a park and a warehouse in Kherson. "Shakhed" attacked the administration building and the farm in Beryslav district. According to the head of OVA Prokudin, two people died, seven were injured. Also, during the nighttime drone attack on Kherson, a woman was injured and taken to a medical facility.

Approx 24 hours ago. From Kherson/Nova Kakhovka news TG [link]

 

[Bloods86]

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.

I believe their words were "reversing Ukraine's seizure of independent Crimea"

This is still flawed on several levels, and an obvious attempt to justify Russia's actions whatever they may be.

If the claim is that Crimeans overall, wanted to be completely independent from Ukraine, but Ukraine somehow stopped it, that's not seizure anyway.

And it's not a reversal, if the outcome was Crimea becoming part of Russia, because the transfer from Russia to Ukraine was not a seizure.

 

[Zidane98]

I believe their words were "reversing Ukraine's seizure of independent Crimea"

This is still flawed on several levels, and an obvious attempt to justify Russia's actions whatever they may be.

If the claim is that Crimeans overall, wanted to be completely independent from Ukraine, but Ukraine somehow stopped it, that's not seizure anyway.

And it's not a reversal, if the outcome was Crimea becoming part of Russia, because the transfer from Russia to Ukraine was not a seizure.

It's still false because Crimean government agreed to be ruled by Ukraine.

 

[Bloods86]

I think now you're just being willfully ignorant or deceptive in changing the goal posts form "assurances, "definite assurances" to now "slam dunk assurances"!

Definite assurances, promises and the Soviets were "led to believe", that the general expansion of NATO would not occur "one inch east, towards the " And they came directly from many Western Nations, not NATO, about not expanding NATO towards the Soviet Union. As documented with direct quotes naming diplomats, countries, times, dates, in the declassified documents and disseminated in the 2017 investigations and further analysis I've posted.

But now it's "slam dunk assurances"! LOL. Nothing is "slam dunk" until it is written and signed and that has been the complaint of the Russians ever since. Many in Russia blame Gorbachev, for being naïve and foolish, because he believed the "spirit of the statements and assurances that were given to us in 1990."

Literally in the next sentence, Gorbachev makes it clear and again takes credit for the different matter of conditions for the unification of Germany, "As for Germany, they were legally enshrined and they are being respected."

Again, the declassified papers make it clear the conditions reunifying Germany was a separate and different issue.

"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."

... “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.

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4

Hey all, 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...

www.bigfooty.com

I have not changed the goalposts, I just have to keep repeating the same things over and over because you are either unable to unwilling to take it on board, and I may use different terms to try to get it across that what you are quoting does not justify your claims.

I don't give a fig:

- if you quote western leaders saying that NATO expansion should not occur, or that they believe Soviet leaders wouldn't like it, yeah cool story, that's not any kind of assurance

- if you have to join the dots between references to conversations and assume the detail of such conversations, without there being explicit detail about any assurances you think were discussed (e.g. the story about Baker trying out his "not one inch eastward" line, not specifying that it wasn't about East Germany, and noting vaguely that the Soviet response was good)

- and to cover your concern about goalposts, if you refer to "assurances" of any kind, without it specifically being an actual quote, from NATO to Soviet reps, that NATO would not expand generally, as opposed to a vague references to assurances that could have been about East Germany or something else

The latter includes the "spirit of" quote from Gorbachev, which shows absolutely nothing other than potentially he saw the East Germany assurance, which I agree occurred, as an implication that NATO wasn't going to expand eastward elsewhere, but again that's on him, not an assurance (and undercut by the fact that NATO was already further eastward in general from the 50s, than any future possible expansion, outside a potential Georgian membership).

 

[Sir_Loin]

Not sure if this is a lazy way of referring to me or Razor because we both post information that requires reading to back up what we're saying, I the link to the declassified national security documents I first posted has its own analysis based on a panel of slavic experts synthesising and discussing the documents.

Bloods admitted not reading all and wanted quotes, of which there were many to back up the analysis.

But all you only had to do was open the first link and read a few paragraphs if you wanted synthesis of the information.

"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner"

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

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.”

