Arming the Ukrainians

[Nearly Sane]

Difficult not to see this loophole as regards Russian oil refined elsewhere as effectively helping finance the war for Russia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68018660

[Spud]

But if, for the sake of argument, Russia hadn't invaded in the first place... we can't deal with the authoritarian, expansionist dick-bags we wish we had, we have to deal with the ones we have.

I sense that a desperate need to somehow shift the blame onto Ukraine and the west has you scrabbling for the most bat-shit crazy excuses you can find. Even if pride were the major element of it, it just change the fundamental, unalterable, unavoidable reality that the blame for all of this lies on Russia for its - checks records - eighth* invasion of a foreign nation in the last thirty or so years.

*Transnistra/Moldova 1992-94, Abkhazia/Georgia 1993, Chechnya 1994-96, Chechnya 2 1999-2009, Georgia 2 2008, Syria 2015-22, Ukraine 2014-15, Ukraine 2 2022-???

Which is what? Angela Merkel said a lot of things, not least in her sixteen years as a Chancellor having to deal with a world made more dangerous by, amongst other things, Russian expansionism, militarism and sabre-rattling.

Are you referring to her commentary that the pause in fighting between 2015 and 2022 gave Ukraine the opportunity to re-arm and prepare defences? So what, that's an appropriate response to a recent invasion, and is further justified by the reality that the invasion it was preparing for came exactly as predicted. Ukraine didn't rearm in order to invade Russia, but Russia did rearm to reinvade Ukraine. Exactly where is the problematic part of Ukraine engaging in diplomatic measures to build up what it hoped would be a deterrent to prevent exactly the bloodshed that you keep trying to pin on them?

O.

If the rearming was purely for defence, why are the weapons being used for terror attacks?  The latest was in Lisichansk and killed 28. So if NATO expansion couldn't justify the invasion, can these attacks on civilians?

[jeremyp]

If the rearming was purely for defence, why are the weapons being used for terror attacks?

It's the Russians doing the terror attacks.

The latest was in Lisichansk and killed 28. So if it can't be NATO expansion that justified the invasion, can it be these attacks on civilians?

Unfortunately, civilians often get caught in the cross fire. Do not assume that the propaganda service of Putin is telling the truth.

If Russia hadn't started the war, none of this would be happening.

[Spud]

NATO only represents a threat to Russia's security because it's a mutual defence alliance and he keeps on invading places.

Ditching the ABM treaty was quite a big factor. If the US puts ABMs near the border with launch pads that can be converted to support offensive missiles within hours or days, Russia has to respond by making better missiles that can evade the ABMs.

[Outrider]

If the rearming was purely for defence, why are the weapons being used for terror attacks?

It's not clear at this stage if a) this was a strike that hit the wrong target; b) this was a strike that hit the right target, but the intelligence around it was faulty; c) this was a strike that hit the right target, and the Russians are lying about what was hit; or, given that it's Russia d) this was not a strike at all the Russians are lying again or e) this was a strike that hit the wrong target by inept Russian conscripts, and the Russian propoganda machine is just thinking 'why waste a few good deaths'. Let's assume, though, that worst case scenario it's the first of those, that Ukraine deliberately targetted a civilian target - Firstly, the are retaliating for the ongoing invasion and indiscriminate bombing of their country. Secondly, whether or not you consider them 'terrorist' attacks or not is somewhat subjective, but certainly they're no more so than the attacks of the INVADING RUSSIAN FORCES IN THEIR COUNTRY.

The latest was in Lisichansk and killed 28. So if it can't be NATO expansion that justified the invasion, can it be these attacks on civilians?

Given that they happened not just after the invasion but - and this is the key bit, so pay attention - in RESPONSE to the invasion, I'd suggest that you'd have to be some sort of deliberately disingenuous apologist for Russian aggression to even have the cheek to suggest it. I'd suggest if the Russians don't want to be bombed in Ukrainian towns they are occupying, they should fuck off back to Russian towns.

Ditching the ABM treaty was quite a big factor.

And invading Chechnya, twice, before that treaty withdrawal decision was taken, helped with that how? And Moldova? Or were those just invasions with other convenient bullshit excuses from twenty years ago?

If they put ABMs near the border with launch pads that can be converted to support offensive missiles within hours or days, Russia has to respond by making better missiles than can evade the ABMs.

