Russia and Ukraine Current Events

[John J.]

kalingrad doesnt count.

It counts to Russia.
It is has a large military presence, and probably hosts nuclear weapons and Iskander missiles.

In November 2008, the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in his first annual address to the Federal Assembly of Russia announced plans to deploy Iskander missiles to the Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia's westernmost territory on the south-eastern coast of the Baltic Sea, if the U.S. went ahead with its European Ballistic Missile Defense System. On 17 September 2009, US president Barack Obama announced the cancellation of the U.S. missile defense project in Poland and the Czech Republic. The following day, Moscow indicated it might in turn cancel the plans to deploy Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad; a few days later, the decision not to deploy was confirmed by Medvedev...

On 8 October 2016, the Russian military confirmed that they had moved Iskander-M missiles into the Kaliningrad Oblast, adding the move was part of routine drills and had happened previously multiple times and would happen in future.[71]​

In early February 2018, Shamanov confirmed that Russia had deployed an unidentified number of Iskander missiles to the Kaliningrad region Days prior, the local military commanders said that the "park zones" for Iskander missiles deployment had been completed in the Kaliningrad region, as well as in North Ossetia.

Wikipedia, 9K720 Iskander https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander

The United States planned a defensive system. The Russian government didn't like it, and threatened to station offensive nuclear-capable systems further west, in Kaliningrad. The United States cancelled its missile defence system.
And after a while, the Russian government deploys Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad anyway.

 

[Ann K]

Rubio knew Trump's position when he left his Senate seat to take the job. Accepting the job was his choice and he is massively compromising his prior stated conviction.

I agree, and the same thing could be said of most (if not all) of the cabinet members and department heads appointed by Trump. But many of them simply didn't understand that Trump would actually go through with the draconian demands. They were familiar with "the Trump that was", the man who floated all sorts of crazy ideas in his first administration that he never followed up on, the concepts that never came to fruition.

 

[deirdre]

and threatened to station offensive nuclear-capable systems further west, in Kaliningrad. The United States cancelled its missile defence system.
And after a while, the Russian government deploys Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad anyway.

ok, sounds like Russia countered with it's own defensive system because of the NATO threat. but yes, i see how y'all might think you can continue to poke the bear and it won't react ever. thanks for helping me understand the attitudes better!

Article:

The first NATO allied units arrived in Poland in 2017.[3][4][5] (Previously, allied units were not stationed on Polish territory, although they did take part in military exercises, such as Anaconda, Dragon or Noble Jump exercises in the mid-2010s; such exercises are still taking place, e.g. Defender Europe in 2020).[6][7][8]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_forces_in_Poland

 

[John J.]

ok, sounds like Russia countered with it's own defensive system

No; the Russian Iskander missiles hit ground targets. They can carry nukes. They are offensive weapons.
The system the US considered basing in Europe was to shoot down incoming missiles- it was defensive.
It couldn't hit ground targets.
The concern was that Middle-East states (Iran, maybe others) would continue to develop long-range missiles, possibly nuclear weapons, which might strike US military targets in Europe.

The plans propose the installation of a latest generation ABM system with a radar site in the Czech Republic and the launch site in Poland. The system was announced to be aimed against ICBMs from Iran and North Korea.

Wikipedia, Anti-ballistic missile, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

The Russian government always claimed the planned US system in Europe was meant to intercept Russian missiles.
There are three problems with that argument:

(1) The planned US system would not have had the capability to deal with a large-scale Russian missile attack.

As of 2025, the anti-ballistic missile defences of the continental USA would not be able to deal with a large-scale Russian (or Chinese) missile attack;

The current GMD system is intended to shield the United States mainland against a limited nuclear attack by a rogue state such as North Korea. GMD does not have the ability to protect against an all-out nuclear attack from Russia, as there are currently only 44 ground-based interceptors available to counter projectiles headed towards the US.

-link as above.
Russia has approximately 329 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and 192 submarine-based sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)- that's 521 missiles against 44 US interceptors. (Those 521 missiles carry approx. 2,236 independently-targeted nuclear warheads).
Figures from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/russian-nuclear-weapons-2024/, March 2024. Russia also has approx. 2,144 nuclear bombs for use by aircraft, shorter-range missiles and other systems.

It is unlikely that the US would have deployed a more potent system in Europe than it has for its own defence.

(2) If Russia had no plans to use missiles against western/ central European targets, it shouldn't have been concerned about a system designed to protect those nations against a missile attack.
Canada doesn't complain about US missile defences, because it doesn't plan to launch missiles against the US.

