Arming the Ukrainians

[ad_orientem]

Your brain is seriously fried.

[Spud]

No. They, like we, understand the problems Russian territorial ambitions have caused, were causing then, and are still causing now.

Wrong. Russia signed the Minsk agreements which kept Donbas in Ukraine.

[Outrider]

Aren't you thinking of general election campaigns?

It happens anywhere politics intersects with public opinion.

What happens when governments don't do what they pledged in their manifestos is that they get voted out next time round.

Or they get civil disobedience and protests and new elections are called. Or there are armed revolutions. That's what happens when governments don't do what they've pledged to their electorate - that's not what you're alleging, here, though, you're alleging that government didn't do what they'd pledged to a potential enemy, except that (and this is the important bit) IT'S NOT IN THE AGREEMENT.

Likewise, since NATO did what it assured the Soviets it wouldn't do, the Soviets, or as it now is, Russia, has gone back on its agreement to keep its troops out of Europe (380,000 withdrew from East Germany).

NATO is alleged to have considered agreeing not to expand towards the Soviet Union, but didn't actually sign any agreement to that effect. The Soviet Union is gone and has been for over thirty years, but Putin wants NATO to be constrained now by an agreement that didn't exist with a state that no longer exists.
 

Hence the Russian army crossing into Donbas in 2022.

I told my mother I'd think about studying law, but instead I studied engineering. She's dead now, so my Aunt feels justified in moving into my garage - you see how, even if you accept the nonsense of the former, the conclusion to the story doesn't follow. That's the Russian illegal SECOND invasion of Ukraine, following it's military interventions in other nations over the past three decades.

Then Ukraine decided to attack them.

Russias invasions were the attack - Ukrainian troops resisting foreign troops inside Ukraine is not 'attacking' it's 'defending Ukrainian soil'. That's their job, that's their right, that's their duty.

Wrong. Russia signed the Minsk agreements which kept Donbas in Ukraine.

And invaded Moldova. And Georgia. And Chechnya. And Ukraine. And Ukraine again. Hitler signed peace deals and non-aggression treaties and territorial agreements, and then went ahead and invaded anyway, and Putin seems to be adopting the same arrangement.

Why should the fact that he signed an agreement seem to mean anything, when the agreements that other people don't sign appear to mean more to him?

O.

[Spud]

It happens anywhere politics intersects with public opinion.

Or they get civil disobedience and protests and new elections are called. Or there are armed revolutions. That's what happens when governments don't do what they've pledged to their electorate - that's not what you're alleging, here, though, you're alleging that government didn't do what they'd pledged to a potential enemy, except that (and this is the important bit) IT'S NOT IN THE AGREEMENT.

NATO is alleged to have considered agreeing not to expand towards the Soviet Union, but didn't actually sign any agreement to that effect. The Soviet Union is gone and has been for over thirty years, but Putin wants NATO to be constrained now by an agreement that didn't exist with a state that no longer exists.
 
I told my mother I'd think about studying law, but instead I studied engineering. She's dead now, so my Aunt feels justified in moving into my garage - you see how, even if you accept the nonsense of the former, the conclusion to the story doesn't follow. That's the Russian illegal SECOND invasion of Ukraine, following it's military interventions in other nations over the past three decades.

Russias invasions were the attack - Ukrainian troops resisting foreign troops inside Ukraine is not 'attacking' it's 'defending Ukrainian soil'. That's their job, that's their right, that's their duty.

And invaded Moldova. And Georgia. And Chechnya. And Ukraine. And Ukraine again. Hitler signed peace deals and non-aggression treaties and territorial agreements, and then went ahead and invaded anyway, and Putin seems to be adopting the same arrangement.

Why should the fact that he signed an agreement seem to mean anything, when the agreements that other people don't sign appear to mean more to him?

O.

Lots of nonsense

[Outrider]

Lots of nonsense.

Is that an agreement, because I don't see anything you put forward being anything even approaching a coherent argument.

