Arming the Ukrainians

[Spud]

Nobody agreed to that.

Actually, according to the link, James Baker, the US secretary of state, to whom the comment was made, replied, "We agree with that."

So back to Jeremy's comment, "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."
We don't know what Gorbachev had in mind about what would happen if there was a broadening of the NATO zone. We just have his clear statement that it would be unacceptable, and agreement from Baker.

My point to you is that when you say, "Gorbachev could dislike the expansion, Putin can dislike the expansion, who gives a shit", it's a bit like a kid testing his parents. And I bet all the Ukrainian soldiers forced to die as a result of NATO saying that, do give one.

[Spud]

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

Putin said the Minsk agreements no longer existed (22 Feb 2022) having recognized those entities' independence the day before; he claimed that as a UN member, Russia could now form a collective defense treaty with LPR and DPR.

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.

It does look as though fomenting autonomy claims has been Russia's strategy to prevent any more ex-Soviet states from joining NATO? 

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.

Ukraine joining international military alliances was not in the agreement, so Russia did not sign up to it.

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.

Russia has no intention of using nuclear weapons against Ukraine - it wouldn't need to. What happened was that in 2014 Ukrainians used force against its president, who had a policy of military neutrality (non-NATO membership) for Ukraine; this initiated the civil war and raised the potential for Ukraine to be under the NATO nuclear umbrella, which along with the threat posed by Ukrainian nationalists could ultimately lead to nuclear conflict.

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.

That is wrong. Russia does not send POWs to die in gulags.

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.

Which is I suppose, fair play if Russia is assisting DPR/LPR. But by arming Ukraine they are indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of the people they are claiming to help.

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.

If you call it an invasion, it isn't justified; however, a Special Military Operation is about eliminating the threat from the violent nationalist wing, as described above; there was no intention to harm civilians or even occupy; that happened as a result of Boris Johnson pushing Ukraine to reject Russia's terms for peace.

[jeremyp]

Putin said the Minsk agreements no longer existed (22 Feb 2022) having recognized those entities' independence the day before; he claimed that as a UN member, Russia could now form a collective defense treaty with LPR and DPR.

Why are you criticising officials from NATO countries verbal statements but not doing the same where Putin tears up an actual written down treaty?

[jeremyp]

Actually, according to the link, James Baker, the US secretary of state, to whom the comment was made, replied, "We agree with that."

So back to Jeremy's comment, "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."
We don't know what Gorbachev had in mind about what would happen if there was a broadening of the NATO zone. We just have his clear statement that it would be unacceptable, and agreement from Baker.

My point to you is that when you say, "Gorbachev could dislike the expansion, Putin can dislike the expansion, who gives a shit", it's a bit like a kid testing his parents. And I bet all the Ukrainian soldiers forced to die as a result of NATO saying that, do give one.

Gorbachev was speaking for an entity called the USSR. That entity no longer exists and parts of it are now in NATO. Other parts are being invaded by its former biggest member state.

NATO is expanding in reaction to Russian aggression. You have your cause and effect the wrong way around.

[Outrider]

Actually, according to the link, James Baker, the US secretary of state, to whom the comment was made, replied, "We agree with that."

But Baker wasn't the final decision maker, and by the time that came around it was no longer in the agreement, was it.

So back to Jeremy's comment, "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." We don't know what Gorbachev had in mind about what would happen if there was a broadening of the NATO zone. We just have his clear statement that it would be unacceptable, and agreement from Baker.

And an agreement signed by both sides which didn't reflect that. And a situation where the USSR no longer exists anyway, and has been replaced by a range of independent nations who have their own rights and treaties. Nobody's asking what the Ottoman Empire's take is on this, either...

My point to you is that when you say, "Gorbachev could dislike the expansion, Putin can dislike the expansion, who gives a shit", it's a bit like a kid testing his parents. And I bet all the Ukrainian soldiers forced to die as a result of NATO saying that, do give one.