(3) For almost all the time between 1972 and the founding of the limited US GMD anti-ballistic missile system in c. 1997,
their was only one functional anti-ballistic missile system on Earth: It defends Moscow. It has been continuously modernized and remains in service.
(An equivalent US system in North Dakota served for 1 year, 1975-1976, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_R._Mickelsen_Safeguard_Complex).

The Russian government clearly feels it is entitled to protection from missile attack, but no-one else in Europe (including US forces) is.

 

[John J.]

i see how y'all might think you can continue to poke the bear and it won't react ever. thanks for helping me understand the attitudes better!

Article: The first NATO allied units arrived in Poland in 2017.[3][4][5] (Previously, allied units were not stationed on Polish territory, although they did take part in military exercises, such as Anaconda, Dragon or Noble Jump exercises in the mid-2010s; such exercises are still taking place, e.g. Defender Europe in 2020).[6][7][8]

Russia had forces in Poland from 1945 to 1993.
I'm sure the Poles were overjoyed at the expulsion of the Nazis by Russian forces, but they didn't ask be controlled and occupied by Russia for the next 45 years. No free elections.
Poland suffered more, proportionately, than any other nation- even Russia- in WW2. It's not as if Poland's hatred of Nazism was in any doubt.

Poland is now a free country with an elected government. It can make alliances with whatever other countries it wants.
Russia does not have the right to tell Poland what to do, just because they did exactly that for 45 years.

 

[Gary C]

How convenient.

NATO could take Kaliningrad as easily as Russia has taken Crimea. Yet we don't. And that means something.

If NATO were the threat Putin claims it to be, that would have happened already.

 

[deirdre]

Canada doesn't complain about US missile defences, because it doesn't plan to launch missiles against the US.

but we don't absolutely hate Canada and want it's defeat. it doesn't matter, if this is how europe (and some american politicians) see the situation then there is no chance of negotiating a peace. fair enough.

It can make alliances with whatever other countries it wants.
Russia does not have the right to tell Poland what to do,

agreed. every country has the right to do whatever they want. (meaning they can judge any consequences or not for themselves)

 

[Mendel]

(2) If Russia had no plans to use missiles against western/ central European targets, it shouldn't have been concerned about a system designed to protect those nations against a missile attack.

I disagree.
Nuclear deterrent works because both sides are vulnerable to a nuclear "second strike". If a system gets deployed (and possibly extended) that promises to protect one side from retaliation, that creates an imbalance and destroys the deterrent.

 

[John J.]

but we don't absolutely hate Canada and want it's defeat.

European nations don't hate Russia or want its defeat (except in Ukraine, where they have no right to be); if they did they wouldn't have slashed defence spending at the end of the Cold War (c. 1991) and since -something that President Trump has (legitimately, IMO) complained about.
Some European nations were doing lots of trade with Russia before it attacked Ukraine, e.g. the Nord Stream gas pipelines.
But they don't want to be attacked by Russia, which has demonstrated a habit of attacking its neighbours.
Russia sends nuclear-capable bombers to probe the air defences of west European nations, those nations don't do the same to Russia.

There are literally millions of middle-aged and older people in Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia who remember life under Russian-led communism (to be clear there weren't Russian garrisons in Bulgaria or Romania, where the local communists could be trusted to oppress their own people).
Those nations were all members of the Warsaw Pact, the Russian-led equivalent to NATO.
If there were public protests or uprisings against communist rule, they were put down by Russian troops- in East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Lithuania and Latvia in 1991.
When those countries had the opportunity, all left the Warsaw Pact in 1991* (NATO website).
They have all, under democratically elected governments, chosen to join NATO.

One of the advantages of being in US-led NATO v. the Russian-led Warsaw Pact is, if a group holds a protest against their country being in NATO for political or moral reasons (e.g. pacifists), they're not gunned down by American tanks.

Putin is proud of his service as a KGB officer, a brutal arm of a discredited political system that oppressed- and murdered- people who wanted to live in a free (or freer) society. Putin's government is responsible for murders in the UK and elsewhere.

Putin is no friend of the USA; he has modernized the Russian nuclear arsenal. Russia doesn't need ICBMs to hit European targets, they were developed to hit America, and can hit any target in America.
In 2018, in a TV address to the Russian nation, Putin showed an animation of his new warheads falling on Florida. This was during Mr Trump's first Presidency.

President Putin has unveiled Russia's new stockpile of "invincible" nuclear weapons, with a video graphic appearing to show missiles raining on Florida.

