Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[dacc10]

If it wasn't NATO expansionism and US funding fascist groups in the first place,Putin was not going to invade Ukraine.

Here we go again...

No, countries that became part of it, asked at their own will to join, to avoid exactly the actions of this untrustworthy Russia. If some of those countries weren't part of NATO, they would have already been invaded.

I don't get how that "NATO expansion" narrative is still being thrown out there, when Ukraine already accepted staying neutral, and Russia keeps attacking.

 

[Joey D]

I don't get how that "NATO expansion" narrative is still being thrown out there

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand how NATO works on all sides.

 

[Dotini]

I don't get how that "NATO expansion" narrative is still being thrown out there, when Ukraine already accepted staying neutral, and Russia keeps attacking.

Days ago Zelensky accepted Ukrainian neutrality as one part of a ceasefire and peace agreement, subject to a vote of the people. Negotiations continue intermittently with lengthy breaks. The war continues apace, now with Ukraine counterattacking and Russia regrouping. My main question is, how is the spring planting coming along, and what are the prospects for a harvest?

 

[Danoff]

Days ago Zelensky accepted Ukrainian neutrality as one part of a ceasefire and peace agreement, subject to a vote of the people. Negotiations continue intermittently with lengthy breaks. The war continues apace, now with Ukraine counterattacking and Russia regrouping. My main question is, how is the spring planting coming along, and what are the prospects for a harvest?

This comes off so callous. "The war is continuing apace, but how will it affect the price of bread in the future"

 

[Shidapu]

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand how NATO works on all sides.

I guess NATO has selective sensitivities because he didn't care about the invasion and occupation from turkey,half of cyprus since 1974 to today.

My country is a NATO member,that doesn't mean that people agree with that.

If you care to know what NATO really is, read here...needs translation.

rizospastis.gr - ΝΑΤΟ: Η ιστορία του πιο βρώμικου ιμπεριαλιστικού συνασπισμού καταστολής των λαών

ΝΑΤΟ: Η ιστορία του πιο βρώμικου ιμπεριαλιστικού συνασπισμού καταστολής των λαών . - Στις 4 Απρίλη 1949 οι υπουργοί Εξωτερικών των ΗΠΑ, της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας, της Γαλλίας, της Ιταλίας, του Βελγίου, του Καναδά, της Δανίας, της Ισλανδίας, του Λουξεμβούργου, της Νορβηγίας, της Ολλανδίας... -...

www.rizospastis.gr

 

[sirjim73]

Interesting news on the oil and gas front. Apparently Germany and Austria are formulating emergency plans (rationing) to entirely do without Russian gas, oil and coal, possibly in the immediate future. Without Russian gas, German hospitals and homes would still be heated, but the industrial sector would be without. The latest wrinkle is that Russia has demanded payment in rubles, of all things, despite dollars and Euros being stipulated in the contracts. So there is already tension building between supplier and customer.

I would hope/assume that there were already some contingency plans drawn up for that possibility long ago (emergency plans) in the same way that every government had emergency plans for a novel virus prior to 2020 (unfortunately they seemingly forgot the part where the world buys most of its PPE from China and needs enough supplies for when China is under, say, 3 month lockdown...).

What they are doing now is checking, updating and expanding those plans to reflect anything not already covered.

And crossing fingers and those ickle toes hoping it doesn't happen.

What the heck does this mean? Besides the fact that young people naturally have less context and knowledge of the history of this matter? People who are 65+ have literally lived half their lives in the Cold War and the vast majority of their formal education on Russia was under a Soviet context.

In the US there could be an aspect of the recent (in historical terms, last 10 years) failures in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. Plus there's Trump....

Here in the UK, for whatever reasons, support for Ukraine seems to be nearly unanimous.

I think also, remember arguably the bulk of the Cold War was Europe focussed. Not diminishing Cuba and other events but Europe was literally divided down the middle, that didn't happen in the US.

And younger generation seems to be numerically more pro EU judging by the UK. So what happens in Europe perhaps resonates more with the young here than in the US.

Also, the study could be ******** results 😂

I imagine there are a lot of sociological factors amongst others involved too.