And Putin saying 'no, we won't invade anyone else' and then invading again, or saying 'give us the nukes and we guarantee your borders are safe from us' and then invading, or saying 'no, we've already invaded you once, we won't do it again' and then invading again is what, playing fucking tag? Putin does not get to dictate foreign policy to other nations, or we all end up in the corrupt, authoritarian shithole that is Russia.

Putin said the Minsk agreements no longer existed (22 Feb 2022) having recognized those entities' independence the day before; he claimed that as a UN member, Russia could now form a collective defense treaty with LPR and DPR.

Oh, that's OK then, Putin said he's no longer abiding by that treaty that he signed, and you're fine with that. But you're also suggesting that we should all be bound by something that wasn't in a treaty that a different entity signed long before which has been superseded? Are you choking on that hypocrisy, or wallowing in it?

It does look as though fomenting autonomy claims has been Russia's strategy to prevent any more ex-Soviet states from joining NATO?

Ya think?
 

Ukraine joining international military alliances was not in the agreement, so Russia did not sign up to it.

They don't need to, it's not about them. Just like NATO doesn't get to veto an arms agreement between Russia and North Korea, for instance.
 

Russia has no intention of using nuclear weapons against Ukraine - it wouldn't need to.

Did anyone (apart from maybe Medvedev?) suggest they would?

What happened was that in 2014 Ukrainians used force against its president, who had a policy of military neutrality (non-NATO membership) for Ukraine; this initiated the civil war and raised the potential for Ukraine to be under the NATO nuclear umbrella, which along with the threat posed by Ukrainian nationalists could ultimately lead to nuclear conflict.

You've missed the bit where the Ukrainian president of the time was elected on a platform of increased alignment with the West, particular the EU and NATO, and then when he got to power on that promise he gradually changed his tune, slid back on democratic freedoms, imprisoned the opposition, professed neutrality and started sucking up to Russia. Then the populace rose up in protest. Why he did that we don't know for sure, although the Ukrainian courts convicted in absentia for treason and now is harboured by Russia. So not wrong, but not really giving the proper context.

That is wrong. Russia does not send POWs to die in gulags.

No, it executes them in the field. Or tortures them. Or just denies them adequate food and water. At least according to the UN - Source

And if Ukraine had just rolled over and let them in, where do you think the objectors would have ended up? On the beach at Sochi next to the Olympic park and the F1 circuit?

Which is I suppose, fair play if Russia is assisting DPR/LPR.

I think it was already fair play given Russia is still occupying Crimea, if I'm honest, but yeah let's misrepresent the occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk as 'assisting'. By the way, there is no 'DPR' or 'LPR' - they aren't independent states, no matter what Putin likes to tell people, they're Ukrainian Oblasts.

But by arming Ukraine they are indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of the people they are claiming to help.

You are suggesting that if they weren't being supplied by the West they'd just give up? They'd still die, but they wouldn't be able to put up a fight doing it. We aren't forcing them to fight, they're wanting to do that already, we're just giving them the means to resist the hostilities directed towards them. If Putin wasn't invading not only would they not be dying, but the Russian troops that have been dying in far greater numbers also wouldn't be dying - are you going to blame that on us, as well, and just let Putin off the hook? What happens when Putin decides after Ukraine surrenders bloodlessly that Romania or Poland look good? Should we not activate Article 5 of the NATO treaty in case someone dies?

If you call it an invasion, it isn't justified; however, a Special Military Operation is about eliminating the threat from the violent nationalist wing, as described above; there was no intention to harm civilians or even occupy; that happened as a result of Boris Johnson pushing Ukraine to reject Russia's terms for peace.

You can call it the fucking International Cunt-Scout Jamboree if you'd like, it doesn't stop it being an invasion. You send troops, tanks, guns and mines into someone else's country, it's an invasion no matter what colour you paint it, how you pitch it on the news, how you choose to engrave the names of your victims on their headstones.

wiktionary - Noun
invasion (countable and uncountable, plural invasions)

A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.