From "Why would Putin want to nuke Florida?", BBC News, US & Canada, 01 March 2018 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43248794

If a West European leader did something similar, proudly showing graphics of nuclear weapons falling on Russia (or any other country) we would consider them insane. I doubt they'd last 48 hours in their post. (France and the UK have nuclear weapons).
IIRC a few years ago a Chinese senior military officer was sacked after publicly stating that, in the event of war, China could burn 100 American cities (I remember this quite clearly; funnily enough couldn't find an online reference

).

It costs a lot of money to maintain nuclear forces on a par with those of the USA (population 341.5 million and the world's wealthiest nation).
Russia, population 146 million, by far the largest country on Earth, with huge natural resources, high literacy rates and some excellent scientists and engineers, is so badly run that its Gross Domestic Product- the total of all goods and services produced by a country in a year- is a bit smaller than Italy's (population 58.5 million) or Canada's (pop. 41.5 million).
Russia's GDP is less than 7% of the USA's.
(Economic figures from "List of countries by GDP (nominal)", Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal))

So Russia isn't rich. But the government spends vast amounts on weapons that can strike America. And despite being the largest country on Earth, wants more land, and doesn't give a damn about the people who live there already.
It is clear that the ability to kill a majority of the US population is important to Mr Putin, more important than improving the decrepit health services and living conditions for millions of Russians.

*East Germany (DDR) joined West Germany (the Bundesrepublik, FRG) in 1990.

 

[deirdre]

It is clear that the ability to kill a majority of the US population is important to Mr Putin

not sure why you are trying to convince me that the US should stay out of Russia business with ukraine.

 

[John J.]

I disagree.
Nuclear deterrent works because both sides are vulnerable to a nuclear "second strike". If a system gets deployed (and possibly extended) that promises to protect one side from retaliation, that creates an imbalance and destroys the deterrent.

That was the Russian objection.

The proposed American system would not have been able to deal with a large-scale Russian strike.
The United States' current system for its own defence, 28 years on, would not be able to deal with a large-scale Russian strike.

In 1997, as now, Russia had plenty of cruise missiles and aircraft that could hit targets in Europe.
In 1997, Russia already had an anti-ballistic missile defence system for the Moscow region, and had operated it since 1972.

 

[John J.]

not sure why you are trying to convince me that the US should stay out of Russia business with ukraine.

I'd just suggest that Mr Putin is an extremely unpleasant man, who has ordered the murders of people he doesn't like.
History suggests that when we give dictators what they want, they'll be back for more.

 

[Mendel]

ok, sounds like Russia countered with it's own defensive system because of the NATO threat.

We discussed allied troops stationed in Poland from 2017 onward (5000 troops as of 2019, per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_forces_in_Poland ), and medium-range ballistic missiles (offensive, not defensive) stationed in Kaliningrad (Iskander-M from October 2016).

Compare:

Article:

RUSSIAN MILITARY TRANSFORMATION TRACKER: ISSUE 1, AUGUST 2018-JULY 2019

Russia's earlier transfer to a brigade-based system has been reversed with a return to divisions that are believed in Russia to be better suited for large-scale frontal warfare. A network of military bases is being established in the Arctic. Most ominously, since 2015, Russia's regions bordering Ukraine, which previously had contained no permanent land maneuver units, have been filled with them. These areas now have two new Russian armies that include three new mechanized divisions among other forces.

Given the kind of foreign policy that is exercised by Moscow, including its habit of invading neighbors, the Russian military clearly deserves some keen attention.

Source: https://gfsis.org/en/russian-military-transformation-tracker-issue-1-august-2018-july-2019/

But also:

Article:

Is NATO Provoking the Russian Military Build-up in Kaliningrad?

Although both sides can be faulted for such destabilizing behavior, the Western powers deserve the bulk of the blame

DECEMBER 14, 2020 • COMMENTARY

Washington's policies have been especially unhelpful. The decision to build a military facility in Poland (which the country's president once offered to name "Fort Trump") was gratuitously provocative. Washington even managed to transform the decision to withdraw some 11,900 U.S. troops from Germany, which Moscow might have perceived as a conciliatory gesture, into a provocation. Transferring more than 1,000 of those forces eastward to establish a permanent U.S. troop presence in Poland conveyed a markedly unfriendly message.

Source: https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-provoking-russian-military-build-kaliningrad

So there's mutual escalation.

But remember, this started in 2014, when Ukraine toppled its pro-Russian government, and Russia seized Crimea overnight.

 

[Mendel]

? your understanding of NATO is much different to mine.