 

[Dotini]

This comes off so callous. "The war is continuing apace, but how will it affect the price of bread in the future"

I call it realism. And it explains why NATO is still in the conversation and Russian is still attacking.

 

[Joey D]

I guess NATO has selective sensitivities because he didn't care about the invasion and occupation from turkey,half of cyprus since 1974 to today.

First and foremost, NATO isn't a person so it's not a "he". There's no Mr. Nato gallivanting around Belgium (well maybe not). Second, Cyprus isn't a member state of NATO so why would NATO get involved? Member states of NATO can, and frequently do, get involved in offensive conflicts without requiring the rest of the alliance to be a part of it. NATO is a defensive alliance and even then, in order to invoke Article 5 the vote needs to be unanimous. Even if Cyprus was a NATO member state, there's nothing in the treaty that explicitly spells out what happens if two NATO states go to war with one another.

If you care to know what NATO really is, read here...needs translation.

I'm not reading a poorly translated version of the Communist Party of Greece's newspaper.

 

[Shidapu]

First and foremost, NATO isn't a person so it's not a "he". There's no Mr. Nato gallivanting around Belgium (well maybe not). Second, Cyprus isn't a member state of NATO so why would NATO get involved? Member states of NATO can, and frequently do, get involved in offensive conflicts without requiring the rest of the alliance to be a part of it. NATO is a defensive alliance and even then, in order to invoke Article 5 the vote needs to be unanimous. Even if Cyprus was a NATO member state, there's nothing in the treaty that explicitly spells out what happens if two NATO states go to war with one another.

I'm not reading a poorly translated version of the Communist Party of Greece's newspaper.

I didn't say cyprus was a NATO member,but Turkey was...and I'm sorry for my English but trying my best and many times using translator.

Too bad you can't read it.

 

[RacingGrandpa]

I guess NATO has selective sensitivities because he didn't care about the invasion and occupation from turkey,half of cyprus since 1974 to today.

My country is a NATO member,that doesn't mean that people agree with that.

If you care to know what NATO really is, read here...needs translation.

rizospastis.gr - ΝΑΤΟ: Η ιστορία του πιο βρώμικου ιμπεριαλιστικού συνασπισμού καταστολής των λαών

ΝΑΤΟ: Η ιστορία του πιο βρώμικου ιμπεριαλιστικού συνασπισμού καταστολής των λαών . - Στις 4 Απρίλη 1949 οι υπουργοί Εξωτερικών των ΗΠΑ, της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας, της Γαλλίας, της Ιταλίας, του Βελγίου, του Καναδά, της Δανίας, της Ισλανδίας, του Λουξεμβούργου, της Νορβηγίας, της Ολλανδίας... -...

www.rizospastis.gr

Cyprus was, and is, it's own country. Not a member of NATO.
I am more surprised Britain didn't do more, as they where a guarantee for Cyprus.


Sorry, I missed this:

I didn't say cyprus was a NATO member,but Turkey was...and I'm sorry for my English but trying my best and many times using translator.

Too bad you can't read it.

Turkey was a NATO member, yes. But Turkey wasn't attacked so article 5 isn't revoked by that

 

[Joey D]

I didn't say cyprus was a NATO member,but Turkey was...and I'm sorry for my English but trying my best and many times using translator.

Too bad you can't read it.

Yes, Turkey is a NATO member state, so what is your point exactly? NATO has no obligation to care about Cyprus or what Turkey does to Cyprus. It's the same reason NATO has no obligation to defend Ukraine. Also, NATO isn't an offensive alliance, it's a defensive one, which is also why it's completely ridiculous for Russia to even be remotely concerned about it.

 

[Shidapu]

NATO isn't an offensive alliance, it's a defensive one

Ah ok ..is like we are saying "best defence is offence" now I got it....

 

[Dotini]

NATO isn't an offensive alliance, it's a defensive one

Not that history is any guide to the present, but after throwing back the initial North Korean invasion of South Korea, NATO invaded North Korea in October 1950 and drove rapidly to the Yalu, coming very close to entirely erasing North Korea from the map.