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-...at-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early[/URL

http://

TL;DR

 

[Bloods86]

Not sure if this is a lazy way of referring to me or Razor because we both post information that requires reading to back up what we're saying, I the link to the declassified national security documents I first posted has its own analysis based on a panel of slavic experts synthesising and discussing the documents.

Bloods admitted not reading all and wanted quotes, of which there were many to back up the analysis.

But all you only had to do was open the first link and read a few paragraphs if you wanted synthesis of the information.

"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner"

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

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.”

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

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

nsarchive.gwu.edu

I'm really after just a single quote from any NATO representative to the Soviets, promising not to expand in general. An actual direct quote of the assurance, can be from a meeting transcript, I don't care, it doesn't need to be a written agreement. You are yet to provide one.

And if you can, I'll reiterate that it doesn't matter, because a) Russia's actions since have provided justification for backtracking, and b) Russian leadership as others have noted, didn't care about NATO expansion until recently, presumably when it figured it could use it as a false pretext for invading Ukraine, and get enough people in the West to fall for their faux concerns to disrupt support for Ukraine.

 

[Mobbs]

For the few here that don't exist in the vacuum where you only want opinions or information that reinforces your own and have perhaps started to question government and media propaganda, because of the US media support given to Israel, this is an interesting read.

Media Rewrites Ukraine’s Dark History

Video transcript: Plus, an interview with journalist David Zweig on his reporting of the new files that show how Twitter rigged the online debate surrounding COVID

greenwald.substack.com

Try as hard as you can to set aside your views of whether the U.S. should or should not be intervening in that war by lavishing Ukraine with $100 billion and counting, and all sorts of sophisticated weaponry, as it treats the border conflict between two other countries on the other side of the world as its own proxy war.

And even try to leave aside your views about whether you believe Russia invaded Ukraine without any provocation or justification, or whether you believe that the U.S. and the EU – deliberately or otherwise – provoked the Russians by continuing to hint about Ukrainian membership in NATO, or helping to change the regime in Kyiv in 2014, from a pro-Moscow to a pro-EU government, or in general running amok and all but governing this vital country right on the most vulnerable part of the Russian border. The reason I ask you to leave all that aside is because it does not - or at least should not – affect the subject I'm about to examine, even though it's nominally about the war in Ukraine.

Insane shit in here but after all it is apparently reliant on the Rumble platform with its wackjob audience.

This phantasm in particular is brilliant:
"Now, not only did Zelensky do all this after Russia invaded -- he did it before, the 2021 report from the State Department showed that -- he also, in 2021, a year before Russia invaded, shut down three opposition television stations. Imagine if Putin did that. We'd hear nothing, but we would never hear the end of that. So, Zelensky just ordered three television stations, in opposition to his government, shut down. And then, in 2022, he ordered opposition parties shut down, and more media outlets shut down and now the Eastern Orthodox Church banned, on top of all the abuses the State Department is describing. And yet the Western media that constantly reported this will now tell you that we're there to fight for democracy."
On top of the reality that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the TV stations were not just RF-friendly, they were RF plants - The line "Imagine if Putin did that ... " is cognitive dissonance of the highest order. Putin's RF HAS shut down multiple independent news channels - eg Novaya Gazeta, TV Rain, and Echo. Most can still operate but only from outside the country. Basically if you want to challenge Putin's RF in any way, you go to jail. Even Strelkov could not avoid this. Humane services such as Memorial were also shut down. The Vesna movement was pretty much arrested en masse.

This a massive missive about Orwell's 1984, conveniently omitting the jailing of those in Russia who tried to sell the book! Of course it's all about saying one thing but doing the opposite.
View attachment no_mobilsation_hangers_ever.mp4

Later there's a reference to one of the oldest and boldest lies - that Stepan Bandera was a nazi or colluded. I surely hope everybody here is developed enough to know what rubbish that is. Can't wait for the photo of Gehlen to get paraded here and claimed as that of Bandera. It's a common theme among Putin apologists.

Old photo shows German military official, not Ukrainian nationalist leader

False. While Bandera did fight alongside Nazi soldiers during World War II, the image actually shows German military officer Reinhard Gehlen.

apnews.com

But as they say, just keep pushing the narrative. Doesn't matter how wrong it is. Push it until it becomes right.