Oh, definitely. I understand that NATO is a purely defensive alliance, and would never use the phrase

the NATO threat

unironically.

 

[deirdre]

Oh, definitely. I understand that NATO is a purely defensive alliance, and would never use the phrase

unironically.

Article:

MOSCOW, June 20 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin on Thursday accused the NATO military alliance of creating a security threat for Russia and other nations in Asia.
"We see what is happening in Asia: a bloc system is being put together," Putin told a news conference in Vietnam at the end of a two-day trip to Asia. He held talks in North Korea a day earlier.

"NATO is already "moving" there (to Asia) as if to a permanent place of residence. This, of course, creates a threat to all countries in the region, including the Russian Federation. We are obliged to respond to this and will do it," Putin said.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-accuses-nato-creating-security-threat-russia-asia-2024-06-20/

 

[Ann K]

MOSCOW, June 20 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin on Thursday accused the NATO military alliance of creating a security threat for Russia and other nations in Asia.

...and of course we are willing to take Putin's wording as gospel? I think not. Putin says what serves his purpose, which is, as he has said, to gain back the countries that split away from the USSR, by force if necessary. The "security threat" to which he refers translates to "NATO won't let us seize all the additional territory we want".

 

[deirdre]

...and of course we are willing to take Putin's wording as gospel?

what are you talking about? it doesnt matter whether you or i see NATO as a threat to Russia. what matters is whether Russia sees it as a threat.

I'm not saying you have to accept Russia's interpretation. I imagine if your neighbor stared at you with hatred, while holding a shotgun, everytime you went out to get your mail, you would consider it a threat regardless if he tells you "i never shot anyone before, you have no reason to see me as a threat".

the point here being that if i was negotiating a peace with you and your neighbor i can't just ignore your feelings completely and expect you to just be ok with the shotgun thing.

Not that it matters if anyone here understands the point i am trying to make, the politicians are going to do whatever the hell they want regardless.
and if everyone on MB is ok with unnecessary NATO expansion that a nuclear power sees as a threat, that's cool. you do you.

 

[Ann K]

what matters is whether Russia sees it as a threat.

What matters is that Putin wants to pretend to the rest of the world that Russia sees it as a threat. I don't think most people are fooled. I'm surprised that you are.

 

[Mendel]

"We see what is happening in Asia: a bloc system is being put together," Putin told a news conference in Vietnam at the end of a two-day trip to Asia

Have any of the post-WW2 mutual defense blocs ever engaged in aggression?

Putin does not want Ukraine to be well defended. We know why. That's why he's pushing the narrative that a mutual defense alliance is a threat. But it's false.

unnecessary NATO expansion

Sweden and Finland have joined NATO (thereby expanding it) after 2022 because Putin demonstrated the necessity to do so, thereby vindicating the countries who joined before.

Ukraine should've joined before, too, but they trusted Russia to keep its word. Russia breaking that is why security for Ukraine is so difficult to negotiate now.

 

[Mendel]

it doesnt matter whether you or i see NATO as a threat to Russia. what matters is whether Russia sees it as a threat.

"it doesn't matter whether you or I identify the light in the sky as a satellite. what matters is whether the observer sees it as a UFO."
Since when do we operate like that on Metabunk?
The fact that someone claims something does not make it true.

 

[deirdre]

ince when do we operate like that on Metabunk?

1. this isnt some guy making a reality tv show, thinking a satellite is a ufo. this is thousands of Ukrainians dying and land being lost by the day.

2. a satellite is a tangible object. whether or not the EU or the USA (which is really what NATO is, despite any "we" talk) is trustworthy is subjective.

But i understand that some members here can't see the difference.

 

[Ann K]

the USA (which is really what NATO is, despite any "we" talk)

BRUSSELS (AP) — NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Thursday urged the 32 member nations to devote more funds, equipment and political energy to the world's biggest military alliance, as the United States steps back from its leading security role in Europe.

"In 2025, we need to significantly increase our efforts to ensure NATO remains a key source of military advantage for all our nations. Our continued freedom and prosperity depend on it," Rutte wrote in his annual report.

NATO has been in disarray since February, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that America's security priorities lie elsewhere -– in Asia and on its own borders -– and that Europe would have to look after its own security and that of Ukraine, in future.

https://apnews.com/article/nato-us-rutte-spending-ukraine-d76ed75ebf682348c4ca170becad0de6

NATO has stepped up when we needed them:

NATO joined the United States in the war in Afghanistan after the Taliban government in Kabul refused to hand over al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Besides the historic invocation of Article 5, NATO's participation in the war marked the first time that the Alliance had launched operations outside the Euro-Atlantic area.