 

[eran0004]

Yes it has all the right...

Great, so what’s your problem with helping Ukraine to defend itself?

 

[Joey D]

Ah ok ..is like we are saying "best defence is offence" now I got it....

NATO doesn't fight offensive wars, it fights defensive, or at most, reactionary wars which is why it rarely gets involved in anything. By its nature though, it does provide peace through strength. If Ukraine had been part of NATO, Russia never would've never illegally invaded it. Unfortunately, the pro-Russian government of Ukraine decided to stop the process in 2010 after the initial application in 2008. Had Viktor Yanukovych not become president, it's very likely that there wouldn't be a war currently going on in Ukraine right now.

Not that history is any guide to the present, but after throwing back the initial North Korean invasion of South Korea, NATO invaded North Korea in October 1950 and drove rapidly to the Yalu, coming very close to entirely erasing North Korea from the map.

NATO wasn't involved in the Korean War and since you mentioned the Yalu River, I'm guessing you're referencing the Battle of Chongju? That was UN forces made up of mostly the US, UK, and Australia. NATO did, however, use the Korean War as a launching point to develop strategies, build up arms, and figure out how to respond to the Soviet Union.

NATO's first military operation was either Operation Maritime Monitor, which was a naval blockade that began on July 16, 1992, due to the Bosnian War, or Operation Sky Monitor, which was the establishment of a no-fly zone that began on October 16, 1992.

 

[TexRex]

This comes off so callous. "The war is continuing apace, but how will it affect the price of bread in the future"

Dotini needs people to be scared. If you pay enough attention, you can probably tell when he's typing with one hand.

 

[eran0004]

Not that history is any guide to the present, but after throwing back the initial North Korean invasion of South Korea, NATO invaded North Korea in October 1950 and drove rapidly to the Yalu, coming very close to entirely erasing North Korea from the map.

That was UN, not NATO.

 

[Dotini]

NATO existed largely as a paper alliance until the Korean War (1950–53). That led the NATO states — many of them fighting in Korea under the banner of the United Nations — to build up their military forces.

How is NATO connected to the Korean War?

 

[Scaff]

NATO existed largely as a paper alliance until the Korean War (1950–53). That led the NATO states — many of them fighting in Korea under the banner of the United Nations — to build up their military forces.

How is NATO connected to the Korean War?

Many doesn't equal all, it was a UN operation, not a Nato one.

 

[Dotini]

Nonetheless, the principle applies. NATO is potentially an offensive force, from birth willing and able to drive to the farthest borders of its enemies and remove them from the map.

 

[RacingGrandpa]

Nonetheless, the principle applies. NATO is potentially an offensive force, from birth willing and able to drive to the farthest borders of its enemies and remove them from the map.

Maybe you should read the treaty. NATO is only a defensive force, being offensive is a direct violation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's governing treaty

Of course single members of the organisation, and even several, can decide to wager a offensive war, but that won't be NATO.
Remember how several members of NATO didn't want to join operation Iraqi Freedom? Because it wasn't a NATO operation.

NATO is, and has always been a purely defense treaty.

 

[Dotini]

Of course single members of the organisation, and even several, can decide to wager a offensive war

Of course. And that consideration will not be lost on Russia, Ukraine, or anyone else.

 

[Shidapu]

Two interesting articles about how much "defensive" is defensive NATO...

Is Nato really a defensive alliance?

Dear Sir, With the tensions growing between the West and Russia, I have found it necessary to keep abreast of developments. As part of that, I had the opportunity to review a January 17 article by Ben...

www.royalgazette.com

Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World

Monday’s summit showed how the “North Atlantic” Treaty Organization has decided it has an extremely expansive global mission.

theintercept.com

 

[Rage Racer]

Some news from the frontlines: the V-force (Russian troops on Kyiv and Chernihiv directions) are retreating to the east to reinforce the Z-force in Kharkiv and Lugansk regions, and join another battle.

