MontyFloyd
Member
At the very, very least, this rewards Putin with aggression.
Putin will do this again, next time it might be Finland, which at one time was Russian controlled and Putin thinks should be Russian controlled again.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Poll: Are you in favor or against U.S. doing more in Ukraine?
- Thread starter Terminator857
- Start date
- Status
Putin will do this again, next time it might be Finland, which at one time was Russian controlled and Putin thinks should be Russian controlled again.
Tam
Well-Known Member
The promise of no NATO expansion was assured by different US administrations throughout the years since 2/9/1990 and guess, at last, who would be the enforcer to hold the US responsible?
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
Russia has been taught that non-violent ways of words didn't work as NATO kept expanding eastward:
1999 Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland
2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia
2009 Albania, Croatia
2020 North Macedonia
And the US has taught Russia that starting wars has held off the expansions:
2008 Russia invading Georgia has effectively prevented Georgia to join NATO after Georgia lost 20% of its territory.
2014 Russia invading Ukraine has effectively prevented Ukraine to join NATO after Ukraine lost Crimea.
2022 Russia invading Ukraine has prompted Ukraine to repeatedly demand NATO to allow it to join NATO but NATO has effectively prevented Ukraine to join NATO. The future will tell whether Ukraine will lose any more territory when the dust will settle.
I think some have the attitude that Russia is weak so broken promises to a weak enemy would be rewarding as proven in the case of the newly arrived European settlers in the American continent vs American Natives (in this case, the expansion was westward until reaching what is called California today).
Last edited:
MontyFloyd
Member
There was no agreement, just idle chit chat.
The expansion itself was not an issue until years after Putin took power, and then came to forefront with the massive radar system built in Poland.
BUT I think nothing would please Putin short of dissolution of NATO.
Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova are poof of NATO's value
Tam
Well-Known Member
It's true that the promise was never codified.
However, that "idle chit chat" was taken very seriously by the US government officials such as Secretary of State William Perry, current CIA Director William Burns:
"It is good to know some history.
When Ukraine became independent after the Soviet Union collapsed in
1991, Russian leaders made clear their concerns about the prospect of
former Soviet states becoming part of NATO and positioning hostile
military forces along Russia's border. U.S. officials recognized these
concerns as legitimate at the time. One of those officials was William
Perry, who served as Defense Secretary under President Bill Clinton. In
a 2017 interview, Perry said:
In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at
the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years I
have to say that the United States deserves much of the
blame.
Further:
Our first action that really set us off in a bad direction
was when NATO started to expand, bringing in eastern European
nations, some of them bordering Russia.
That is former Secretary of State William Perry.
Another U.S. official who acknowledged these concerns is former U.S.
Diplomat Bill Burns, who is now head of the CIA in the Biden
administration. In his memoir, Burns quotes a memo he wrote while
serving as counselor for political affairs at the U.S. Embassy in
Moscow in 1995.
Hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally
felt across the domestic political spectrum here.
Over 10 years later, in 2008, Burns wrote in a memo to Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice:
Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines
for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and
a half years of conversations with key Russian players . . .
I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as
anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.
So, again, these concerns were not just invented yesterday by Putin
out of thin air. Clearly, invasion by Russia is not an answer, neither
is intransigence by NATO. It is important to recognize, for example,
that Finland, one of the most developed and democratic countries in the
world, borders Russia and has chosen not to be a member of NATO. Sweden
and Austria are other
[[Page S634]]
examples of prosperous and democratic countries that have made the same
choice.
Vladimir Putin may be a liar and a demagogue, but it is hypocritical
for the United States to insist that we as a nation do not accept the
principle of spheres of influence. For the last 200 years, our country
has operated under the Monroe Doctrine, embracing the principle that as
the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has the
right--according to the United States--to intervene against any country
that might threaten our alleged interests. That is U.S. policy. And
under this doctrine, the United States has undermined and overthrown at
least a dozen countries throughout Latin America, Central America, and
the Caribbean.