"American skepticism about NATO is almost as old as the Alliance," said Fried. "But when America was attacked on 9/11, NATO allies voted unanimously the next day to invoke NATO's Article 5, the commitment of NATO members to come to the defense of any member under attack. That was the first and so-far only Article 5 decision in NATO's history: invoked for America's sake,"

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blo...es-the-day-nato-stood-with-the-united-states/

 

[obiwanbenobi]

...
"American skepticism about NATO is almost as old as the Alliance," said Fried. "But when America was attacked on 9/11, NATO allies voted unanimously the next day to invoke NATO's Article 5, the commitment of NATO members to come to the defense of any member under attack. That was the first and so-far only Article 5 decision in NATO's history: invoked for America's sake,"
[/EX] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blo...es-the-day-nato-stood-with-the-united-states/

And then squandered by a 2nd war on a different front that was based upon BS. This was the 3rd strike for the Rep party and their governments for me and it was also the part of the reason why I felt that working so hard was a waste of a life when my taxes were being spent to kill innocents.

In recent months I think that it is even clearer than ever.

 

[elvenwear]

what are you talking about? it doesnt matter whether you or i see NATO as a threat to Russia. what matters is whether Russia sees it as a threat.

I'm not saying you have to accept Russia's interpretation. I imagine if your neighbor stared at you with hatred, while holding a shotgun, everytime you went out to get your mail, you would consider it a threat regardless if he tells you "i never shot anyone before, you have no reason to see me as a threat".

the point here being that if i was negotiating a peace with you and your neighbor i can't just ignore your feelings completely and expect you to just be ok with the shotgun thing.

Not that it matters if anyone here understands the point i am trying to make, the politicians are going to do whatever the hell they want regardless.
and if everyone on MB is ok with unnecessary NATO expansion that a nuclear power sees as a threat, that's cool. you do you.

I don't think your analogy is quite right here. If a neighbour stared at you with hatred while holding a shotgun, you'd have good reason to think of that as a threat.

The point you are making would be better put by describing the broader picture. A few facts:-
- America has bases in Taiwan - 200 km from mainland China.
- America has bases in South Korea, directly bordering North Korea.
- America has bases in Israel, directly bordering many countries in the middle east.
- In 1961, Russia attempted to place missiles in Cuba, which is 200 km from mainland USA. This triggered the Bay of Pigs invasion and nearly led to WW3. Those bases were immediately dismantled.

So what we see is a rule: America can place bases anywhere in the world but it's enemies cannot. That would probably be a better way of making your point about why having a US friendly Ukraine would bother Russia. The double standard is real. In my opinion, America's dominance has prevented a lot of wars and a lot of death in the last 70 years, but nevertheless it is a double standard.

The problem with with my argument above and your argument previously they are inconsistent with the facts and the sequence of events around the Ukraine war. America didn't plan to put bases in Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine ousted a pro-Russian leader (ie puppet) in 2014 and Putin reacted to this. That is what started this.

The sequence of events has been this:-
2010-2014: Finland is not in NATO, Belarus is an allied country and Viktor Yanukovych is in power in Ukraine and this makes Ukraine a Russian ally.
2014-2014: Ukraine has a revolution and Yanukovych is ousted. He is now living in Russia.
2014-2014: The wall around Russia sees it's first major crack.
2014-Now: Russia Annexes Crimea.
2014-Now: The world puts harsh sanctions on Russia but otherwise nothing is done.
2022-2022: Russian tanks mobilize to the borders of Ukraine. US does not believe invasion is imminent as it makes no sense to them.
2022-Now: Russia invades the rest of Ukraine.
2022-Now: The US assists Ukraine in their defence. Noam Chomsky makes the point that this assistance allows the US to very cheaply destroy the Russian military capability.
2023-Now: Finland enters into NATO. The next big crack appears.
2024-Now: Russia now using North Korean military as their own military has been depleted. Chomsky is vindicated.

Noam Chomsky on the war https://www.newstatesman.com/the-we...w-ukraine-free-actor-united-states-determines

the US is supplying Kyiv with weapons simply to weaken Russia. "For the US, this is a bargain. For a fraction of the colossal military budget, the US is able to severely degrade the military forces of its only real military adversary."