Merriam-Webster - invasion
noun
in·​va·​sion in-ˈvā-zhən
Synonyms of invasion
1
: an act of invading
especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder

Cambridge online dictionary - invasion
noun [ C or U ]
UK  /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/ US  /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/
Add to word list
B2
an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country:

What do you know, it's an invasion. "If you want to call it..." Really? Is this what you're reduced to?

O.

[Spud]

But Baker wasn't the final decision maker, and by the time that came around it was no longer in the agreement, was it.
....
And an agreement signed by both sides which didn't reflect that.

But the problem is that if NATO have not kept their word regarding expansion, how can they be trusted when they assure Russia they are purely a defensive alliance.

And a situation where the USSR no longer exists anyway, and has been replaced by a range of independent nations who have their own rights and treaties.

Indeed, they are free to make treaties but they are also required to respect the interests of other states, which may necessitate military neutrality.

[jeremyp]

But the problem is that if NATO have not kept their word regarding expansion, how can they be trusted when they assure Russia they are purely a defensive alliance.

No, the problem is that you seem to be utterly unable to see that Putin cannot be trusted.

Indeed, they are free to make treaties but they are also required to respect the interests of other states, which may necessitate military neutrality.

Is this Russia you are talking about?

[Spud]

No, the problem is that you seem to be utterly unable to see that Putin cannot be trusted.

And the West can be trusted? Expansion started before Putin, anyway.

[ProfessorDavey]

And the West can be trusted? Expansion started before Putin, anyway.

What on earth do you mean by 'expansion'.

Surely those countries that chose to join the EU or chose to join NATO did so out of choice - they weren't forced to do so (indeed in several cases it has been pretty difficult for them to join and in some cases despite wanting to join they've not been able to - e.g. Turkey and the EU). So the 'expansion' is through choice and democratic mandate. That is a world of difference to Russia annexing parts of Ukraine through military means.

[jeremyp]

And the West can be trusted?

More so than Putin.

Expansion started before Putin, anyway.

No, it's Putin who has these grand ambitions to restore the Russian Empire. His predecessors seemed less interested.

[Outrider]

But the problem is that if NATO have not kept their word regarding expansion, how can they be trusted when they assure Russia they are purely a defensive alliance.

Except that 'NATO' aren't a signatory to any agreements outside of NATO, and the countries that are in NATO that made agreements with the Soviet Union didn't agree to that so don't have a word to keep to the Soviet Union which doesn't exist any more. But apart from that, because Putin's not a fucking idiot - he knows the West has no intention of invading Russia, but he plays that card so his home support feels justified and if it gets a few Trumpian/Faragian fuck-wits to echo the bullshit and muddy the waters abroad so much the better.

Indeed, they are free to make treaties but they are also required to respect the interests of other states, which may necessitate military neutrality.

The only state which would benefit from military neutrality right now is Russia, because it's the one looking to use its military to expand. Everyone else benefits from knowing they can buy arms to defend themselves from Russia. Everyone except you, some yank paedophile YouTuber, Trump and Nigel Farage knows that Russia's talking absolute bullshit, and just looking for any justification they can find for a blatant land-grab.

O.

[Spud]

Everyone else benefits from knowing they can buy arms to defend themselves from Russia

Not necessarily, as the money could be spent on other things.

[Spud]

What on earth do you mean by 'expansion'.

Surely those countries that chose to join the EU or chose to join NATO did so out of choice - they weren't forced to do so (indeed in several cases it has been pretty difficult for them to join and in some cases despite wanting to join they've not been able to - e.g. Turkey and the EU). So the 'expansion' is through choice and democratic mandate. That is a world of difference to Russia annexing parts of Ukraine through military means.

"Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration".
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828

[jeremyp]

"Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration".
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828

Reducing Russia's ability to successfully invade your country is not decreasing their security.

[Outrider]

Not necessarily, as the money could be spent on other things.

If there wasn't an imminent threat of invasion from Russia, yes they could. But there is. So they can't.

"Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one's own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration".
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828

And which bit of countries joining NATO threatens Russia's security? 'International Documents' have lots of articles with expectations like 'not invading your neighbours', but they don't seem to register with Putin's Russia...

O.

[Spud]

If there wasn't an imminent threat of invasion from Russia, yes they could. But there is. So they can't.

If there was no actual threat of invasion by Russia of any of the countries that joined NATO after the cold war, then the money they spend on defence to meet their obligations is a gamble.

And which bit of countries joining NATO threatens Russia's security? 'International Documents' have lots of articles with expectations like 'not invading your neighbours', but they don't seem to register with Putin's Russia...

O.

Those countries are required to spend more money on defense than they otherwise would. This creates the appearance of hostility.

[Outrider]

If there was no actual threat of invasion by Russia of any of the countries that joined NATO after the cold war, then the money they spend on defence to meet their obligations is a gamble.

No, it's a deterrent. And, of course, there is a very real threat of invasion by Russia despite the defence spending, as evidenced by the multiple invasions.

Those countries are required to spend more money on defense than they otherwise would.

No, they AGREED to spend a certain amount on defence; some of them haven't actually reliably done so, but it still seems like it's enough to keep Russia's aggression outside of NATO.

This creates the appearance of hostility.

No. Bombing countries, sending in troops, stealing their children, blowing up their infrastructure and leaving burnt-out tanks all over multiple foreign countries creates the appearance of hostility. Investing in defence gives the appearance of preparedness, and it seems to be working.

O.

[jeremyp]

If there was no actual threat of invasion by Russia of any of the countries that joined NATO after the cold war, then the money they spend on defence to meet their obligations is a gamble.

It's not a gamble because there is actual threat of invasion by Russia. I mean: they keep invading other countries.

Those countries are required to spend more money on defense than they otherwise would. This creates the appearance of hostility.

Russia invading other countries creates a worse appearance of hostility.

[Spud]

You've missed the bit where the Ukrainian president of the time was elected on a platform of increased alignment with the West, particular the EU and NATO, and then when he got to power on that promise he gradually changed his tune, slid back on democratic freedoms, imprisoned the opposition, professed neutrality and started sucking up to Russia. Then the populace rose up in protest. Why he did that we don't know for sure, although the Ukrainian courts convicted in absentia for treason and now is harboured by Russia. So not wrong, but not really giving the proper context.

According to this, Yanukovich was elected in 2010 on a platform of military neutrality, which was then made law by parliament.

[Outrider]

According to this, Yanukovich was elected in 2010 on a platform of military neutrality, which was then made law by his government.

But a commitment to political and economic affiliation with the West "However, the new law will not affect Ukraine's political and economic integration with Europe.

Joining the European Union remains a priority, Mr Azarov said."

When Yanukovych turned his back on that is when the protests started. Once he was ousted, and his subsequent trial showed the scale of Russian interference, his successors campaigned on a more formal military alliance with the West.

O.

[Spud]

But a commitment to political and economic affiliation with the West "However, the new law will not affect Ukraine's political and economic integration with Europe.

Joining the European Union remains a priority, Mr Azarov said."

When Yanukovych turned his back on that is when the protests started. Once he was ousted, and his subsequent trial showed the scale of Russian interference, his successors campaigned on a more formal military alliance with the West.

O.

So his not signing the EU agreement caused the protests. But he had reasons for not signing, and subsequently agreed to hold elections. But Right Sector used violence to force him out: so why do you condemn Russia's use of force but not the people that first used force?

On the subject of land grabbing, recently Douglas Macgregor gave a different perspective on the annexation of the south-eastern territories:
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxfEkL_jqkSuiilRIxzLwd1SmPIYnBi2wY?si=6bxWoTHZ4pTDyYFP

[ad_orientem]

So his not signing the EU agreement caused the protests. But he had reasons for not signing, and subsequently agreed to hold elections. But Right Sector used violence to force him out: so why do you condemn Russia's use of force but not the people that first used force?