As many might recall, in 1962, we came to the brink of nuclear war
with the Soviet Union. Now, why was that? Why did we almost come to the
brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union?
Well, we did that in response to the placement of Soviet missiles in
Cuba, 90 miles from our shore, and the Kennedy administration saw that
as an unacceptable threat to national security. We said it is
unacceptable for a hostile country to have a significant military
presence 90 miles away from our shore."
In 1993 Boris Yeltsin wrote to President Bill Clinton stating that expansion of NATO Eastwards violates the spirit of the 1990 treaty.
The chitchat from Secretary of State James Baker: "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east" has never been codified into a treaty but that doesn't mean Russia does not feel that was deceitful.
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
As to your comment about Cuba, Russia has had a defence agreement with Cuba since 2016 and has recently threatened to send troops there:
Russia Suggests Military Deployment to Venezuela, Cuba if Tensions With U.S. Remain High
Russia’s deputy foreign minister said talks with the U.S. over the security situation in Ukraine had stalled and suggested that Moscow could dispatch a military deployment to Venezuela and Cuba.
www.wsj.com
Tam
Well-Known Member
That reminded me of the US invading Grenada in 1983 with the excuse of protecting American citizens over there but actually, the real reasons were: The US was panicky and did not want Grenada to be influenced by its neighbor Cuba and also the far-away Soviet Union.
Tam
Well-Known Member
As a small country with less military capability, it might have a chance to prevent war from a much stronger country if it is willing to negotiate and accept some concessions.
For instance, when Grenada, (a very small Caribbean country east of Cuba, with a population of 112,519 that is 2,720 miles from the US) was about to be invaded by the US, it could have negotiated with the US to abandon any thoughts or practice of communism in exchange for peace.
But NO!!! It wanted to claim its rights as an independent nation which resulted in the invasion from the US. 19 US servicemen were killed and 116 were wounded.
So, it’s a choice of claiming its rights of exercising its own freedom and independence and getting crushed or making a concession to do what the US wanted it to do.
Back to Ukraine: Similarly, it’s smaller and much weaker than its next-door giant neighbor Russia. If it was prudent, before it provokes Russia, it should make sure it is protected by NATO FIRST!!!
People may think that Ukraine didn’t provoke Russia but:
“In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.”
In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Most likely, Ukraine is aware that it’s of no national interest to the US:
“First of all, Ukraine isn't in America's neighbourhood. It is not located on the US border. Nor does it host a US military base. It does not have strategic oil reserves, and it's not a major trade partner.”
That's why when Ukraine was warned from the West that the Russian invasion was imminent but instead of negotiating with Russia, it decried intelligence reports and wanted proof of Moscow’s attack plans.
And now the war has started as warned by the West, instead of apologizing for dismissing the hard work of the intelligence community, it is blaming the US and NATO for not doing what it wants: NATO membership, protected by NATO, fighter jets, and no-fly zones.
Ukraine’s tactic seems to be getting into war so that the US and NATO have no choice but to get into war too. Since the US and NATO refuse to get into war, fighter jets and no-fly zones are a perfect way to “accidentally” get into war too. It’s not “accidental”, it’s an imminent pathway to get into war.
Thus, as a weaker and smaller country, war is not Ukraine's first rodeo because it lost Crimea to Russia in 2014 or 5 years ago already. So, this 2022 war is intentional. Ukraine gambles that the US and NATO will have to do what Ukraine wants: To join the war against Russia because Ukraine tells them so or otherwise, they would be tweeted with the label "afraid of Russia".
It’s a gamble because it is aware of all the warnings and the odds stacked against it as the West has told it for years.
I do admire heroes but I haven’t heard anyone praising the Grenadian martyrs that were crushed in the invasion from the US.
I don’t mind if the heroes make a choice to sacrifice themselves only but when they make a choice that results in a war that results in the loss of civilian lives, I don’t think that is ethical.
MontyFloyd
Member
Quote: U.S Intelligence Officials have stated that they have Indications that Ukrainian Forces have gained the Upper Hand on Multiple Fronts and are now Able and Willing to begin Offensives to take back Cities and Towns Occupied by Russian Forces, which has already reportedly begun.