Then there's conflation of Azov movement with Azov battalion, instead of noting the reality that the far right extreme members of that group were excluded from the Azov Batallion when it was incorporated into Ukraine's defence. The far right guys did continue freely, did even have a nomination in a national election ... and got naff-all votes to share between them and the other guys they had to share their ticket with.

There was yet another rant about the Ukrainian government being "installed" by the USA, as thought the substantial protests from the people were all really american agents in disguise, and fully transparent election regardless who was running and why.

and of course the old argument that many eastern Ukrainians would rather be a part of Russia. Yeah, some were. Nothing like many. And half of those are the Russian operatives who were snuck into Donetsk prior the fake "civil uprising" in the first place. Remember elections run by the RF are not like elections here.

In defence of the article, there are some claims to which I give credit : Example: Zelenskyy is by no means stain-free. He enjoys some perks like any other head of state, and he's been embroiled in accusations of corruption, himself.

But for the most part, the piece comes from an American perspective, rather than from Ukrainian or even Russian. So it's hard to take too much of it too seriously.

 

[Aussie in exile]

This is the Russia Putin desires to recreate

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

These countries that Putin wants need to start to prepare bombing road and railway bridges in Russia that lead to their borders.

 

[jatz14]

For the few here that don't exist in the vacuum where you only want opinions or information that reinforces your own and have perhaps started to question government and media propaganda, because of the US media support given to Israel, this is an interesting read.

Media Rewrites Ukraine’s Dark History

Video transcript: Plus, an interview with journalist David Zweig on his reporting of the new files that show how Twitter rigged the online debate surrounding COVID

greenwald.substack.com

Try as hard as you can to set aside your views of whether the U.S. should or should not be intervening in that war by lavishing Ukraine with $100 billion and counting, and all sorts of sophisticated weaponry, as it treats the border conflict between two other countries on the other side of the world as its own proxy war.

And even try to leave aside your views about whether you believe Russia invaded Ukraine without any provocation or justification, or whether you believe that the U.S. and the EU – deliberately or otherwise – provoked the Russians by continuing to hint about Ukrainian membership in NATO, or helping to change the regime in Kyiv in 2014, from a pro-Moscow to a pro-EU government, or in general running amok and all but governing this vital country right on the most vulnerable part of the Russian border. The reason I ask you to leave all that aside is because it does not - or at least should not – affect the subject I'm about to examine, even though it's nominally about the war in Ukraine.

I don't disagree that hinting at the Ukrainians joining NATO upset Russia.

It's the interpretation that this is because they saw it as a threat to Russia, and not as a threat to Russian ambition that I have issue with.




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

 

[Visions]

The EU parliament held their vote calling for Hungary to be stripped of their voting rights.

Also asked for an investigation into the 10 billion euros that were given to Hungary by the EU which it claims was basically a bribe for their Ukraine NATO accession vote last time in.

Non binding resolution, so now its up to the European Council and the heads of states to act upon it.

At the very least it should make Hungary nervous about vetoes on future Ukrainian aid.

 

[Rayzorwire]

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.

Fertile land, clean water and clean air have always been and always will be the most precious things; particularly in the future we're headed for.

 

[Rayzorwire]

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

I'd love you to show me a graph where US military expenditure ever decreased...

And Russia had demonstrated its territorial ambitions in Ukraine.

I know it's kinda breaking your brains a bit, but it's beyond contest as a historical fact that Ukraine seized independent Crimea first.

The simplest fact in all this is that Crimea didn't want to be part of Ukraine then (they very clearly spelled out that they wanted to be independent from both Russia and Ukraine, but friendly with both when the USSR collapsed) and they still don't want to be part of Ukraine now.

Why on earth would the local Crimean people EVER want to be ruled or administered by a country (Ukraine) who removed their leader at gunpoint and ended their dreams of being an independent Oblast?

Why do you think Russia was able to seize Crimea virtually overnight back in 2014?

As things stand, it's not hard to see why all the polls there since 2014 - Russian OR Western - show the Crimean people seem overall very happy to be part of the Russian Federation compared to the alternative. After all, they're a lot safer from any potential future Ukranian aggression behind Russia's borders than they would be pursuing any future dreams of independence.

I'd fully support Crimea being independent again, they deserve that - as do the Tatars to have a much bigger say in the future of the region than they have since their forced removal.