1 edit
@zahlanzi saidApparently not:
Are the russians still demanding the demilitarization of Ukraine? Yes, totally reasonable.
Are you still stuck on the idea this is about Ukraine joining NATO?
"Preliminary ceasefire discussions don’t include any requirement that Ukraine’s government “demilitarize” or “denazify,” two of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s stated objectives when he ordered the invasion last month, the Financial Times reported."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/03/28/russia-ukraine-peace-talks-russia-willing-to-let-ukraine-join-eu-if-it-stays-out-of-nato-report-says/?sh=2ce7d06f7235
It was about Russian security of which Ukraine's desire to join NATO was a part and repressive measures passed in Ukraine aimed at the Russian speaking minority. See my post at the top of the page here: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/why-now.192443/page-2
I think the point I was trying to discuss is getting missed as we bog down in the blame game.
Again, look at WW1: did Germany really start it?
Quick recap:
since the Franco-Prussian war Germany, France and Britain are stock-piling weapons. Especially since Germany is expanding its empire into traditionally British and French territories (Africa).
Then a duke gets shot in Sarajevo (land held by the Austro-Hungarian empire) by a Servian nationalist.
Austro-Hungary isn’t happy with the Serbian apology so invades Serbia. Serbia has a pact with Russia, so Russia declares war on Austro-Hungary. Austro-Hungary has a pact with Germany. So Germany declares war on Russia.
Then in the wings… the Western wings… lies France. Just waiting for a chance take back the Alsace. Germany knows this, so wants to defend its Western flank… does so by going through Belgium, because that’s where an important part of the French border (harbours, etc. ) are.
Britain has a deal with Belgium and declares war on Germany.
So? Did Germany really start WW1?
Or was it an accident waiting to happen? Countries with old griefs and pacts and pride and constant arming and building of weapon supplies… and the need for resources… just a chain of events which everyone saw unfold, but couldn’t change. Many eager to participate even, not realising what the actual consequences would be?
Didn’t we actually stumble, open-eyed into WW1?
And aren’t we doing so again?
Are the nations not backing themselves into corners they can’t get out of?
Isn’t there an arms race going on?
Are not egos in the way of common sense?
Wouldn’t it take just one misplaced assissination to blow us all up at this moment in time?
Eyes wide open. And still stumbling.
1 edit
@athousandyoung said"It is assumed that countries without nuclear weapons will not be attacked using nuclear weapons." (Me.)
@EintaluJIt is assumed that countries without nuclear weapons will not be attacked using nuclear weapons.
This is a questionable assumption.
Of course, it is a questionable assumption.
However, it is at least more probable that one who obtains nuclear weapons might be attacked with nuclear weapons.
We are talking about the ideology of the US and NATO foreign policy, about deploying nuclear warheads in Eastern Europe.
Now, the additional nuance is that, in the UN, it is the US who has voted against the convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the US military doctrine, to my knowledge, allows to use of preventive nuclear strikes but the Russian military doctrine does not.
The whole picture, however, should contain the following groups:
1) Countries with a large number of nuclear warheads (the US and Russia);
2) Countries with a small number of nuclear warheads (e.g., France and the UK, Israel perhaps, Pakistan, etc.);
3) Countries without nuclear weapons.
Now, the US and NATO ideology/propaganda say that Russian nuclear warheads are a threat to, say, Poland, who does not have nuclear weapons. For the purpose of self-defence, Poland asks NATO to deploy its nuclear warheads in Poland. They are talking about NATO nuclear sharing. They also say that Russia has deployed nuclear warheads near its Western borders and perhaps in Kaliningrad.
This ideology is fishy. It does not take the whole picture into account. It does not apply its principles symmetrically, universally. It is propaganda to influence the masses who are unable to think logically and mathematically.
First, note that Europe, the US and Israel are seriously trying to avoid Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Then why should Russia not seriously try to avoid Ukraine obtaining nuclear weapons?
Then, most of the countries in the world are without nuclear weapons. Why should the US nuclear weapons not be a threat to Cuba, Mexico, or Latin-American countries, if Russian nuclear weapons are regarded as a threat to Ukraine and Poland?
Moreover, Russia is one country. It does not share its nuclear weapons. It moves these weapons around inside one's own territory. But NATO is not a country, it is an alliance of countries.
In sum, the US/NATO ideology lets many things out of the picture. It is actually not my task to take all these things into account and it is not my failure if I had not taken everything into account. It is the failure of the US/NATO ideology and propaganda that they are providing only a small fragment of the picture.
1 edit
@mghrn55 saidBefore the Russian invasion of Ukraine started, there were probably zero nuclear warheads in Poland. NATO, however, had made it legal to deploy nuclear warheads in Eastern Europe.
Just out of curiosity ........
How many Nuclear warheads (American) are there in Poland right now ?
I don't know, just asking.
A few days before the Russian invasion started, Ukrainian president Zelensky declared that Ukraine might try to obtain nuclear weapons.
According to Russian scientist and strategists, Ukraine is pretty able to quickly make some nuclear warheads, they even have missiles to use them and some underground facilities to hide them. So, Russians became quite nervous...
