Ukraine Thread

[Brenus]

"What should NATO do then, in your opinion?" Back down. Be what NATO was supposed to be, a defensive alliance, not the armed arm of the USA's foreign policy.
According to Gilrandir, whom none can believe he is a Putin'Russia lover, Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped.

So to pretend that Russia is a like USSR is a lie.
There is no need to build more bases, to push for more putch.

Stop pretending and acting like if Russia is a super power frightening the peace, stop to treat Russia as an enemy so Russia will act as an enemy. Understanding that the last time Russia had someone telling the world that russia was the enemy, Russia paid it by million of dead.
Doesn't mean you have to accept all Russia's policy, but it might emphasise on negotiation with Russia. The entire Ukrainian debacle could have been avoided without the Coup.
Don't give me the "Putin's friend" thing. I am one the rare left on this forum who did train to face the Red Storm in the 80's and this one was far more serious than today Putin's Russia.
Facts are facts. The expansionist power today is NATO. The one having military installations all around the world is NATO. The one spending the most in military is NATO. Russia has no bases in Cuba, Canada or Mexico. NATO have bases in Poland, Norway, Turkey, Afghanistan and I can carry on.
So, the solution would have been to think first before acting and bragging. It might be to late to think, and we might be in the slope that no one controll any more, as in 1914, when every step could have been avoided, every thing could have been stop if someone in the "aggressor" side had had the idea to do so.

Reminder:
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)
1 United States 596.0
2 China [a] 215.0
3 Saudi Arabia [b] 87.2
4 Russia 66.4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

[Montmorency]

One thing that's hard to swallow is, if we take Russian aggression to be of minimal impact - then what exactly is so frightening about NATO expansion? NATO is a defensive alliance and most of its members have minimal military commitments, let alone an appetite to challenge Russia. America wants to contain Russia, but it hardly wants to fight it either abroad or within Russia's borders. Today NATO is about sharing expertise and policy papers, exchange programs and technical conferences. There is nothing aggressive about this unless you specifically feel the need to keep your own options for aggression open, as Russia evidently does. The fact in itself of a check on your ability to project power should not threaten you unless you are yourself looking for conflict.

[Husar]

One thing that's hard to swallow is, if we take Russian aggression to be of minimal impact - then what exactly is so frightening about NATO expansion? NATO is a defensive alliance and most of its members have minimal military commitments, let alone an appetite to challenge Russia. America wants to contain Russia, but it hardly wants to fight it either abroad or within Russia's borders. Today NATO is about sharing expertise and policy papers, exchange programs and technical conferences. There is nothing aggressive about this unless you specifically feel the need to keep your own options for aggression open, as Russia evidently does. The fact in itself of a check on your ability to project power should not threaten you unless you are yourself looking for conflict.

I guess Russians are not so sure about the US not planning to shred them one day. From within NATO that thought may seem ridiculous today, but maybe not so much if one grew up there.
I generally agree with you though, especially the argument that sounds like "well, if every neighbor is under NATO protection, they can't invade, murder and enslave them anymore" would seem a bit weird indeed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"What should NATO do then, in your opinion?" Back down. Be what NATO was supposed to be, a defensive alliance, not the armed arm of the USA's foreign policy.
According to Gilrandir, whom none can believe he is a Putin'Russia lover, Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped.

So to pretend that Russia is a like USSR is a lie.
There is no need to build more bases, to push for more putch.

Stop pretending and acting like if Russia is a super power frightening the peace, stop to treat Russia as an enemy so Russia will act as an enemy. Understanding that the last time Russia had someone telling the world that russia was the enemy, Russia paid it by million of dead.
Doesn't mean you have to accept all Russia's policy, but it might emphasise on negotiation with Russia. The entire Ukrainian debacle could have been avoided without the Coup.
Don't give me the "Putin's friend" thing. I am one the rare left on this forum who did train to face the Red Storm in the 80's and this one was far more serious than today Putin's Russia.
Facts are facts. The expansionist power today is NATO. The one having military installations all around the world is NATO. The one spending the most in military is NATO. Russia has no bases in Cuba, Canada or Mexico. NATO have bases in Poland, Norway, Turkey, Afghanistan and I can carry on.
So, the solution would have been to think first before acting and bragging. It might be to late to think, and we might be in the slope that no one controll any more, as in 1914, when every step could have been avoided, every thing could have been stop if someone in the "aggressor" side had had the idea to do so.

