Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[Joey D]

This is a chicken and egg thing that'll can go back over 100 years. It's beyond the point. When someone's waiting for an excuse to attack, you simply don't give it to him. Let him take the first punch if he dares. Finland joining NATO at this point would seem like a soft pre-emptive strike. I don't see the rush when the risk is so high.

By joining NATO, Finland and Sweden have now removed the option for Putin to attack them. Putin won't attack a NATO country because it will pretty much spell instant death and destruction to Russia and its citizens. As delusional as Putin is, there's no way he doesn't know this.

Prior to the invasion, I would've said NATO shares 80% of the blame. The invasion itself, I find inexcusable given the reality of what was happening. So yes, Russia?

NATO gets precisely 0% of the blame. NATO is a defensive treaty so unless Russia was planning to attack a NATO country, they have absolutely nothing to worry about. The only people that believe NATO would attack anyone without being attacked first are the brainwashed Russians and Chinese. The rest of us who don't live in fantasy land know exactly how NATO functions and that there's nothing to fear about it unless you attack it.

 

[RacingGrandpa]

Any country would feel antagonized if another country on its borders starts arming up. The situation is bad enough and I don't see any signs that Putin would invade Finalnd. Joining NATO at this point is just unnecessarily provacative. Remember what we say about police officers, it's better to de-escalate than escalate, even if the other person/party is in the wrong.

And when the neighbors to a land arming up is getting nervous and starts to improve their own defense that's an aggression?
Because that's what's happening with Finland and Sweden.
Decades of neutrality from Finland's part and over a century from Sweden was eradicated by Putin showing Russia's true colours. Not just preparing defense but attacking a sovereign nation over made up reasons.

 

[Dotini]

The only people that believe NATO would attack anyone without being attacked first are the brainwashed Russians and Chinese. The rest of us who don't live in fantasy land know exactly how NATO functions and that there's nothing to fear about it unless you attack it.

NATO has to grow a set of balls if it desires a unipolar world order. Otherwise, Russia and China will always be with us, doing what they do best, over and over again. "Sphere of influence" conflicts like Ukraine will become ubiquitous.

 

[McLaren]

I'm not sure I made it clear. I see it as a **** show like a bad marriage. At some point it doesn't matter who started what and both parties need to stop making things worse.

Yeah, Finland & Sweden should stay out of NATO and just wait for Russia to begin hanging around their borders to start, "Special Military Operation 2: Electric Boogaloo"....

 

[eran0004]

@R3V Why do you believe Russia should have the right to dominate and control its neighbours? Because that’s what you imply when you say that NATO is 80% of the problem and that Ukraine’s ambition to join the alliance was a (valid*) reason for the invasion.

Putin speaks of a “multipolar” world where he wants Russia to have an influence similar to what the USA has. But the difference between Russia and USA is that USA’s influence comes from trading and investment - not from the threat of invasion (even if they have indeed invaded a fair number of countries over the years). We don’t have close relations with the USA because we’re afraid that they might invade us if we don’t, but because we benefit from it.

And crucially, there’s absolutely nothing stopping Russia from building close relations with other countries in that way, they just choose not to because they have this old imperial habit of wanting to dominate them with military power instead.

NATO is a big obstacle for Russia when it comes to projecting their power on the west, that why they have unilaterally decided that NATO is their enemy and why they don’t want any more countries to join the alliance. And that’s also why no other country in Europe have any issues with it, because they don’t have any imperialistic ambitions for their neighbours.

(*I thought it was obvious from the context that I meant “for no valid reason” in my previous post, but apparently it wasn’t.)

 

[inCloud]

 

[Liquid]

The Irony Curtain is alive and well.

 

[inCloud]

80 days of war. Meanwhile, I(from SPB, RF) am playing with my pal(from Odessa, Ukraine) while my country bombing his city with rockets. WTF.

 

[Rich S]

Now I've read Turkey will veto the joining of Finland to NATO, supposedly. Erdogan apparently referred to Scandinavian countries as known for housing terrorists. Erdogan also has been using Russian missile defenses for Turkish security for some time which has put him out of favor with Washington DC/NATO heads, supposedly. This might be interesting to see as perhaps this could be the start of Turkey allying with Putin and being forced out of NATO?

 

[R3V]

@R3V Why do you believe Russia should have the right to dominate and control its neighbours? Because that’s what you imply when you say that NATO is 80% of the problem and that Ukraine’s ambition to join the alliance was a (valid*) reason for the invasion.

I don't. The 80% is prior to the invasion. Kindly read the post again. A reason is not necessarily an excuse. NATO was founded as a defense alliance against Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia collapsed and a deal was made not to advance NATO towards the east. Whether it's to provoke Russia or sell more weapons, it kept expanding as if Russia was still a threat. Why?

