Current Affairs Ukraine

[Martin Alvito]

The only missile systems the US has forward deployed in Eastern Europe are Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, and Aegis ashore, all of which are defensive anti-ballistic missile systems.

The reason Putin went screwy is that these defensive missile systems have the capability to mitigate or negate Russia’s nuclear first-strike capability.

Those won't shoot down ICBM re-entry vehicles with any degree of reliability, no matter where we put them. They might enable us to win a ground war, but then he just nukes the snot out of us, so we're not doing that.

I don't think Putin is worried about his first strike capability. I think he's worried about our ability to generate a credible, disabling one. If that happens, he's at our mercy, and he won't tolerate that. So, when we removed Yanukovych, he took steps.

I don't think the invasion was strictly speaking necessary given that we're very unlikely to admit a country to NATO that is actively at war with Russia, which Ukraine already was. I'm also not privy to the conversations inside the Beltway, so it's possible he has better information about that than I do.

I think he simply thought that he would win relatively quickly (most of us did), put a longstanding set of territorial disputes to bed and gain a little breathing space with respect to the nuclear defense problem. That turned out not to be accurate.

 

[BlueToff]

I do have to wonder if said nuclear arsenal actually works. Based on their general incompetence militarily speaking so far.

Maybe not, probably best not to try it out though

 

[BlueToff]

Why? If stable and democratic nations vote to join NATO, is it not within their right to do so? NATO isn't a threat to Russia, but rather it's a threat to Putin.

I absolutely agree, in an ideal world, that any nation should be allowed to join any alliance they wish.

However, if Mexico joined up with China, Iran, Russia and North Korea in an alliance, what d'you reckon the US would do?

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about the NATO treaty, too. Russia say they were told there would be no expansion, Gorbachev flip-flopped on it and the US/UK/Germany said all that was agreed was that no non-German troops would be positioned in East Germany, or what used to be East Germany. So again, seems hard to find a definitive answer.

This is a good article on it, and I've taken the below excerpt: https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html

'The Spirit Of The Treaty'

Russia's first president, Boris Yeltsin, was wary about NATO expansion but did not oppose it, according to declassified memos. "We understand, of course, that any possible integration of East European countries into NATO will not automatically lead to the alliance somehow turning against Russia," Yeltsin wrote in a September 1993 letter to U.S. President Bill Clinton. "But it is important to take into account how our public opinion might react to that step."

But Yeltsin also cited what he cast as assurances given to Soviet officials during the negotiations on German unification, writing that "the spirit of the treaty on the final settlement...precludes the option of expanding the NATO zone into the East."

 

[BlueToff]

If NATO expansion was the be all and end all for Putin then he would be invading Finland right now. He won't as Finland is much more battle prepared and we would all join in anyhow.

It is just another excuse to invade. They may tell their people the lies about the big bad west wanting to destroy Russia to keep them all scared but few in the Kremlin would actively believe that. They just want control over the ex Soviet countries and absolutely do not want to see standards of living being of western countries, as if that happens the gig is up to how it treats it's citizens.

Tbf I wouldn't put it past him but yes, he wanted an excuse to invade, and it was given to him. Also pretty sure Ukraine has more natural resources than Finland, and this is what Putin will want too (likewise, I'm sure the West would quite like Ukraine's resources on their side of the fence, at least the invasion secured that should Ukraine be there at the end of all this!)

Well in all honesty mate, Latvia for example has been in the EU for a good while now, has been its own country for 31-32 years, and the average monthly wage is 300 euros, it's still pretty frowned upon to be gay there, and most people with any hopes or aspirations have to leave.

Struggle to blame all of that on dastardly Russians not letting their former nations thrive. It's an unfortunate circumstance of where they are and of generations of struggle and strife.

 

[PKwalnuts]

It seems, unfortunately, that World leaders have given up on collaborating against existential problems, and are positioning to come out strongest in a new world order that we are witnessing being created.
It seems the created norms are being tested in every way.
I'd like to think as One People we could grow up and work together celebrating cultural differences, but the reality is that greed and partisan, nationalistic ideals are ruling the direction of affairs.

Has there ever been a time of so much suffering in the world, and imbalance amongst the haves and have-nots, and aggressive defence of opposing ideologies?

How does this ever resolve itself?

 

[BlueToff]

Even if NATO is on their border, what is the threat? Certainly not an invasion.

The only threat is that the potential for Russian people may see how life is led in a Western democracy and wonder why they have to live in fear of a tyrannical despot. Or maybe they wouldn't. However NATO pose literally zero threat to Russia in an invading capacity.

The threat should be feared by their leaders and those who wish to subjugate their societies, not from the people themselves.

There is no threat, again I'm not saying it's a justification.

But as I keep saying, if Mexico went into an alliance with Russia and China and there were Russian and Chinese troops stationed in Mexico, what d'you think the US would do? Let it happen?