Reminder:
Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)
1 United States 596.0
2 China [a] 215.0
3 Saudi Arabia [b] 87.2
4 Russia 66.4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

I am not sure that I agree. However, you gave a clear and concise answer to my prompt, so I thank you sir.

[Brenus]

"I am not sure that I agree" I can't ask for more. Thanks.

"the argument that sounds like "well, if every neighbor is under NATO protection, they can't invade, murder and enslave them anymore" would seem a bit weird indeed" A bit, as in Cyprus?

"NATO is a defensive alliance" Did you follow the news during the last 10-20 years?

[Gilrandir]

According to Gilrandir, whom none can believe he is a Putin'Russia lover, Russian army is crap, ill trained, incompetent and ill equipped.

Brenus, Brenus...
Now the Impeccable You do what you claim I (the Clueless One) do. Show me at least one post where I used the words you have put into my mouth. Perform the Marxist reality check you are so proud of being able to do.

So to pretend that Russia is a like USSR is a lie.

It is a lie because the USSR was self-sustaining so it could do without the West's money, technologies and goods for quite a time. But even so it eventually collapsed.

Stop pretending and acting like if Russia is a super power frightening the peace, stop to treat Russia as an enemy so Russia will act as an enemy.

Georgia hadn't treated Russia as an enemy, it had a bone to pick with Abkhasia and South Ossetia. And Russia thought it its personal issue.

Russia had been Ukraine's strategic partner (according to 1997 Treaty of friendship and cooperation). Do I have to remind you how a partner and friend started to act in February 2014?
Just don't give me the "protection of threatened Russian-speakers by evil nazis" thing.

Doesn't mean you have to accept all Russia's policy, but it might emphasise on negotiation with Russia.

Do negotiate, please. Keep negotiating even if Russia violates what has been agreed upon the next day after the protocol has been signed. Bask in your naivete.

The entire Ukrainian debacle could have been avoided without the Coup.

The entire Coup could have been avoided without the violent dispersion of Maidan meeting on December 1.

Don't give me the "Putin's friend" thing.

Ok. Let's call you Putinversteher.

Russia has no bases in Cuba, Canada or Mexico.

If it did you would sooner or later hear about "the oppressed Russian-speaking minorities of Brighton beach" and "Russia is where Russian is spoken".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@Brenus:

I would probably not go as far as you do in suggesting that NATO is functioning primarily as an "arm of" US foreign policy efforts. However, I acknowledge that it has been used by the US in that fashion on several occasions and Europe using NATO to leverage USA actions has been MUCH rarer (Libya maybe? Hard to think of many examples of the reverse of the coin, being fair to your point).

Yet, while it began as a defensive alliance to prevent/respond to Soviet aggression (and insure US combat deaths from the outset thus requiring us to participate immediately and not after an 18-36 month lag period), it has been more than simply a defensive alliance for most of its history. It has always been a pressure group [we are all saying the same thing, so you better listen] to promote the defense of Western interests.

In that larger spirit, is not a somewhat more "forward" stance by NATO likely to be the best route to curtail Russian expansionism in the Baltic and towards the Middle East? After all, Putin has already demonstrated a willingness to "cherry pick" portions of the old Tsarist/Soviet sphere of influence and bring them under the Russian umbrella where he feels he can get away with it. Would not a somewhat more pushy stance convince him to desist? Especially since, as you rightly noted above, the current semi-democratic Russian Republic is no where near the military threat the old Soviet regime was. They may still have that dash of paranoia that seems to permeate Russian culture, but Putin and others are not the Politburo living in fear of their own people blinking the wrong way. Thus, the current regime is less oriented towards suppression and, perhaps, a bit more rational. Certainly rational enough to back off if the price seems too high, yes?