Soon there will be a large, decisive battle in Donbass that will most likely decide the outcome of the war. Heavy casualties are expected on both sides, and cities of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk (where the war broke out in 2014) are likely to be badly damaged. There's no army in the world that can seize a well-defended city without ruining it. However, I don't read about Ukrainian government trying to evacuate civilians before that. Looks like they're going to use them as human shield like they did in Mariupol.

Meanwhile, Al-Jazeera recorded Ukrainian soldiers using an ambulance car as transport:

@Rage Racer Nobody needs Russia to be pro-West at all. We just need them to be anti-assholes.

What I'm telling is the ones to overthrow Putin by force might be even more of "assholes" (in your understanding of an "asshole"). We might run from an authoritarian presidency to a military dictatorship (like in Myanmar or even Pinochet's Chile) so Putin's times will stay in good memories. And I wouldn't expect them to be more peaceful to Ukraine than Putin, either.

For now, I see Kremlin and MoD being unanimous about what to do to Ukraine: they may be, however, a bit different in approaches and in views on what to do next.

what about Ekaterina Schulmann? ...some Russians mentioned her as suitable candidate

Ekaterina Schulmann - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, she's definetly a wiser person than Navalny, but I don't see her even running for president, let alone being elected. After all, she's a political scientist, not a politician.

There is a Russian politician who I see becoming a decent candidate in the future who I would vote for: Roman Yuneman, a right-wing nationalist leading "Society.Future" party. For now, he's too young to run for president and he needs more political experience. But IMO he's on the right way. Hopefully we well be able to elect him sometime...

Yeah, like oil, coal, rare earth minerals, metals like titanium, fertilizer, wheat and cooking oils?

Yes.
Ironically, Biden administration recently lifted sanctions from Russian fertilizers but Russia still refused to sell some of them - Kremlin banned the export of ammonium nitrate...

NATO is only a defensive force

Well, we remember how they were defending Serbia from Serbs in 1999...

 

[inCloud]

Roman Yuneman

Last thing we need is right winger with imperialistic orthodox views.

retreating

More like running in BMPs full of washing machines and pans. And when BMPs running out of fuel they go full on GTA and take civilian cars. Also, there are multiple reports about raping and murders of civilians. It has never been like this and now it is exactly the same again.

 

[dacc10]

Two interesting articles about how much "defensive" is defensive NATO...

Is Nato really a defensive alliance?

Dear Sir, With the tensions growing between the West and Russia, I have found it necessary to keep abreast of developments. As part of that, I had the opportunity to review a January 17 article by Ben...

www.royalgazette.com

Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World

Monday’s summit showed how the “North Atlantic” Treaty Organization has decided it has an extremely expansive global mission.

theintercept.com

Two articles that aged very well, for the anti-NATO people.

"NATO has no reason to exist" - Russia invades Ukraine, and threatens to invade other NATO members.

There are certain sectors of western society, that will find any excuse to blame NATO for whatever some random country does. I wonder whose fault is it, for China to want to invade Taiwan, and proclaim the entirity the South China Sea.

 

[Dennisch]

However, I don't read about Ukrainian government trying to evacuate civilians before that. Looks like they're going to use them as human shield like they did in Mariupol.

So weird that we do get that sort of news from quite a few different sources. And that those sources also tell us that your liberation army is preventing the evacuation of those human shield civilians.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

So weird that we do get that sort of news from quite a few different sources. And that those sources also tell us that your liberation army is preventing the evacuation of those human shield civilians.

No, they couldn't leave because they were held at gunpoint by the Azov battalion. /s

 

[35mm]

There's no army in the world that can seize a well-defended city without ruining it. However, I don't read about Ukrainian government trying to evacuate civilians before that. Looks like they're going to use them as human shield like they did in Mariupol.

Having seen all the atrocities your army did in Mariupol and now reading this really makes me wanna punch something.

Your leader is a coward and a lunatic and you're just one of his many puppets, being fed lies.

Hopefully you'll see that one day.

 

[RacingGrandpa]

No, they couldn't leave because they were held at gunpoint by the Azov battalion. /s

They made an evacuation corridor in agreement between Russia and Ukraine to bring the civilians out. When they started to leave the Russian army started to fira at the civilian refugees.