By joining NATO, Finland and Sweden have now removed the option for Putin to attack them. Putin won't attack a NATO country because it will pretty much spell instant death and destruction to Russia and its citizens. As delusional as Putin is, there's no way he doesn't know this.

I'm not as confident as you are about this.

they have absolutely nothing to worry about.

If the US establish a military base along Russia's borders they have nothing to worry about? If my neighbor who hates me bought a machine gun turret* pointed at my house one day, I would at least worry.

 

[Scaff]

I don't. The 80% is prior to the invasion.

They you will be able to cite evidence for that number

Kindly read the post again. A reason is not necessarily an excuse. NATO was founded as a defense alliance against Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia collapsed

In part, but not entirely, and threats change as time passes.

and a deal was made not to advance NATO towards the east.

A myth, no such agreement was made or even discussed, but it does show you're blindly and uncritically accepting Kremlin originated propaganda.

Ukraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east

Russia insists that there was an agreement not to expand Nato eastwards after the end of the USSR. History begs to differ.

theconversation.com

If the US establish a military base along Russia's borders they have nothing to worry about? If my neighbor who hates me bought a machine gun turrent pointed at my house one day, I would at least worry.

Russia and the US have shared a border since before the cold War!

It's had a base less than 200 miles from Russia since 1943.

Eareckson Air Station - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's also hypocritical of Russia, as its been quite Happy to have bases next to Borders with NATO member States.

 

[R3V]

They you will be able to cite evidence for that number

In part, but not entirely, and threats change as time passes.

A myth, no such agreement was made or even discussed, but it does show you're blindly and uncritically accepting Kremlin originated propaganda.

Ukraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east

Russia insists that there was an agreement not to expand Nato eastwards after the end of the USSR. History begs to differ.

theconversation.com

The 80% is a personal estimate of the blame for the conflict prior to the invasion. Why did NATO keep expanding in your opinion?

Ukraine: the history behind Russia’s claim that Nato promised not to expand to the east

Russia insists that there was an agreement not to expand Nato eastwards after the end of the USSR. History begs to differ.

theconversation.com

This was widely reported and accepted by everyone when I was growing up. Long before Putin was in the picture. I thought I was mad until I heard Noam Chomsky repeat it recently. Just because it doesn't exist on western internet doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I think we can have discussions here without insinuating bias. I live far enough away for this to not matter much to me. My only interest is reducing the death toll and bring back stability.

 

[Scaff]

The 80% is a personal estimate of the blame for the conflict prior to the invasion. Why did NATO keep expanding in your opinion?

Because it is effective, countries wanted to join.

This was widely reported and accepted by everyone when I was growing up. Long before Putin was in the picture. I thought I was mad until I heard Noam Chomsky repeat it recently. Just because it doesn't exist on western internet doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Then you will have zero problem linking to the actual treaty.

I think we can have discussions here without insinuating bias. I live far enough away for this to not matter much to me. My only interest is reducing the death toll and bring back stability.

Distance doesn't determine bias, I'm basing it on your lack of critical analysis.

 

[R3V]

Because it is effective

Effective at what?

Then you will have zero problem linking to the actual treaty.

Is this a legal argument? No ink was signed, but an agreement is an agreement. Wussing out for whatever reason doesn't make it any less valid.

To understand Russia’s claims of betrayal, it is necessary to review the reassurances then US secretary of state James A. Baker made to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990. In a discussion on the status of a reunited Germany, the two men agreed that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17 that same year in Brussels.

Did NATO ‘betray’ Russia by expanding to the East?

The Kremlin claims the West broke a promise it made in the 1990s not to expand NATO, and is now using this claim to justify threats to invade Ukraine.

www.france24.com

Backing out of this is no different than Trump backing out of the Iran deal. Ink on a paper is rather worthless on a world scale.

 

[Scaff]

Effective at what?

Mutual defence

Is this a legal argument?

Yes.

No ink was signed, but an agreement is an agreement. Wussing out for whatever reason doesn't make it any less valid.

Did NATO ‘betray’ Russia by expanding to the East?

The Kremlin claims the West broke a promise it made in the 1990s not to expand NATO, and is now using this claim to justify threats to invade Ukraine.

www.france24.com

Quite the opposite, if its not inked then it's worthless. Oh and your source refutes your claim as well.

Backing out of this is no different than Trump backing out of the Iran deal. Ink on a paper is rather worthless on a world scale.

Except its not, as the Iran deal was signed.

 

[Dotini]

The invasion of Ukraine has resulted in the blockade of ports on the Black Sea. Ostensibly credible sources claim this closure could will result in the loss of millions of lives. Should this assertion affect our thinking about the conduct of the war? If so, how?