You seem to think Russia thinks it's at risk of invasion or some sort of territorial incursion if neighbours join NATO. This is patently false, and for all that Russia claims it it doesn't seem believable.

You seem to think that Ukrainian people protesting their president of the time turning his back on the clear mandate of the people to foster closer ties with Russia is an 'insurrection'.

You seem to think that Russia's demonstrable history under Putin's leadership of military aggression against neighbours should have been no indication of this invasion's inevitability (just like Hitler's continued invasion weren't evidence of his warmongering, apparently).

You seem to think that Ukraine should just roll over and let themselves be subjugated to a fundamentally corrupt, broken, authoritarian regime because... well... um... people Putin kills that way will somehow be different to the people Putin is killing now. Or something.

Lots of nonsense is a generous description.

O.

[jeremyp]

Aren't you thinking of general election campaigns? What happens when governments don't do what they pledged in their manifestos is that they get voted out next time round. Likewise, since NATO did what it assured the Soviets it wouldn't do, the Soviets, or as it now is, Russia,

Russia is not the Soviet Union. Some parts of the former Soviet Union are now in NATO.

has gone back on its agreement to keep its troops out of Europe (380,000 withdrew from East Germany).
Hence the Russian army crossing into invading Donbas in 2022. Then Ukraine decided to attack them defend themselves.

FTFY

[Spud]

NATO is alleged to have considered agreeing not to expand towards the Soviet Union, but didn't actually sign any agreement to that effect. The Soviet Union is gone and has been for over thirty years, but Putin wants NATO to be constrained now by an agreement that didn't exist with a state that no longer exists.

Documented as having agreed, and so no less binding than a signature. Those verbal assurances were a condition on which Soviet troops would be withdrawn from East Germany. Russia has the same security concerns as the Soviet Union. So the West still needs to honour those assurances.

[jeremyp]

Documented as having agreed, and so no less binding than a signature. Those verbal assurances were a condition on which Soviet troops would be withdrawn from East Germany. Russia has the same security concerns as the Soviet Union. So the West still needs to honour those assurances.

Nope.

Russia is not the Soviet Union. Parts of the Soviet Union are in NATO. Russia needs to stop invading sovereign nations.

[Outrider]

Documented as having agreed, and so no less binding than a signature.

Absolute horseshit. If it's not signed in the final agreement it's part of the discussion that, for whatever reason, were not carried forward - if anything, that makes it even more explicitly not part of the agreement, because it's not that it wasn't thought about or discussed, it was actively rejected from the final agreement.

Those verbal assurances were a condition on which Soviet troops would be withdrawn from East Germany.

No, the conditions were what were put in the agreement. Those verbal discussions were not, to hear anyone other than the Soviets/Russians, ever 'assurances'. Only one side recollects any assurances being made, everyone else remembers the topic being discussed.

Russia has the same security concerns as the Soviet Union.

Yes. And those 'concerns' are not that they are at risk of invasion, but that they are at risk of being ignored. If they don't want people to turn away from them they need to be better neighbours.

So the West still needs to honour those assurances.

No, the West needs to abide by the terms of the agreements that were signed, which they are. Russia also needs to comply with the terms of the agreements it has signed, like respecting the borders of other nations.

O.
[/quote]

[Spud]

Absolute horseshit. If it's not signed in the final agreement it's part of the discussion that, for whatever reason, were not carried forward - if anything, that makes it even more explicitly not part of the agreement, because it's not that it wasn't thought about or discussed, it was actively rejected from the final agreement.

The written agreement was that Germany could be in NATO. The agreement that NATO wouldn't expand further was a verbal agreement, which Russia was seeking to get signed off before 2022. The point is, NATO was warned but didn't heed the warning.

[ProfessorDavey]

The written agreement was that Germany could be in NATO. The agreement that NATO wouldn't expand further was a verbal agreement, which Russia was seeking to get signed off before 2022. The point is, NATO was warned but didn't heed the warning.