In 2014, when the first break in the Russian wall was made, Putin could have annexed Crimea, left it at that, and since over 90% of the people living in Crimea are Russia, that probably would have been the end of it. Putin's mistake was the 2022 invasion. The US could not believe he would do something so stupid. When he did, the US gave Ukraine all of their older, surplus, soon to expire weapons and in two years, Russia's military was so depleted they are now begging North Korea for military support (hence America couldn't believe he would invade as it was a stupid move). The only spanner in the works is Trump is president. Any other American president would have gouged Russia over this. Any other American president would have delayed negotiations as long as possible. They could apply pressure to Russia and even likely push the country to breaking point (regime change).

Trump's 'deal' over Ukraine is the greatest measure of his incompetence yet. If he is not shot from a grassy knoll by the end of his term, I never want to hear another word about the Kennedy assassination conspiracy ever again.

To return to the point, Ukraine made a decision in 2014 to distance themselves from Russia and be an independent country. That is why they were invaded. It was not an American choice that led to the war. America was opportunistic in 2022 after the fact because they saw a way to destroy an enemy very cheaply. It worked. They may never build bases in Ukraine. Ukraine may never join NATO. The point was always damage to the Russian regime and Putin.

 

[Mendel]

trustworthy is subjective.

Russia broke the Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty when it occupied Crimea. It broke both Minsk accords. Whether Russia is trustworthy is not subjective.

NATO is not "the EU or the USA". It is an organisation and specific infrastructure for mutual aid in the case of an aggression, and like every other such alliance since WW2, it has adhered to this purpose.

There is no NATO threat.
UFO reports are subjective. We can say, a person saw something they claimed was a flying saucer, but we don't say "the person saw a flying saucer" because we know they probably did not, and there's no evidence that they did.
So we can say, "Putin claims he feels threatened by NATO", but to refer to "the NATO threat" as if it existed is bunk.

 

[Mendel]

Putin's mistake was the 2022 invasion. The US could not believe he would do something so stupid.

You left out that Russia broke Minsk I, and a Russian crew shot down an airliner, and there were basically zero consequences.
If the Russian forces had been able to capture Hostomel/Gostomel airport as planned, the forces heading for Kiev from the North would have been well supplied through the air, and who knows what the outcome would have been. Putin thought he had a good chance to conquer Ukraine, and maybe that was even true; and he also thought that the consequences for Russia would be minor, again.

It's apparent that Putin did not fear NATO in 2022. What he disliked was NATO expansion; Ukraine joining NATO (or even the EU) would mean Russia could never pressure it again. (That's why Finland joining NATO didn't matter much—Finland has been a EU member since 1995.)

There's a "Russian threat" to Moldova via Transnistria, and a threat to Georgia via Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and there was a threat to Ukraine via Donbass. When Putin talks about the "NATO threat", he wants to convey the impression that we're like them, but that's not true.

 

[purpleivan]

what are you talking about? it doesnt matter whether you or i see NATO as a threat to Russia. what matters is whether Russia sees it as a threat.

I'm not saying you have to accept Russia's interpretation. I imagine if your neighbor stared at you with hatred, while holding a shotgun, everytime you went out to get your mail, you would consider it a threat regardless if he tells you "i never shot anyone before, you have no reason to see me as a threat".

the point here being that if i was negotiating a peace with you and your neighbor i can't just ignore your feelings completely and expect you to just be ok with the shotgun thing.

Not that it matters if anyone here understands the point i am trying to make, the politicians are going to do whatever the hell they want regardless.
and if everyone on MB is ok with unnecessary NATO expansion that a nuclear power sees as a threat, that's cool. you do you.

Statements by Putin of what he "believes" can just as easily be simply the posture he wants to project, for his own purposes, rather a statement of genuine belief. In this way his comments regarding a NATA threat, can just be a tool to get what he wants, rather than a statement of genuine fears. There is a long history of countries (not just Russia, or Russia under Putin) using the the threat from "outsiders" in various forms, as both a means of control via propaganda, within their country, as well as abroad.

Unless it's accepted that Putin has a history of being overwhelming truthful in his statements on these type of matters, (which would seem foolhardy given his history), then it surely has to be accepted that his statements regarding these threats may not be based on real fears.

What a person says and what they actually believe are often not the same.

 

[obiwanbenobi]

...
Trump's 'deal' over Ukraine is the greatest measure of his incompetence yet.

"And wait there's more! For $9.99 you can get..."

Squandering an opportunity of a lifetime.

 

[elvenwear]

no wonder you want Trump shot.

