Arming the Ukrainians

[jeremyp]

Putin wasn't prepared for NATO to supply Ukraine.

Putin was also not prepared for the fact that his own armed forces had been hollowed out by corruption. That's why he's now forced to kidnap men from the streets and force them to act as bullet absorbers for what's left of his professional army.

It's time you realised that Putin is the bad guy here.

I am not a Russian shill, just looking objectively at the military side of it and researching the cause.

You won't find the cause by examining Putin's words. He wouldn't know the truth if it punched him in the face.

[jeremyp]

Putin wants Ukrainian neutrality.

He never wanted that. He wanted Ukraine to be run by somebody he could control. I think he's changed his mind about that now though. I think he wants to erase Ukraine as a nation.

I don't agree that Putin wants to rebuild a Russian empire.

He keeps invading foreign countries. Of course he wants an empire.

[Maeght]

I have been reading "Language, Status, and State Loyalty in Ukraine" in order to get a better understanding of whether 'genocide' describes what has been happening in Donbas. I would say that the Holodomor was genocide against Ukrainian nationalists, and I wouldn't say at present that Ukraine has recently committed genocide in Donbas, as Putin claims. But the ongoing attacks on civilians in Donetsk might justify Russian military support.
Putin wants Ukrainian neutrality.
I don't agree that Putin wants to rebuild a Russian empire. If he did, why would he be party to the Minsk agreement which kept Donbas as part of Ukraine?

He wants them to do what he wants - which is controlling them.

Russian military support? An invasion you mean.

[Spud]

Minsk isn't worth the paper it was written on. Russia also violated it multiple times.

The point is that Russia didn't recognize the DNR and LNR until 8 years after the civil war broke out. That indicates he had no empire-building ambitions.

[Gordon]

The point is that Russia didn't recognize the DNR and LNR until 8 years after the civil war broke out. That indicates he had no empire-building ambitions.

Spud: wouldn't you agree that he's indulging in some empire building right now, and has been for a while now (Crimea for instance)?

[ad_orientem]

The point is that Russia didn't recognize the DNR and LNR until 8 years after the civil war broke out. That indicates he had no empire-building ambitions.

It was an invasion, not a civil war!

[Spud]

He wants them to do what he wants - which is controlling them.

Russian military support? An invasion you mean.

Just reading this by CIA's William Burns in 2009:
"During his annual review of Russia's foreign policy
January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that
Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO,
particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military
threat.  While Russia might believe statements from the West
that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at
recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment
of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be
evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential."
Continue reading

Switzerland became neutral in 1515 because, if I've understood right, it is between France and Austria. I don't know but is this to do with Switzerland being bilingual? It seems similar with Ukraine, there is french and German influence in the Ukrainian language, and Russian is the main language of many. This increases the potential for conflicting loyalties, which makes neutrality a logical position to take

[Spud]

Putin was also not prepared for the fact that his own armed forces had been hollowed out by corruption. That's why he's now forced to kidnap men from the streets and force them to act as bullet absorbers for what's left of his professional army.

More evidence that his motive wasn't expansion.

[Aruntraveller]

More evidence that his motive wasn't expansion.

More evidence that he is getting increasingly desperate, is what you should have concluded.

[ad_orientem]

Just reading this by CIA's William Burns in 2009:
"During his annual review of Russia's foreign policy
January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that
Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO,
particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military
threat.  While Russia might believe statements from the West
that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at
recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment
of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be
evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential."
Continue reading

Switzerland became neutral in 1515 because, if I've understood right, it is between France and Austria. I don't know but is this to do with Switzerland being bilingual? It seems similar with Ukraine, there is french and German influence in the Ukrainian language, and Russian is the main language of many. This increases the potential for conflicting loyalties, which makes neutrality a logical position to take

Russia only has itself to blame. Constant aggression against its neighbours. As for language, language does not necessarily equal nationality. Otherwise you might just as well argue that Ireland still belongs to England.

[Spud]

It was an invasion, not a civil war!

invasion, or intervention?

[ad_orientem]

invasion, or intervention?

Invasion. There were Russian troops in Ukraine since 2014. They don't even deny that anymore.

[Gordon]

invasion, or intervention?

Have to say you're looking increasingly silly, Spud: Putin is an overt despot, yet you seem blind to this.

[jeremyp]

The point is that Russia didn't recognize the DNR and LNR until 8 years after the civil war broke out. That indicates he had no empire-building ambitions.

He started the civil war.

[jeremyp]

More evidence that his motive wasn't expansion.

How are things he didn't know evidence against his motive?