In international law a verbal agreement is ... err ... not an agreement. And an agreement that one side sought to, but failed to get signed off is ... err ... not an agreement.

[Outrider]

The written agreement was that Germany could be in NATO.

'Written agreement' - the word you're looking for is 'Treaty'.

The agreement that NATO wouldn't expand further was a verbal agreement, which Russia was seeking to get signed off before 2022.

And failed. No-one apart from Russia was interested in putting it into a Treaty, so it didn't go into a Treaty so instead of becoming part of an actual agreement it's an interesting discussion point.

The point is, NATO was warned but didn't heed the warning.

If I warn someone that I'm going to punch them in the face if they don't stop calling me names, it doesn't let me off the hook if they keep calling me names. If I allege that they said they were going to stop, that still doesn't change anything. Other nations asking to join NATO is only Russia's problem if it has designs on those countries - Russia has since invaded, which suggests that those countries seeking to join NATO were making a sensible choice.

O.

[Spud]

In the information provided by the National Security Archives, there is documented verbal agreement that NATO will not expand. I don't know whether the following applies in international law, but according to this blog "it is a common misconception that verbal agreements hold no legal weight and therefore cannot be enforced but, this is not necessarily the case." If parties make an agreement by telephone, for example, it is possible that this can be enforced in a court of law. Key elements for enforcibility include: something offered; that thing accepted; an exchange takes place; the agreement is intended to be subject to the law of contract.
Now read documents 6 and 7 here
Quoting from document 6, "Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east."

[Nearly Sane]

In the information provided by the National Security Archives, there is documented verbal agreement that NATO will not expand. I don't know whether the following applies in international law, but according to this blog "it is a common misconception that verbal agreements hold no legal weight and therefore cannot be enforced but, this is not necessarily the case." If parties make an agreement by telephone, for example, it is possible that this can be enforced in a court of law. Key elements for enforcibility include: something offered; that thing accepted; an exchange takes place; the agreement is intended to be subject to the law of contract.
Now read documents 6 and 7 here
Quoting from document 6, "Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east."

The specific and limited cases where verbal agreements are accepted do not apply in international law. Even if they were to be, if you had read the link on when they apply, it's clear that the above would not be such a case.

[Outrider]

In the information provided by the National Security Archives, there is documented verbal agreement that NATO will not expand. I don't know whether the following applies in international law, but according to this blog "it is a common misconception that verbal agreements hold no legal weight and therefore cannot be enforced but, this is not necessarily the case." If parties make an agreement by telephone, for example, it is possible that this can be enforced in a court of law. Key elements for enforcibility include: something offered; that thing accepted; an exchange takes place; the agreement is intended to be subject to the law of contract.
Now read documents 6 and 7 here
Quoting from document 6, "Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east."

You're mistaking contract law with international treaties. That's a bit like confusing Ukrainian self-defence operations within their own borders with 'attacking Russia'. Oh, wait, you made that mistake as well...

O.

[Spud]

You're mistaking contract law with international treaties.

Fair enough, but back to my original point - that the negotiators in the West in 1990 understood that further NATO expansion would be perceived by Russia as a threat to its security. I am using that to argue against the claim that Russia's invasion was unprovoked. And you are answering that it isn't really security concerns but territorial ambitions. When I refute this with Russia signing the Minsk agreements, keeping Donbas in Ukraine, you resort to comparing Putin with Hitler.

And that is a very serious allegation, especially when we see symbolism from 1930s Germany on the flesh and equipment of Ukrainians. And we don't see Russia mass murdering people with little hats or prisoners of war.

Plus, Farage agrees that Russia was provoked.