I don't want Trump shot. I was making the point that the establishment in America hates what Trump is doing with Ukraine and Russia more than anyone could possibly have hated JFK. I must apologise for being subtle. I thought the meaning would have been clearer.

well if you believe this is an actual possibility

Mikhail Kasyanov said in 2022 that Putin has two years left. Source: https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/present...aine-invasion-beginning-of-the-end-for-putin/

The first Russian Prime Minister under President Putin tells LBC he has at most two years left at the helm before he is ousted...
Mikhail Kasyanov served as Prime Minister of Russia between 2000 and 2004. He was Deputy Prime Minister while Mr Putin was in the office and was the first Prime Minister under President Putin's reign.

He wasn't the only one talking this way. From what I could gather the consensus was this invasion was the end of Putin. It appears Yevgeny Prigozhin thought so too. The two year timeframe corresponds precisely with the point where Putin begged North Korea, a country where people are starving, for help. So that would indicate the timeframe of two years to the downfall of Putin was pretty accurate. Without Trump's assistance, Putin's regime would have surely collapsed. It was not just a possibility it was a likelihood.

Trump's actions in this matter are providing aid an comfort to an enemy of the United States, perpetuating an evil regime and weakening America's strategic position in the world. That's why I made the point about JFK. If Trump's actions so far aren't enough to earn him a retirement bullet, then nothing will.

Kinda scary the EU is so so dependent on the US, i guess you were wrong to think we were "trustworthy".

It is scary. I'm not European by the way, but if I was, I would think the tenor of your post was quite personal. Not sure if that was your intention.

I guess you were wrong to think we were "trustworthy".

Until Trump, I don't think anyone was wrong to trust the United States. In the last 70 years there was great prosperity and peace because of that trust.

America has worked hard and sacrificed a lot to have the respect of it's allies, a good economy and to provide global security. Trump has squandered that more than anyone ever has and it only took 100 days.

 

[elvenwear]

You left out that Russia broke Minsk I, and a Russian crew shot down an airliner, and there were basically zero consequences.

...and quite a lot more. Using radioactive poisons and leaving these where British civilians could be harmed. One could fill a page with the unanswered crimes of Putin, and that's without even mentioning Africa.

It's apparent that Putin did not fear NATO in 2022. What he disliked was NATO expansion; Ukraine joining NATO (or even the EU) would mean Russia could never pressure it again. (That's why Finland joining NATO didn't matter much—Finland has been a EU member since 1995.)

This is a crucial point. Putin has acted with impunity in Georgia, Ukraine, Chechnya and Britain etc precisely because he does not fear NATO.

It also reinforces my point. Putin invaded Ukraine because they defied him and ousted his puppet. It had nothing to do with any alleged threat from NATO. The threat of NATO is just Russian propaganda.

 

[deirdre]

It also reinforces my point. Putin invaded Ukraine because they defied him and ousted his puppet. It had nothing to do with any alleged threat from NATO. The threat of NATO is just Russian propaganda.

i dont think anyone thinks the invasion was JUST because of a NATO threat.

 

[Ann K]

i dont think anyone thinks the invasion was JUST because of a NATO threat.

I don't think anyone believes the non-existent "NATO threat" had anything at all to do with it. That's a much later Putin invention.

 

[FatPhil]

I don't think anyone believes the non-existent "NATO threat" had anything at all to do with it. That's a much later Putin invention.

No matter which of the invasions you consider "the" invasion, it's a way earlier Putin invention.

Stay away, Vladimir Putin tells Nato

By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow and James Kirkup in Bucharest 05 April 2008 • 12:01am

Vladimir Putin yesterday told Nato that it would become a "direct threat" to Moscow if it expanded further east.
[...]
"The emergence of a powerful military bloc at our borders will be seen as a direct threat to Russian security," Mr Putin told Nato heads of state at a summit in the Romanian capital, Bucharest.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1584027/Stay-away-Vladimir-Putin-tells-Nato.html

EDIT: for chronological context, Russia's invasion of Georgia was in August 2008, only four months after the above pronouncement, and during which NATO had inched precisely zero inches east.

 

[Mendel]

I don't think anyone believes the non-existent "NATO threat" had anything at all to do with it. That's a much later Putin invention.

It wasn't "later".

Article:

UKRAINE CRISIS 2 DEC 2021, 14:04

Lavrov underscored that as NATO continues to "advance irresponsibly" its military infrastructure to the Russian borders, the architecture of strategic stability is being destroyed. "The alliance recklessly moved forward its military infrastructure to the borders of Russia. Missile defense systems have been stationed in Romania and Poland which can be used as strike complexes. American medium-range missiles are about to appear on European soil," he said.