I'm not saying it's a justification for Putin to invade. But he was amassing troops for months saying he'd do it and it seemed like nobody believed it until it happened. NATO, obviously, were stocking troops in their other countries, but the reason Ukraine was there to be invaded was because NATO hadn't granted them entry, wasn't it... and it's that which allowed Putin to invade but also gave him an excuse. i.e. 'I will not let Ukraine join NATO, and the fact that the opportunity might even come up will mean I'll do this'.

If NATO thought it was sensible for Ukraine to have been incorporated, then I'd have imagined they'd have done it a good while ago! But clearly they knew it wasn't. So you might say that it isn't a threat for NATO to be on Russia's borders, and I agree, but they didn't go ahead and get them in. Similarly with Finland, too.

 

[sbbefc]

It seems, unfortunately, that World leaders have given up on collaborating against existential problems, and are positioning to come out strongest in a new world order that we are witnessing being created.
It seems the created norms are being tested in every way.
I'd like to think as One People we could grow up and work together celebrating cultural differences, but the reality is that greed and partisan, nationalistic ideals are ruling the direction of affairs.

Has there ever been a time of so much suffering in the world, and imbalance amongst the haves and have-nots, and aggressive defence of opposing ideologies?

How does this ever resolve itself?

The only way it resolves itself is if mankind manages to evolve out its bad traits. That will take thousands of years and there's a good chance that mankind gets worse than better.

 

[BlueToff]

Creating Nazis and Satanists? That is what Putin SMO is meant to be clearing out. And they are going about this by killing and raping women and children and kidnapping people.

NATO can onli stop this war by directly intervening or pulling put support and letting the Russian rapists rampage across the country.

I mean it's been well-documented that there's some Neo-Nazi groups actually in the Ukrainian army as part of their defence, but obviously, it was a complete lie by Putin that they sold to the Russian people, and I'd say a ton do not believe it, and rightly so.

Well on your bit in bold then, what do you want to happen mate? Because I'm actually suggesting the West/NATO act as a broker, act as a powerful collective of nations with military power should do, and attempt to end this as peacefully as possible.

But you say that's impossible, and you say the Russian rapists won't stop, and Ukraine are also right not to stop and surrender - so what are you wanting to happen? Want NATO to leave it, or let's all go to war?

 

[tsubaki]

Apologies for repeating myself, but I think to suggest this is about NATO / a military threat to Russia itself is to make an argument that doesn't really have any evidence to back it up. Putin knows that the chances of a military buildup on his western border that appears at random (as in not in response to a move by him) were incredibly low; lets face it he has tested that repeatedly since 2008 without much happening and European defence spending was for the most part on a steady decline for two decades.

What is a threat to him (personally, not to Russia) are bordering states improving their standards of living to a point where the mass of the Russian population start to notice. They can laugh about the decadent West and spread that "golden billion" nonsense (which is especially crazy when you consider they are among the richest people in the planet who own more Western property than 95% of the Western population do) but when the Poles and Ukrainians start having a grand old time the inevitable question is "well, why can't we have that?" and people start to look again at all the palaces, yachts, hypercars, 20 year old hotties on the arm of 60 year old men who are in theory paid $50k a year but who have private jets and whatnot.

In that respect I think what happened in Belarus in 2020 has a much bigger influence on him (and on this war) than is recognized. He knows that regimes like his have a huge problem with mass protest (something that has been demonstrated almost ad infinitum throughout history), and he also knows that despite massive effort and expenditure even the most powerful internal security agencies can get beaten by it.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is no threat, again I'm not saying it's a justification.

But as I keep saying, if Mexico went into an alliance with Russia and China and there were Russian and Chinese troops stationed in Mexico, what d'you think the US would do? Let it happen?

I'm not saying it's a justification for Putin to invade. But he was amassing troops for months saying he'd do it and it seemed like nobody believed it until it happened. NATO, obviously, were stocking troops in their other countries, but the reason Ukraine was there to be invaded was because NATO hadn't granted them entry, wasn't it... and it's that which allowed Putin to invade but also gave him an excuse. i.e. 'I will not let Ukraine join NATO, and the fact that the opportunity might even come up will mean I'll this'.

If NATO thought it was sensible for Ukraine to have been incorporated, then I'd have imagined they'd have done it a good while ago! But clearly they knew it wasn't. So you might say that it isn't a threat for NATO to be on Russia's borders, and I agree, but they didn't go ahead and get them in. Similarly with Finland, too.

It's an excuse but an unacceptable one and also one of many excuses he's used alongside Nazisim and Satanism so far.

In fact he's used every excuse except the truthful one that it he just wants more land, more power, more money and to put himself in history and some great restorer of the Soviet state.

All he's done is put himself alongside the other far too numerous monsters of history that people will rejoice when dead and future generations will ask how we let him get away with it for so long.

 

[BlueToff]

It's an excuse but an unacceptable one and also one of many excuses he's used alongside Nazisim and Satanism so far.

In fact he's used every excuse except the truthful one that it he just wants more land, more power, more money and to put himself in history and some great restorer of the Soviet state.

All he's done is put himself alongside the other far too numerous monsters of history that people will rejoice when dead and future generations will ask how we let him get away with it for so long.