I am now thinking that Russia might have done something similar to the Baltic states to prevent them joining NATO, if they had been strong enough at the time. I just don't think you can explain their current actions as due to territorial ambitions. Unnecessary paranoia, maybe. But I will finish by saying that I once went up to a circus elephant (which was in a pen) to pat it on the trunk. It sent me flying: it didn't know that I didn't want to harm it, and so it assumed that I was a threat. I think that's the case with Russia - it only wants one thing at the end of the day: a buffer zone

[Outrider]

Fair enough, but back to my original point - that the negotiators in the West in 1990 understood that further NATO expansion would be perceived by Russia as a threat to its security.

No, they didn't. They knew Russia would CLAIM it was a threat to their security, because it was a threat to their agenda to grow into a world power with local influence.

I am using that to argue against the claim that Russia's invasion was unprovoked.

I know, but because your premise is flawed, your conclusion is also flawed; even if it weren't, NATO going back on its word is not reason to invade a non-NATO country, nor to lie about it being to 'rescue' Russian-speaking locals, nor is it justification for the propoganda war, nor is it justification for the atrocities in that invasion, nor is it a justification for the kidnap and repatriation of children, and nor is it a justification for the invasions of Chechnya or Georgia.

And you are answering that it isn't really security concerns but territorial ambitions.

Yes.

When I refute this with Russia signing the Minsk agreements, keeping Donbas in Ukraine, you resort to comparing Putin with Hitler.

You brought Hitler in with the nonsense about appeasement not having been tried for long enough. Like Hitler, though, the fact that Putin signs an agreement can't really be taken at face value; he has a history of reneging on agreements. He signed the Minsk agreement in September 2014 and then sent Russian forces in again in January 2015 leading to Minsk II in February 2015 in which it was agreed that Donetsk and Luhansk remained Ukrainian territory and were not independent: lo and behold, 2022, Russia decides to recognise those two territories as independent.

And that is a very serious allegation, especially when we see symbolism from 1930s Germany on the flesh and equipment of Ukrainians.

Are the neo-Fascists in Ukraine? It seems likely, there are across the rest of Central and Easter Europe. Are they a significant factor in the politics of Ukraine - not massively, but probably more than any of us are comfortable with - about the same as in Germany, from what I can gather. Is that justification for Russian invasion? No, of course not.

And if you don't like the comparison, don't bring up Hitler.

And we don't see Russia mass murdering people with little hats or prisoners of war.

No, we see them bombing civilian targets and hospitals and schools and power infrastructure and nuclear facilities, instead. We see them kidnapping children and taking them away.

Plus, Farage agrees that Russia was provoked.

And you think that somehow validates your case? That should be one of the biggest clues that your talking shit. All you need now is Katie 'rentagobshite' Hopkins.

I am now thinking that Russia might have done something similar to the Baltic states to prevent them joining NATO, if they had been strong enough at the time.

Maybe they would have done - we should probably be thankful that they weren't.

I just don't think you can explain their current actions as due to territorial ambitions.

Do you not? I think I can, I think I already have.

Unnecessary paranoia, maybe.

You can make the argument about Ukraine, and even about Moldova, although I'd disagree. But it doesn't explain Chechnya or Georgia, and they are part of a clear pattern.

But I will finish by saying that I once went up to a circus elephant (which was in a pen) to pat it on the trunk. It sent me flying: it didn't know that I didn't want to harm it, and so it assumed that I was a threat. I think that's the case with Russia - it only wants one thing at the end of the day: a buffer zone.

If Russian's are only as smart as an elephant, they deserve it - the point you appear to be missing in this is that the elephant was in a pen for a reason. It's dangerous and stupid and doesn't belong in civilised company. Russia can want a buffer zone, but that doesn't justify invading foreign countries to create one. Everyone wants a buffer zone - currently between them and Russia - but we don't get to steal someone else's land and deny them their self-determination in order to get it. Instead, we act like grown-ups and negotiated mutual defence treaties - you know, like fucking NATO.

O.

[Spud]

lo and behold, 2022, Russia decides to recognise those two territories as independent.