[Montmorency]

Русская армия, Чёрный Ворон,
Снова готовят нам красный гром.

[Brenus]

"Perform the Marxist reality check you are so proud of being able to do." Easy: The entire thread about Ukraine, plus link with aircraft carrier smoking and planes crushing. Pick your choice.
End of my answers to you until you accept civilised debates and stop practicing personal attacks.

"Yet, while it began as a defensive alliance to prevent/respond to Soviet aggression" I like this answer. NATO was created before the Communist equivalent. But yes, it was preventive.

"In that larger spirit, is not a somewhat more "forward" stance by NATO likely to be the best route to curtail Russian expansionism in the Baltic and towards the Middle East? After all, Putin has already demonstrated a willingness to "cherry pick" portions of the old Tsarist/Soviet sphere of influence and bring them under the Russian umbrella where he feels he can get away with it": Agree, but you cannot hope the one you are targeting will not see it and react. And it is kind of asymmetric warfare, except Russia can still obliterate Earth several times but can't invade for real a small country without extreme difficulty. And again, NATO is doing exactly the same, following the pattern developed by the USA, especially in Central and South America (but not only). I know it is a bit in the past, but USA got involved in Vietnam in organising a Coup against a Vietnamese Nationalist and installed their puppet.
And NATO/US get away first with Yugoslavia then with Kosovo, so spread the model until Ukraine where it failed. Putin's operation on Ukraine is a copycat of Kosovo. Same pretext, same modus operandi, and almost same results. Anexion of internationally recognised part of a sovereign Country, with the same disdain for international law and treaties.
If US/NATO can curtail russian expansionism (Reminder: Kosovo was invaded and carved from Serbia before Putin), so Russia can curtail NATO expansion...

"It has always been a pressure group [we are all saying the same thing, so you better listen] to promote the defense of Western interests" This I will disagree. It was used to promote US interests. If one western power was doing something US didn't like, NATO support vanished as in the Suez operation. I don't blame US for this, I blame others to ignore this reality.
Perhaps Iraq is the ultimate example of this.

[Montmorency]

This I will disagree. It was used to promote US interests. If one western power was doing something US didn't like, NATO support vanished as in the Suez operation. I don't blame US for this, I blame others to ignore this reality.
Perhaps Iraq is the ultimate example of this.

By its nature then, NATO has to be more multipolar than any Russian-backed organizations. Putin acts precisely for himself and close backers, but the US can't simply control NATO as it pleases without some compromises or favors among the alliance.

If US/NATO can curtail russian expansionism (Reminder: Kosovo was invaded and carved from Serbia before Putin), so Russia can curtail NATO expansion

So where is the balance? Perhaps we should keep the "Intermarium" in mind, if not as a political idea then as a geographic one.

[Brenus]

"So where is the balance?" The balance? NATO used the fall of USSR followed by a weak Russia to push East. No way you can say now "sorry, we didn't mean it".
Russia has now an aggressive, nationalist leader, and have the taste for respect back.
So NATO has to deal with situations a bit more carefully in order not to end like in Ukraine.
Balance would start by stop pretending Western Powers didn't exploit the situation. And stop pretending that Tupolev Bear are Nuclear bombers. If Russia still had Anatra D-series or Sikorsky S16, NATO would classified them as Fighters!!!
To recognise that Russia has geostrategic interest, and can be nervous when NATO installed missile at its borders, and when regime change occurred, have to be less arrogant and/or obvious in its participation in the process. NATO doesn't care of democracy as proved by Kosovo. No Country was expelled from NATO for being dictatorships. In fact, a lot of NATO members became member when they were a dictatorship.