Of course it's an unacceptable one, there's very little excuse for an invasion. But again it shows that there's a lot of grey are when it comes to the 'why did it get here', which came before the unjustifiable decision to invade.

If NATO thought it was sensible to have Finland and/or Ukraine involved, then they would have done it years ago. They didn't, for a variety of reasons. Keep in mind, they added these nations in 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, so three former Soviet Nations there. Obviously I know the relationship between Russia and Finland is slightly different.

With Ukraine, it seems it has always been such a fractured relationship, and ultimately there are big parts of the country that seem to have at least sizeable portions that see themselves as Russian. I mean it's mad, isn't it, but a lot of refugees from the east of Ukraine actually ended up in Russia, probably because of family ties etc. Again, to be clear, none of this justifies what Putin has done.

He is a maniac, and yes, he has been there and allowed to do what he wants for far too long, but that's on us too. IMO when he was topping political opponents, that's when we should have made a firmer stance.

 

[PhilM]

Apologies for repeating myself, but I think to suggest this is about NATO / a military threat to Russia itself is to make an argument that doesn't really have any evidence to back it up. Putin knows that the chances of a military buildup on his western border that appears at random (as in not in response to a move by him) were incredibly low; lets face it he has tested that repeatedly since 2008 without much happening and European defence spending was for the most part on a steady decline for two decades.

What is a threat to him (personally, not to Russia) are bordering states improving their standards of living to a point where the mass of the Russian population start to notice. They can laugh about the decadent West and spread that "golden billion" nonsense (which is especially crazy when you consider they are among the richest people in the planet who own more Western property than 95% of the Western population do) but when the Poles and Ukrainians start having a grand old time the inevitable question is "well, why can't we have that?" and people start to look again at all the palaces, yachts, hypercars, 20 year old hotties on the arm of 60 year old men who are in theory paid $50k a year but who have private jets and whatnot.

In that respect I think what happened in Belarus in 2020 has a much bigger influence on him (and on this war) than is recognized. He knows that regimes like his have a huge problem with mass protest (something that has been demonstrated almost ad infinitum throughout history), and he also knows that despite massive effort and expenditure even the most powerful internal security agencies can get beaten by it.

This was what I was suggesting, although perhaps not as details as required. The movement towards the alliance corresponds with a socio-political shift.

Entry requirements for NATO are not merely based on a nation's military, but rather they must evidence long-term stable governments and democratic values.

They must have good relations with their neighbours in terms of resolving issues and ability to compromise; they must be in favour of a free market economy.

Joining NATO is the antithesis of what Putin believes a good 'neighbour' should be because all those values would be too close to home, and would seep in.

Russia say they were told there would be no expansion, Gorbachev flip-flopped on it and the US/UK/Germany said all that was agreed was that no non-German troops would be positioned in East Germany, or what used to be East Germany. So again, seems hard to find a definitive answer.

Russia promised it would not be a threat to Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear weapons alongside many other things (recent ones) and look how that turned out.

So, I don't hold much value in Russia claiming x or y, or suggesting x or y is the reason for their aggression.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

I mean it's been well-documented that there's some Neo-Nazi groups actually in the Ukrainian army as part of their defence, but obviously, it was a complete lie by Putin that they sold to the Russian people, and I'd say a ton do not believe it, and rightly so.

Well on your bit in bold then, what do you want to happen mate? Because I'm actually suggesting the West/NATO act as a broker, act as a powerful collective of nations with military power should do, and attempt to end this as peacefully as possible.

But you say that's impossible, and you say the Russian rapists won't stop, and Ukraine are also right not to stop and surrender - so what are you wanting to happen? Want NATO to leave it, or let's all go to war?

We want an end to this.

Current Affairs - Ukraine

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Of course it's an unacceptable one, there's very little excuse for an invasion. But again it shows that there's a lot of grey are when it comes to the 'why did it get here', which came before the unjustifiable decision to invade.

If NATO thought it was sensible to have Finland and/or Ukraine involved, then they would have done it years ago. They didn't, for a variety of reasons. Keep in mind, they added these nations in 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, so three former Soviet Nations there. Obviously I know the relationship between Russia and Finland is slightly different.

With Ukraine, it seems it has always been such a fractured relationship, and ultimately there are big parts of the country that seem to have at least sizeable portions that see themselves as Russian. I mean it's mad, isn't it, but a lot of refugees from the east of Ukraine actually ended up in Russia, probably because of family ties etc. Again, to be clear, none of this justifies what Putin has done.

He is a maniac, and yes, he has been there and allowed to do what he wants for far too long, but that's on us too. IMO when he was topping political opponents, that's when we should have made a firmer stance.

Well it can't really be because NATO acted and because they didn't act at the same time, I'm not sure I follow you there.

I just don't see the grey area, it's completely black and white to me. The only grey is a smokescreen of paper-thin mitigation for what are essentially the acts of a terrorist Premier of a terrorist state.

And that's essentially what Russia is now, launching massive bombardments on innocent civilians and their infrastructure, hoping to kill millions with starvation and in the freeze in a pathetic revenge tableu because Ukraine dared to fight back.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]