And that was because they asked Russia to help, because Ukraine was concentrating  troops near the front line, and LPR and DPR had reduced their deployment to only 10,000.
And Merkel admitted their intention was to rearm Ukraine - presumably so they could take back all their territory and end LPR/DPR autonomy, after which, of course, they would be able to join NATO. So actually it was the West that wasn't serious about Minsk.

[ad_orientem]

Fair enough, but back to my original point - that the negotiators in the West in 1990 understood that further NATO expansion would be perceived by Russia as a threat to its security. I am using that to argue against the claim that Russia's invasion was unprovoked. And you are answering that it isn't really security concerns but territorial ambitions. When I refute this with Russia signing the Minsk agreements, keeping Donbas in Ukraine, you resort to comparing Putin with Hitler.

And that is a very serious allegation, especially when we see symbolism from 1930s Germany on the flesh and equipment of Ukrainians. And we don't see Russia mass murdering people with little hats or prisoners of war.

Plus, Farage agrees that Russia was provoked.

I am now thinking that Russia might have done something similar to the Baltic states to prevent them joining NATO, if they had been strong enough at the time. I just don't think you can explain their current actions as due to territorial ambitions. Unnecessary paranoia, maybe. But I will finish by saying that I once went up to a circus elephant (which was in a pen) to pat it on the trunk. It sent me flying: it didn't know that I didn't want to harm it, and so it assumed that I was a threat. I think that's the case with Russia - it only wants one thing at the end of the day: a buffer zone

Why the fuck does it need a buffer zone? Russia fears that what it is doing to its neighbours right now. It's pure projection on Russia's part. Every accusation is an admission of guilt.

[ad_orientem]

And that was because they asked Russia to help, because Ukraine was concentrating  troops near the front line, and LPR and DPR had reduced their deployment to only 10,000.
And Merkel admitted their intention was to rearm Ukraine - presumably so they could take back all their territory and end LPR/DPR autonomy, after which, of course, they would be able to join NATO. So actually it was the West that wasn't serious about Minsk.

Russia invaded. Ukraine tries to repel Russian invaders. It was an invasion since 2014.

[jeremyp]

Fair enough, but back to my original point - that the negotiators in the West in 1990 understood that further NATO expansion would be perceived by Russia as a threat to its security.

Wrong.

The USSR might have perceived them as a threat. The USSR and Russia are not the same thing.

I am using that to argue against the claim that Russia's invasion was unprovoked.

What if it was provoked? Does that make it right? Don't you think they should have pursued peaceful means? You seem to think Ukraine should be pursuing only peaceful means even though its territory has been actually invaded. Why do you not apply the same standard to Russia.

This is one part of the former Soviet Union invading another part. I don't know how you can connect this with negotiations between the USSR and NATO in 1990. Was Gorbachev threatening that the USSR would invade the USSR if NATO expanded? Because that is what has happened.

And you are answering that it isn't really security concerns but territorial ambitions. When I refute this with Russia signing the Minsk agreements, keeping Donbas in Ukraine, you resort to comparing Putin with Hitler.

Putin and Hitler are certainly similar when it comes to keeping to international agreements. Neither can be trusted.

And we don't see Russia mass murdering people with little hats or prisoners of war.

Yes we do.

Plus, Farage agrees that Russia was provoked.

Farage is a fuckwit.

[Spud]

Wrong.

The USSR might have perceived them as a threat. The USSR and Russia are not the same thing.

Russia is the successor state to the USSR. It inherited its nuclear arsenal.

What if it was provoked? Does that make it right? Don't you think they should have pursued peaceful means?

Ideally, yes.

You seem to think Ukraine should be pursuing only peaceful means even though its territory has been actually invaded. Why do you not apply the same standard to Russia.

Because I want to avoid millions of people dying.

This is one part of the former Soviet Union invading another part.

So it is not NATO's business.

I don't know how you can connect this with negotiations between the USSR and NATO in 1990.

read the documents in the link I gave.

Was Gorbachev threatening that the USSR would invade the USSR if NATO expanded? Because that is what has happened.