"New York (CNN Business)David Beasley, head of the United Nations World Food Programme, is pleading with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reopen Ukraine's Black Sea ports before global calamity strikes.
"Millions of people around the world will die because these ports are being blocked," Beasley told CNN during a conference on Thursday."

'If you have any heart at all.' UN official warns Putin millions will die if Ukraine's ports remain blocked

David Beasley, head of the United Nations World Food Programme, is pleading with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reopen Ukraine's Black Sea ports before global calamity strikes.

www.cnn.com

 

[R3V]

Mutual defence

Yes.

Quite the opposite, if its not inked then it's worthless. Oh and your source refutes your claim as well.

Except its not, as the Iran deal was signed.

Where I'm from a deal is a deal and we honor it. It doesn't matter if it's signed or not, or if the person who agreed to it is replaced.

 

[tarnheld]

Where I'm from a deal is a deal and we honor it. It doesn't matter if it's signed or not, or if the person who agreed to it is replaced.

Then what do you say about the Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine and other countries gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of territorial integrity?

 

[Scaff]

Where I'm from a deal is a deal and we honor it. It doesn't matter if it's signed or not, or if the person who agreed to it is replaced.

I've worked in the Middle East, and that certainly isn't always the case.

That aside, that's not how international law works.

 

[R3V]

Then what do you say about the Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine and other countries gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of territorial integrity?

From the link:

According to the memorandum,[23] Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:

1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[24]
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[20][25]

Can be argued that #3 was violated by the US in 2014.

We're really getting past my original point here. If I were Putin, I would have chosen to spare lives and keep stability for the time being. If I were NATO today, I would choose not to de-escalate to spare lives and stabilize things. I was offering this opinion as a potential explanation for Turkey's stance.

 

[axletramp]

We can also add the 'Cancer or Coup?' talking point into the mix: Sky News Interview here

Which one could get Putin first?

 

[RacingGrandpa]

Turkey's stance on the Nordic countries harbouring terrorism is because we have been giving asylum to Kurds that wanted a free Kurdistan and where being prosecuted for it in Turkey.
I fail to see what impact that would have on entering a defense pact
He is just acting like a spoilt child. I"f you like him you can't use my ball".

 

[Tornado]

Turkey's stance is because Erdogan is a de facto dictator who throws a fit if people draw cartoons of him.

 

[Dennisch]

The lover of goats wants to be relevant in the discussion, trying to speak out against Finland and Sweden is only for one thing. Money. The West will throw Euro's and Dollars his way and they'll be allowed to join.

 

[Carbonox]

Seems pretty twisted that the Beasley bloke, regardless of what his position is and where his main interests lie, took his moment to solely concern himself with Ukraine's crops and the foreign people affected, but not the, you know, Ukrainians being attacked.

 

[eran0004]

I don't. The 80% is prior to the invasion. Kindly read the post again. A reason is not necessarily an excuse. NATO was founded as a defense alliance against Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia collapsed and a deal was made not to advance NATO towards the east. Whether it's to provoke Russia or sell more weapons, it kept expanding as if Russia was still a threat. Why?

How can NATO be 80% guilty of an invasion that hadn’t happened yet, and 0% guilty post factum? That doesn’t make any sense.

Why did NATO expand? Because these countries have the right to stay independent from Russia. The only provocation from NATO is that they guarantee the defence of these countries. The only way to be provoked by that is if you have other plans for those.

Russia isn’t even shy about it, they say they want a “multipolar” world, which means that they want to rule what they consider to be their part of the world.

 

[Obelisk]

Institute for the Study of War

The Russian military has likely decided to withdraw fully from its positions around Kharkiv City in the face of Ukrainian counteroffensives and the limited availability of reinforcements. Russian units have generally not attempted to hold ground against

www.understandingwar.org

Ukraine has very likely won the battle of Kharkiv.

 

[inCloud]

Institute for the Study of War

The Russian military has likely decided to withdraw fully from its positions around Kharkiv City in the face of Ukrainian counteroffensives and the limited availability of reinforcements. Russian units have generally not attempted to hold ground against

www.understandingwar.org

Ukraine has very likely won the battle of Kharkiv.

Week ago.

 

[tarnheld]

Can be argued that #3 was violated by the US in 2014.

... which is exactly what Russia did to justify Crimea annexation. Putin also argued that Ukraine is not the country mentioned in the Memorandum after Euromaidan. And Lavrov argued that the Memorandum only binds them to not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. 🤡 To me this reflects the value of contracts in Russia -- they just break them, they don't even need to officially withdraw like Trump did with the Iran deal.

Ukraine has very likely won the battle of Kharkiv.

Russian Tsargrad TV tries to spin this in a different way -- they saved Belgorod from the Ukrainian invasion: 🤪

 

[Famine]

Wow, Russian operatives actually got into Zelenskyy's building!

Spoiler