On the subject of land grabbing, recently Douglas Macgregor gave a different perspective on the annexation of the south-eastern territories:
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxfEkL_jqkSuiilRIxzLwd1SmPIYnBi2wY?si=6bxWoTHZ4pTDyYFP

Maidan was a people's revolution, but it was Girkin and his infiltrators that caused most of the troubles. Girkin even admitted himself. Yanukovyck essentially abdicated when he fled.

As for MacGregor, he's nothing more than a paid russian shill. He doesn't even hide it. I'm surprised he's not in prison as a traitor.

[Spud]

Maidan was a people's revolution,

I agree, but the violent aspect of it was bound to provoke a reactionary violence from the pro-russian population.

but it was Girkin and his infiltrators that caused most of the troubles. Girkin even admitted himself. Yanukovyck essentially abdicated when he fled.

Yes and he formed a militia  of 28,000, about 70% of whom, iirc, were from Donetsk and Luhansk.

As for MacGregor, he's nothing more than a paid russian shill. He doesn't even hide it. I'm surprised he's not in prison as a traitor.

He seems a respectable person to me. Note that he was talking about the 2022 invasion. He said that the Russians were initially welcomed in Donbas, but when they said they planned to push back the Ukrainian army, get a deal, then leave, the Donbas locals told them that once they'd left, the Ukrainian secret police would come and kill anyone who had collaborated. So that is why the Russian government decided to occupy and eventually annex Donbas - to protect the population. Not because of imperial ambitions (although Girkin himself and other Russian nationalists did have imperial ambitions)

Having read a summary of the Ukrainian military strategy from 2021, I think I understand how they genuinely thought that with weapons supplied by the West, they could defend against a possible Russian invasion.

The biggest problem with this is that it relies upon conscription, and when faced with a military like Russia's, a lot of the population would rather leave Ukraine than face certain death. The tactics they have employed to get people to fight have basically involved mass kidnapping, which is surely a war crime in itself. If Azov etc wants to defend Ukraine with Western weapons then so be it, but they should have allowed people who didn't want to fight, to leave the country.

[jeremyp]

Spud, you are talking bollocks. The Russians weren’t welcomed in. It’s a lie.

[Outrider]

So his not signing the EU agreement caused the protests.

No, his campaigning on closer Western ties then turning his back on that unheralded and announcing instead he was considering closer ties with the Russia that the bulk of the Ukrainian electorate were intent on moving away from caused the protests.

But he had reasons for not signing, and subsequently agreed to hold elections.

According the court trial, those 'reasons' were in rubles.

But Right Sector used violence to force him out: so why do you condemn Russia's use of force but not the people that first used force?

Right Sector did use violence, yes. So, before that, did the security services at Yanukovych's express instruction, which was the other arm of his trial. The majority of the protesters, however, did not resort to violence.

Why do I condemn Russia's use of force, but not the Ukrainian protesters? Let's see -
1- they're in their own country, Russia aren't.
2- this was the first instance from them, they don't have a demonstrated history of it.
3- there was a very real threat to their sovereignty from foreign influence.

On the subject of land grabbing, recently Douglas Macgregor gave a different perspective on the annexation of the south-eastern territories:
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxfEkL_jqkSuiilRIxzLwd1SmPIYnBi2wY?si=6bxWoTHZ4pTDyYFP

That's not 'a different perspective', it's the same bullshit propoganda that Russia's been peddling since its first illegal invasion, it was the same lie they told in Chechya (the first time, they didn't bother the second time) and Moldova. Sure there are some pro-Russian voices in those areas; partly because that's the nature of a populace, there are always different voices, partly because Russia had been infiltrating the area for an extended period before officially moving in. Regardless of how many pro-Russian voices were in there area, it's still territorially part of Ukraine and Russia doesn't have the right to invade.

There are many, many pro-EU voices in Scotland, in Brighton, in London - if Italian troops suddenly marched in and put them on the news it wouldn't in any way justify an invasion. Same thing here.

O.