Source: https://tass.com/world/1369873

The claims concerning NATO had been on the table well before the invasion.

 

[John J.]

Kinda scary the EU is so so dependent on the US

I agree if you're saying most European NATO members should have spent more on defence since the end of the Cold War, and certainly over the past decade, but don't confuse the EU with NATO.

Austria, Cyprus, Ireland and Malta are in the EU but not NATO.
Albania, Iceland, Norway, North Macedonia, Turkey, the UK, Canada and the USA are NATO members but not the EU.

Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden are EU and NATO members.

As @Ann K. pointed out, European NATO troops fought and died in Afghanistan after the September 2001 attacks on the USA (although the vast majority of the western troops in Afghanistan were American).
Thankfully, USA troops have never been called upon to fight after an attack on a European NATO member.

 

[jdog]

No matter which of the invasions you consider "the" invasion, it's a way earlier Putin invention.

Stay away, Vladimir Putin tells Nato

By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow and James Kirkup in Bucharest 05 April 2008 • 12:01am

Vladimir Putin yesterday told Nato that it would become a "direct threat" to Moscow if it expanded further east.
[...]
"The emergence of a powerful military bloc at our borders will be seen as a direct threat to Russian security," Mr Putin told Nato heads of state at a summit in the Romanian capital, Bucharest.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1584027/Stay-away-Vladimir-Putin-tells-Nato.html

EDIT: for chronological context, Russia's invasion of Georgia was in August 2008, only four months after the above pronouncement, and during which NATO had inched precisely zero inches east.

I don't know how far I would push that argument because there is a long and convoluted dispute dating back to the first Bush and then Clinton as to whether the United States had agreed that NATO would not expand eastward if the Soviet Union dissolved. Hardliners like Putin at least claim to believe that the U.S. broke a promise by allowing more than a dozen additional countries to join the alliance; but of course for its part Russia had explicitly agreed to allow Ukraine to remain independent if it gave up its share of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Long story, already debated upthread.

But though Putin had been demanding NATO's withdrawal for years, his original rationalization for invading Ukraine in 2022 had nothing to do with NATO -- he thinly claimed that Ukraine had been overrun by Nazis and he was just stepping in to clean house.

 

[FatPhil]

But though Putin had been demanding NATO's withdrawal for years, his original rationalization for invading Ukraine in 2022 had nothing to do with NATO -- he thinly claimed that Ukraine had been overrun by Nazis and he was just stepping in to clean house.

2022 was the year when Nazis were the enemy, but from what I read this week I think he's pretending that it's transgender idiologies that need to be purged now. He'll try any line of argumentation he thinks might get traction amongst the less-well informed.

 

[captancourgette]

(the following is just honest rambling personally - sometimes I think it's good to let the rest of the world know what's happening, if you have questions about what's happening in Ukraine I will try to answer if I can)

Ok finally finished the military stuff, paperwork and medical etc
Ha, took days, yeah an experience. Ended up in the woods miles from nowhere one day for no reason.
Just Ukraine. Gotta laugh.
The numbers are all total bs, once war finishes then the truth can be told but till then, ha.
Ok I enter 'jail' in 4 days of you have a question I will try to answer before then, maybe then I have internet, but I would not guarantee it. (Because I believe in truth)

 

[Mendel]

if you have a question I will try to answer before then,

I'd be interested in the practical effect of the US presidency changeover, is there a difference that people on the ground can feel?

 

[captancourgette]

I'd be interested in the practical effect of the US presidency changeover, is there a difference that people on the ground can feel?

No absolutely not, TBH most people here do not care, they are very stoic. The world does not revolve around USA. Trump is seen as a very weak president, like a joke character from tv or something.
Ha reminded of a conversation I was having last night with a guy very tall like 2m anyways he spoke zero English thus I'm trying to speak Ukrainian and he was answering me on phone
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oax3K29S1wswRbkL6
Ain't that sad, he's in his 20s and the only time he left Ukraine was due to war, I saw his Russia photos. Yep that's Russia and yep that's war.

Personally last time I was in Ukraine in mid 23, I feel things now (mind, only slept in 3 cities this time and Kyiv most East) but it's changed there is a sense that this is how it will always be, there was hope that Europe would help then but of course their help has mostly been strongly worded letters to the Kremlin.

The infuriating thing is most Russians don't want this, could be over in 3 days, 50k European troops break through the line one place and just route?sp them, the Russians don't want to be there, the threat of nuclear is just that, a threat. Russia can take a loss they have done in the past many times some may day is in their DNA