If they do that... have they done that? Oh, look at that, no they haven't.

O.

[jeremyp]

Ditching the ABM treaty was quite a big factor. If the US puts ABMs near the border with launch pads that can be converted to support offensive missiles within hours or days, Russia has to respond by making better missiles that can evade the ABMs.

Wouldn't Russia only need missiles that could evade America's ABM's if Russia intended attacking American interests?

[Spud]

Wouldn't Russia only need missiles that could evade America's ABM's if Russia intended attacking American interests?

After America ditched the treaty, Russia then needed to make their missiles better because America could launch at Russia and also prevent (with its ABMs) Russia responding.

[Outrider]

After America ditched the treaty, Russia then needed to make their missiles better because America could launch at Russia and also prevent (with its ABMs) Russia responding.

Given those missiles could be in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia or Turkey, all of which have borders with Russia or are closer to the major Russian cities and military sites than Ukraine, that still fails in any way to explain the invasion of Ukraine.

In light of the previous invasions - Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, Syria - it just sounds like a pathetic attempt at post hoc rationalisation of another bout of Imperialist aggression.

O.

[ad_orientem]

If the rearming was purely for defence, why are the weapons being used for terror attacks?  The latest was in Lisichansk and killed 28. So if NATO expansion couldn't justify the invasion, can these attacks on civilians?

If you believe Russian lies, yeah. Russian security forces and local collaborators were in the restaurant, according to journalist Denis Kazansky and Lisichansk city military administration (source: United 24).

[Spud]

Let's assume, though, that worst case scenario it's the first of those, that Ukraine deliberately targetted a civilian target - Firstly, the are retaliating for the ongoing invasion and indiscriminate bombing of their country. Secondly, whether or not you consider them 'terrorist' attacks or not is somewhat subjective, but certainly they're no more so than the attacks of the INVADING RUSSIAN FORCES IN THEIR COUNTRY

The Lysychansk bombing was an example of what the Ukrainians have been doing since 2014 .
Or how about the attack on a market in Donetsk 2 weeks ago?

[ad_orientem]

The Lysychansk bombing was an example of what the Ukrainians have been doing since 2014 .

Oh god! Bambili bambass! Vocem let! Suki blyad! That's an automatic "L".

[jeremyp]

After America ditched the treaty, Russia then needed to make their missiles better because America could launch at Russia and also prevent (with its ABMs) Russia responding.

Why would America want to launch at Russia? Can you think of any reason at all?

[jeremyp]

The Lysychansk bombing was an example of what the Ukrainians have been doing since 2014 .
Or how about the attack on a market in Donetsk 2 weeks ago?

Ukraine hasn't been geocoding anybody. Russia, on the other hand, has.

[Outrider]

The Lysychansk bombing was an example of what the Ukrainians have been doing since 2014 .

And yet, despite thousands of news agencies and individual citizen reporters being active, only the Russian state news agency knows/has the courage to report this?

Or how about the attack on a market in Donetsk 2 weeks ago?

Or how about the invasion of Chechnya. Or the second invasion of Chechnya. Or the invasion of Georgia. Or the second invasion of Georgia. Or the invasion of Moldova? Or the invasion of Syria.

These are war-zones, and in war zones people die, people get blown up, people get shot. Ukraine did not create this war zone, they were, in case you missed it, invaded by Russia. Again. Are there unfortunate deaths - yes. Is it possible these unfortunate deaths are the result of Ukrainian actions - yes. Is that the 'criminal' fault of one or more people in the Ukrainian command - quite possibly.

Would any of it be happening if Russia weren't an aggressively expansionistic rogue state with a propensity to invade its neighbours illegally occupying parts of another country? No.

That doesn't justify criminal behaviour from Ukraine, and that can and should be looked into, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that nothing Ukraine does that is unjustified in itself in any way absolves Russia of its culpability for this invasion, or its own well-documented, well-demonstrated atrocities.

And it doesn't excuse  your attempts to 'what if...', or 'what about...', or try to shift the blame elsewhere.

O.

[Spud]

Are you referring to her commentary that the pause in fighting between 2015 and 2022 gave Ukraine the opportunity to re-arm and prepare defences? So what, that's an appropriate response to a recent invasion, and is further justified by the reality that the invasion it was preparing for came exactly as predicted. Ukraine didn't rearm in order to invade Russia, but Russia did rearm to reinvade Ukraine. Exactly where is the problematic part of Ukraine engaging in diplomatic measures to build up what it hoped would be a deterrent to prevent exactly the bloodshed that you keep trying to pin on them?