You know that Ukraine's constitution, pre-2014, said that they had to be a neutral country and they couldn't legally apply to join NATO, right? Nor did they want to be a member. It was only after Russia invaded Crimea that they changed their constitution and applied to join. Putin, not NATO, is doing NATO's recruiting. Just look at what happened in Finland, where they've gone from about 20-25% support for joining NATO to a majority, in less than a year.
Tam
Well-Known Member
True. Smaller Eastern European countries have wanted to join NATO but they weigh the risk of Russia's retaliation and that fear might change over time depending on their assessment of Russia's threats.
In 1963, the violent coup in South Vietnam wouldn't happen until it had the approval of the US.
Similarly, the violent 2014 Ukraine coup wouldn't happen until it has been supported by the US.
So their assessment of Russia's threats is very much dependent on whether the US would support them or not.
Very true. But the event that triggered the 2014 Russian invasion was the violent Ukraine coup in 2014 by the far right that has been supported thy the US.
The US January 6th insurrection was an amateur job while the Ukrainian far-right even brought the bulldozer to crush the police:
Photo: The Washing Post Yikes. (Genya Savilov/AFP/Getty Images)
And don't forget the Molotov cocktails that are not only used today against Russia but were used in the 2014 "peaceful" coup against the Ukrainian police also.
Photo: The Atlantic, Reuters/Andrew Kravchenko
And the Molotov cocktails were not only used to burn Ukrainian police but were also used by the far-right to kill at least anti-coup 48 civilians in the Odessa massacre.
The pre-coup government was trying to be neutral but was violently flipped and the Odessa massacre victims were pro-Russia so the 2014 coup triggered the Russian invasion and the loss of Crimean.
The reason that Ukraine was able to turn from a neutral country to the one that wants to join NATO was not caused by the 2014 Russian invasion but was because the US has been engineering it with the far-right group before 2014 and it has not been peaceful for Ukrainian police nor civilians.
Wait you're saying that the US forced Ukrainian citizens to turn on the Yanukovich government because they didn't otherwise want more close ties to the EU? Seriously?True. Smaller Eastern European countries have wanted to join NATO but they weigh the risk of Russia's retaliation and that fear might change over time depending on their assessment of Russia's threats.
In 1963, the violent coup in South Vietnam wouldn't happen until it had the approval of the US.
Similarly, the violent 2014 Ukraine coup wouldn't happen until it has been supported by the US.
So their assessment of Russia's threats is very much dependent on whether the US would support them or not.
Very true. But the event that triggered the 2014 Russian invasion was the violent Ukraine coup in 2014 by the far right that has been supported thy the US.
The US January 6th insurrection was an amateur job while the Ukrainian far-right even brought the bulldozer to crush the police:
Photo: The Washing Post Yikes. (Genya Savilov/AFP/Getty Images)
And don't forget the Molotov cocktails that are not only used today against Russia but were used in the 2014 "peaceful" coup against the Ukrainian police also.
Photo: The Atlantic, Reuters/Andrew Kravchenko
And the Molotov cocktails were not only used to burn Ukrainian police but were also used by the far-right to kill at least anti-coup 48 civilians in the Odessa massacre.
The pre-coup government was trying to be neutral but was violently flipped and the Odessa massacre victims were pro-Russia so the 2014 coup triggered the Russian invasion and the loss of Crimean.
The reason that Ukraine was able to turn from a neutral country to the one that wants to join NATO was not caused by the 2014 Russian invasion but was because the US has been engineering it with the far-right group before 2014 and it has not been peaceful for Ukrainian police nor civilians.
Sometimes the US has been on the wrong side of history and has supported puppet regimes against the will of the people they govern (i.e. the Shah of Iran) but other times, it has supported movements that were home grown and very popular with the people. The Revolution of Dignity falls in the latter category. Of course, Russia was meddling in Ukrainian politics too and was backing Yanukovich, who did have some support at home primarily in the Russian speaking eastern areas and Crimea. But even that local support has now evaporated when the bombs started falling.