Gorbachev told James Baker on Feb 9 1990, "It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable" see document 6 in the link.

Putin and Hitler are certainly similar when it comes to keeping to international agreements. Neither can be trusted.
Yes we do.
Farage is a fuckwit.

But it's the West that cannot be trusted, see my previous post.

[Spud]

You seem to think Ukraine should be pursuing only peaceful means even though its territory has been actually invaded. Why do you not apply the same standard to Russia.

There is also the wisdom in Luke 14:31-32
"31Or what king on his way to war with another king will not first sit down and consider whether he can engage with ten thousand men the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32And if he is unable, he will send a delegation while the other king is still far off, to ask for terms of peace."
And the OT prophets said that Israel should not seek an alliance with Egypt for defense against Babylon.

If Ukrainians know that Russia will murder them all if they surrender, then that would be a reason to fight. That's what made the Soviets fight against the Nazis. I don't see evidence that the Russians plan to murder all the Ukrainians.

[Outrider]

And that was because they asked Russia to help, because Ukraine was concentrating  troops near the front line, and LPR and DPR had reduced their deployment to only 10,000.

'They' aren't international entities to ask Russia for help, according to the agreement that Russia signed which didn't recognise them, remember.

And Merkel admitted their intention was to rearm Ukraine - presumably so they could take back all their territory and end LPR/DPR autonomy, after which, of course, they would be able to join NATO.

LPR and DPR didn't have automony, that was the point of the agreement. And, yes, part of the agreement was to provide a route to Ukraine joining NATO to defend itself against the obvious bullshit of Russia. This, of course, is notwithstanding the demonstrable attempts of Russia to foment the very 'autonomy' claims in those regions which were destabilising Ukraine in the first place.

So actually it was the West that wasn't serious about Minsk.

How so? It agreed those regions should not have independence recognised, and that Ukraine was to be seen as a single, unified, political entity with the freedom to enter into whatever international agreements it wanted - Russia signed up to that, but didn't appear to actually accept it for very long. The West, generally, still does.

Russia is the successor state to the USSR. It inherited its nuclear arsenal.

Some of it. Ukraine inherited some, as well, which it surrendered to Russia in return for security guarantees. Look how that worked out for them.

Ideally, yes. Because I want to avoid millions of people dying.

No, it wouldn't. It would just mean they died in a gulag on their knees instead of fighting for their country. It would mean all the deaths would be Ukrainian, rather than some from both sides.

So it is not NATO's business.

Only to the extent that it raises its alert levels at Russian aggression, and decides whether to offer assistance that's being requested by an outside state.

read the documents in the link I gave.Gorbachev told James Baker on Feb 9 1990, "It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable" see document 6 in the link.But it's the West that cannot be trusted, see my previous post.

Nobody agreed to that. Gorbachev could dislike the expansion, Putin can dislike the expansion, who gives a shit. If you don't see a Russian invasion of Ukraine as grounds for Ukraine defending itself because it will foreseeably result in deaths, how can you justify Russian invasion of Ukraine in the first place on the basis of Putin doesn't like Ukraine's new friends?

O.

[jeremyp]

Russia is the successor state to the USSR.

Well, one of them.

It inherited its nuclear arsenal.

Actually, many of the weapons were on Ukrainian soil. Ukraine gave them up in return for certain assurances for Russia. It seems that agreement wasn't with the paper it was written on.

Ideally, yes. Because I want to avoid millions of people dying.So it is not NATO's business.

But NATO or not, Russia invaded another former part of the USSR.

read the documents in the link I gave.Gorbachev told James Baker on Feb 9 1990, "It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable"

30 years ago. Times change. Now Russia is ruled by a gangster.

see document 6 in the link.But it's the West that cannot be trusted, see my previous post.

Seriously? Russia breaks all the agreements it signs when it feels like, and you think it is the West that cannot be trusted.

You are unbelievably deluded.