O.

Yes, rearming for defense may have been a justified response to events in Donbas and Crimea, but it was actually to enable those regions to be brought under the complete control of Kiev.

 

Kyiv: no peace-building without full central control of separatist areas.

From Kiev’s point of view, peace-building “will only be possible once the territories have been liberated, i.e., once they are once again completely under Ukrainian control.”

https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2019RP05/#hd-d16096e2468

So the buildup of weapons would ultimately have been used offensively to regain control of Donbas, if we take the quote from the above German paper in 2019 to it's logical conclusion.
So, my point about Ukraine not being willing to cede control of Donbas was right. Scott Ritter was right in saying that had they ceded control of Donbas at the start, they could have avoided the half a million casualties they now have suffered without achieving their aim.

[jeremyp]

Yes, rearming for defense may have been a justified response to events in Donbas and Crimea, but it was actually to enable those regions to be brought under the complete control of Kiev.

 https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2019RP05/#hd-d16096e2468

So the buildup of weapons would ultimately have been used offensively to regain control of Donbas, if we take the quote from the above German paper in 2019 to it's logical conclusion.
So, my point about Ukraine not being willing to cede control of Donbas was right. Scott Ritter was right in saying that had they ceded control of Donbas at the start, they could have avoided the half a million casualties they now have suffered without achieving their aim.

Those regions are part of Ukraine and have always been part of Ukraine. Like all the other regions of Ukraine, they voted for independence from Russia in the last legitimate referendum. Of course Kyiv wants to take back control after Russia interfered and destabilised them.

I think you should stop using "Kiev". That's a transliteration of the Russian and I think it is profoundly insulting to its citizens, who have had to endure murderous Russian attacks, to keep using it.

[Outrider]

Yes, rearming for defense may have been a justified response to events in Donbas and Crimea, but it was actually to enable those regions to be brought under the complete control of Kiev.

And you've made that judgement based on what, exactly? Let's assume, for a moment, that Ukraine saw the minimal local disruption in Donbas as needing a military response - that's Kiev's job, it's the capital of Ukraine, where Donbas is. Even if you take that nonsense approach, that's still not a) wrong or b) grounds for a second Russian invasion.

So the buildup of weapons would ultimately have been used offensively to regain control of Donbas, if we take the quote from the above German paper in 2019 to it's logical conclusion.

The German paper that points out that these are not naturally semi-autonomous zones like we see in other independence movements, but areas deliberately destabilised by Russian interference. Perhaps the military build-up could have been used to stem that de facto invasion by Russian - again, that's the point of defence. Your whole schtick here is that Russia's invasion is justified as a pre-emptive move because NATO is creeping up to the Russian border, but don't seem to give Ukraine the same freedom to REACTIVELY exert its legal responsibilty to quell uprisings in Donbas which are sponsored by a foreign power as an attempt to create a justification for an invasion.

So, my point about Ukraine not being willing to cede control of Donbas was right.

Nobody was arguing that point. Why should Ukraine give up Donbas just because Russia has flooded it with paramilitaries and propoganda?

Scott Ritter was right in saying that had they ceded control of Donbas at the start, they could have avoided the half a million casualties they now have suffered without achieving their aim.

No, because that is presuming that Russia wouldn't not, instead, have simply tried to steamroller into Kiev and take the whole country - they tried to do that anyway, but because they needed to commit forces to the south because they hadn't secured Donbas, they were stretched too thin and failed to achieve that objective. It would have changed who died, it would have changed where they died, but the only way deaths could have been avoided would have been if Russia didn't invade. Again.

O.

[Spud]

"The missile defense capabilities we are developing are not designed to defend against Russia. Just as the new NATO we are building is not designed to defend against Russia; the cold war is over. Russia is not our enemy"
George W Bush, April 2008.
So NATO expansion was not due to Russian aggression, according to this statement? Perhaps it was with other states such as Iran in mind?

Outrider and jeremyp,

The point is that the separatists would not live under the Ukrainian government because it wouldn't represent their interests. They didn't vote in the 2019 election, presumably? So for Ukraine, Germany etc to sign the Minsk agreements while Ukraine planned to continue the war after rearming was deceitful.