[Maeght]

Just reading this by CIA's William Burns in 2009:
"During his annual review of Russia's foreign policy
January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that
Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO,
particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential military
threat.  While Russia might believe statements from the West
that NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at
recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment
of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be
evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential."
Continue reading

Switzerland became neutral in 1515 because, if I've understood right, it is between France and Austria. I don't know but is this to do with Switzerland being bilingual? It seems similar with Ukraine, there is french and German influence in the Ukrainian language, and Russian is the main language of many. This increases the potential for conflicting loyalties, which makes neutrality a logical position to take

From Wikipedia
'Swiss neutrality is one of the main principles of Switzerland's foreign policy which dictates that Switzerland is not to be involved in armed or political conflicts between other states. This policy is self-imposed and designed to ensure external security and promote peace.'

totally different from Putin wanting Ukraine to be neutral.

[Spud]

How are things he didn't know evidence against his motive?

Oh, so Putin was planning to annex parts of Europe all along but didn't know that his military wouldn't be up to it?

[ad_orientem]

Oh, so Putin was planning to annex parts of Europe all along but didn't know that his military wouldn't be up to it?

Haven't you learned anything over the past eight months? Putin lives in an ever decreasing bubble surrounded by yes men. He's about as detached from reality as you can be, surpassed perhaps only by Kim Jong-un.

[Outrider]

Oh, so Putin was planning to annex parts of Europe all along but didn't know that his military wouldn't be up to it?

Given his prior history of annexing territory in the region (Crimea), and the manifest failure of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that would seem to be the case, yes.

O.

[jeremyp]

Oh, so Putin was planning to annex parts of Europe all along but didn't know that his military wouldn't be up to it?

That is clearly the case, or he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine.

[Spud]

From Wikipedia
'Swiss neutrality is one of the main principles of Switzerland's foreign policy which dictates that Switzerland is not to be involved in armed or political conflicts between other states. This policy is self-imposed and designed to ensure external security and promote peace.'

totally different from Putin wanting Ukraine to be neutral.

I meant when it first became neutral, which I read was partly because it had been trying to expand and also because it would be good for relations between France and Austria. I'll go back and check.
Edit:    quote, "after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, the major European powers concluded that a neutral Switzerland would serve as a valuable buffer zone between France and Austria and contribute to stability in the region."

[Spud]

He started the civil war.

There are people who think the West is responsible, because of the expansion of NATO Eastwards. The effect of that was predicted long before it happened, as the above link to William Burns shows.

When the Soviet Union broke up, the main reason for NATO continuing to function was to keep re-unified Germany in check (correct me if that is wrong). That's why the Russians were happy for the US to maintain its presence in Europe.

Article 10 of NATO includes the condition for a country that joins it that it will contribute to the security of Europe. For a country that's on Russia's border, I would say the best way to do that is to remain neutral. 

[Spud]

That is clearly the case, or he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine.

Maybe. But I think the consensus view is that he wasn't expecting the Ukrainians to fight so well or the West to give them so much support.

[Maeght]

I meant when it first became neutral, which I read was partly because it had been trying to expand and also because it would be good for relations between France and Austria. I'll go back and check.
Edit:    quote, "after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, the major European powers concluded that a neutral Switzerland would serve as a valuable buffer zone between France and Austria and contribute to stability in the region."

The bit before the bit you quoted is

' Following the defeat, the Confederacy abandoned its expansionist policies and looked to avoid future conflict in the interest of self-preservation. It was the Napoleonic Wars, however, that truly sealed Switzerland’s place as a neutral nation. '

So the policy was in place before Napoleons's defeat at Waterloo etc but was seen as being a good thing by the major powers. It doesn't say it was imposed on Switzerland under threat of invasion!

Ukrainian neutrality should be their choice, it's not up to Putin.

[Outrider]

There are people who think the West is responsible, because of the expansion of NATO Eastwards.

There are people that think rape victims are to blame because of what they were wearing - to whom NATO does or does not extend membership to is only Russia's concern if they want to join. What sovereign nations choose to for mutual defence does not justify an invasion.

The effect of that was predicted long before it happened, as the above link to William Burns shows.

That we knew it was coming doesn't change the fact that responsibility lies squarely on Russia for its invasion of a foreign, sovereign nation. Twice.

When the Soviet Union broke up, the main reason for NATO continuing to function was to keep re-unified Germany in check (correct me if that is wrong).

It wasn't even really that, I suspect it was a combination of habit and the security of having a strong military alliance even without an immediate credible threat.

That's why the Russians were happy for the US to maintain its presence in Europe.

The Russians weren't particularly happy about it, but between the rampant profiteering, internal politics and overall weak position there wasn't much they could do about it, even if they weren't so intent on trying to connive their way into power within the country that they weren't that interested in international politics.

Article 10 of NATO includes the condition for a country that joins it that it will contribute to the security of Europe. For a country that's on Russia's border, I would say the best way to do that is to remain neutral.

There is more to maintaining security that merely postponing warfare. Russia's expansionist tendencies have been apparent for some time, and not joining NATO some time ago has simply left Ukraine in a weak position and led to the Russian invasion of Europe - just not NATO. The best way for small - or militarily relatively weak - nations to ensure security is to join strong alliances.

O.