As a general principle, I'm in favor of supporting those individuals who are willing to fight for their Liberty. That doesn't mean we put boots on the ground or declare war; we just provide the tools to those who are willing to fight for themselves. The people of Ukraine have proved that in spades.
Tam
Well-Known Member
According to the Wall Street Journal, anti-aircraft Stinger is the factor that caused the Russia to abandon the Afghanistan occupation:
"It was the first time since the Soviet invasion seven years earlier that a mujahedeen fighter had destroyed the most feared weapon in the Soviet arsenal, a Hind attack helicopter. The event panicked the Soviet ranks, changed the course of the war and helped to break up the USSR itself."
www.wsj.com
In that invasion, Russia lost 15,000 soldiers in 10 years.
Now, it's 1 month after the Russia invasion starting on 2/24/2022, the estimated loss is about from 7,000 to 15,000:
apnews.com
"It was the first time since the Soviet invasion seven years earlier that a mujahedeen fighter had destroyed the most feared weapon in the Soviet arsenal, a Hind attack helicopter. The event panicked the Soviet ranks, changed the course of the war and helped to break up the USSR itself."
The Stinger Missile That Made Afghanistan's History
Three former mujahedeen recall the fateful day: 'Now I'm a banker. It's boring.'
www.wsj.com
In that invasion, Russia lost 15,000 soldiers in 10 years.
Now, it's 1 month after the Russia invasion starting on 2/24/2022, the estimated loss is about from 7,000 to 15,000:
NATO: 7,000 to 15,000 Russian troops dead in Ukraine
NATO is estimating that 7,000 to 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in a month of fighting in Ukraine.
apnews.com
Tam
Well-Known Member
No.
The US did not force South Vietnam to perform a coup in 1963. It only gave an assurance to the coup planners that the coup would not be squashed.
Same deal here: The US did not "force" Ukraine citizens to turn against Yanukovych.
Ukrainian President Yanukovych could work with both the West and Russia. Thus, because he's not anti-Russia, the US has preferred a more pro-US leader and anti-Russia.
The US has supported the far-right because they have been effective fighters both in peacetime against the police and wartime against Russia.
The far-right group Azov Battalion used to be "paramilitary", outside of the government, but due to its fierce fighting as shown during the 2014 Maidan protest against the police and civilians, it was rewarded by being integrated into the Interior Ministry.
Because it is part of the government, it's no shame for the US major news organizations to display their name on the upper left corner and their website on the lower right corner:
Their logo features the Wolfsangel on the 2 soldiers' left arms and the upper part of the website
used by the Nazi 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich:
Just because Toyota engineered a gasoline car and gave that car away, that doesn't mean it "forced" me to drive an ICE.
Same deal here in Ukraine: The US wants to weaken Russia and if Ukraine wanted to violently overturn a duly elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych, the US would not stand in the way.
Last edited:
Russia says Ukraine needs to be de-nazified and de-militarized.
I wonder if there is a way to measure the Nazi level of a country? Perhaps a silly question since no agreed definition of Nazi and if one were to try, measurements would be subjective.
Why does Russia feel Ukraine needs to be de-militarized? Of course Ukraine feels Russia needs to be de-militarized as does much of the world.
I wonder if there is a way to measure the Nazi level of a country? Perhaps a silly question since no agreed definition of Nazi and if one were to try, measurements would be subjective.
Why does Russia feel Ukraine needs to be de-militarized? Of course Ukraine feels Russia needs to be de-militarized as does much of the world.
The "Nazi" propaganda is just that, to justify an unpopular, unjust war to the people at home.
As far as de-militarization, that's a hard no. The purpose is to make the people of Ukraine indefensible, and therefore to bend to the will of Russia upon demand. Our war for independence did not ignite over taxes or representation. That fire was ignited when they came to seize our arms. We knew then, that to be disarmed would turn us into slaves. This is a fact that the people of Ukraine are undoubtedly well aware of.
- Status
Similar threads