[Outrider]

"The missile defense capabilities we are developing are not designed to defend against Russia. Just as the new NATO we are building is not designed to defend against Russia; the cold war is over"
George W Bush, April 2008.
So NATO expansion was not due to Russian aggression, according to this statement?

According to the statement - do you believe him? I'd suggest that it probably wasn't entirely, solely or specifically with Russia in mind, but I suspect it was perhaps a general purpose system which could be deployed to defend against hostilities from anyone.

The point is that the separatists would not live under the Ukrainian government because it wouldn't represent their interests.

That's not a justification for Russia to invade. Russia can, for instance, offer them an alternative place to live, but they aren't justified in sowing dissent or in sending in troops to an internal Ukrainian matter.

They didn't vote in the 2019 election, presumably?

They were eligible to vote, I've not seen anything to suggest they weren't afforded the opportunity to vote, nothing to suggest that the integrity of the vote was compromised in any meaningful way? Or do you mean they didn't vote for the candidate that won? Scotland, as a whole, didn't vote for Brexit - that's not a justification for Norway to invade the Shetlands.

So for Ukraine, Germany etc to sign the Minsk agreements while Ukraine planned to continue the war after rearming was deceitful.

Perhaps, you're assuming the knew that Ukraine intended to continue fighting - even now the Ukraine's commentary is that they wanted to build up their forces to stand firm against further aggression, not to retake Crimea. In order to recover Crimea they were pursuing diplomatic means.

Deceit is an integral part of warfare - Russia still occupied Ukrainian territory and Russia commitments to non-violence and non-aggression, based upon the previous two decades of evidence, were worthless. Russia signed that same Minsk agreement - who breached it and conducted military operations?

O.

[Spud]

According to the statement - do you believe him? I'd suggest that it probably wasn't entirely, solely or specifically with Russia in mind, but I suspect it was perhaps a general purpose system which could be deployed to defend against hostilities from anyone.

I can link you to the statement if you like, I'm not sure where he was but it was a speech at some large conference and the context of the comment was, I think, the missile defence systems NATO was  planning. I edited in what he said that I missed out, which was "Russia is not our enemy". Just something to bear in mind when claiming NATO expanded due to Russian aggression. Maybe he didn't mean it.

[jeremyp]

"The missile defense capabilities we are developing are not designed to defend against Russia. Just as the new NATO we are building is not designed to defend against Russia; the cold war is over. Russia is not our enemy"
George W Bush, April 2008.
So NATO expansion was not due to Russian aggression, according to this statement? Perhaps it was with other states such as Iran in mind?

As it turns out, Russia is our enemy. Bush was wrong, or at least, unable to predict the future.

Outrider and jeremyp,

The point is that the separatists would not live under the Ukrainian government because it wouldn't represent their interests. They didn't vote in the 2019 election, presumably? So for Ukraine, Germany etc to sign the Minsk agreements while Ukraine planned to continue the war after rearming was deceitful.

What separatists? There weren't any until Russia started interfering.

Ukraine didn't plan on continuing any war. They just wanted Russia to leave them alone, but, unlike you, they realised Russia cannot be trusted.

[ad_orientem]

"The missile defense capabilities we are developing are not designed to defend against Russia. Just as the new NATO we are building is not designed to defend against Russia; the cold war is over. Russia is not our enemy"
George W Bush, April 2008.
So NATO expansion was not due to Russian aggression, according to this statement? Perhaps it was with other states such as Iran in mind?

He was obviously wrong, though it's important to note he said that some months before Russia's invasion of Georgia. Nevertheless, despite his faults, were he president today he would be arming Ukraine to the teeth. I would take him over a weak Biden or a Kremlin run GOP any day.

[Nearly Sane]

He was obviously wrong, though it's important to note he said that some months before Russia's invasion if Georgia. Nevertheless, despite his faults, were he president today he would be arming Ukraine to the teeth. I would take him over a weak Biden or a Kremlin run GOP any day.

Though it is Bush's party that is the issue about US support so who knows

[ad_orientem]

Though it is Bush's party that is the issue about US support so who knows

Indeed. They've been bought by the Kremlin, or at least MAGA was, and it didn't even cost much.

[jeremyp]

Though it is Bush's party that is the issue about US support so who knows

The Republicans today are not the Republicans of the Bush era. They've since been bought by Putin.