@mghrn55 saidI am forced to reproduce the beginning of my initial post, I quote myself:
Responding to a post from the first page......
Point 1
My thoughts on NATO expansion a strategic threat to Russia.
What constitutes a strategic threat to Russia ? Have any NATO forces ever entered Russia ? Bombed Russia ?
I would say that in Putin's mind, the strategic threat to Russia is stopping Russia's ability to re-draw to map to match the 1980's Soviet Union.
...[text shortened]... ace Theory. Tucker Carlson yapping defending banning math books in Florida.
Nice world we're in.
"In 2021, NATO declared its decision that it might deploy nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe.
At the end of 2021, Russia made its security proposals to the US/NATO.
Russian main points were:
1) NATO's expansion at Russian borders is a strategic threat to Russia and must be stopped.
2) Russia will not tolerate deploying nuclear warheads and strategic missiles at its borders.
3) Ukraine should not join NATO.
Russia threatened to use "military/technical means" if the West ignores Russian security concerns.
The US/NATO completely ignored Russian proposals and demands. Western mainstream media and politicians even did not present Russian proposals correctly, only a heavily distorted interpretation was presented."
Now, I quote the Point 1 of your reply:
"Point 1
My thoughts on NATO expansion a strategic threat to Russia.
What constitutes a strategic threat to Russia ? Have any NATO forces ever entered Russia ? Bombed Russia ?"
My answer is that you have neglected my initial post. I already told you about one example: the decision to possibly deploy nuclear warheads in Eastern Europe. I also mentioned NATO's strategic missiles that are or might be deployed near Russian borders. I also mentioned that the Western propaganda distorted the content of Russian proposals to the US and NATO.
You are incompetent as well and you are trying to use your own ignorance as an "argument" in your propagandistic battle. You should read the original text of these proposals Russia made in 2021. The text is available, both in Russian and English, on the homepage of the Russian Foreign Ministry. As you have probably blocked it, to achieve greater ignorance for propagandistic purposes, please use a VPN to obtain some knowledge. Then you get an answer to your question about what Russia perceived as a strategic threat.
Your following questions:
"Have any NATO forces ever entered Russia ? Bombed Russia ?"
These questions are irrelevant here, beside the point. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia withdrew its military bases from Eastern Europe. NATO, however, started to expand. Russian forces have not entered NATO countries and have not bombed NATO countries.
I refuse to read the remaining part of your questions, as already Part I contained awfully many mistakes and demagougery.
@zahlanzi saidI have thoroughly analyzed the relationship between countries with nuclear weapons and without nuclear weapons here, above, as a reply to another post.
"It is assumed that those countries that do not have nuclear weapons will not be attacked with nuclear weapons. "
Who assumes that? Not that it matters for every human on the planet if 5000 nukes go off at once but who is that idiotic to believe only the nuclear powers will get bombed?
"This neglection led to Ukrainain war."
Not the fact that Putin thought he will fin ...[text shortened]... se he pines for restoring the USSR and he felt he is owed the Ukraine?
It's NATO's fault, right?
You seem to talk about who is right and who is wrong in your opinion. I repeat this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the mechanisms that led to the Russia/Ukraine war and that probably lead to World War III, which probably leads to the nuclear war.
Your attitude is that everything is OK if all people are killed but you can believe while being in heaven, that you were right.
My attitude is that the morons who believe in their own mistaken propaganda are triggering the Third Wolrd War.
@metal-brain saidRussia demands such things no Ukrainian politician can sign: that Ukraine should accept Donetsk and Luhansk republics as independent states and Crimea as a part of Russia. If Zelensky would sign such a document, he would be murdered immediately.
Russia's terms for ending the war are reasonable. Zelenskyy said Ukraine will not join NATO anyway. Why won't Zelenskyy end the war?
Is it because he is a puppet dictator who is there to see his people die in war to drain Russia of money and weaken them? Why does Zelenskyy want war so badly?
@eintaluj saidThat whole page was simply a constructed excuse for your president’s rape and murder campaign in the territory of its smaller non threatening neighbour.
I have thoroughly analyzed the relationship between countries with nuclear weapons and without nuclear weapons here, above, as a reply to another post.
You seem to talk about who is right and who is wrong in your opinion. I repeat this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the mechanisms that led to the Russia/Ukraine war and that probably lead to World War ...[text shortened]... is that the morons who believe in their own mistaken propaganda are triggering the Third Wolrd War.
Not one iota about Russias global aggressions in Syria, Georgia or Chechnya. It seems, according to your logic that the problem is smaller states uniting in defence against a demonstrably aggressive more powerful neighbour and shielding themselves from the nuclear option that Russia has by getting under the vast nuclear umbrella of the US.
I’ll explain once more that Russia IS NOT a superpower, this is not a stand off between two ideological blocs. Russia has no right whatsoever to demand anything of anyone regarding their own defence arrangements. In Eastern and Central Europe this would be like the big bad wolf demanding that two of the little piggies wait outside the third little piggies brick house whilst he dismantles it on the orders of the wolf.
Once again you repeat the obvious lie that this war is about Ukraine joining nato even though everyone and their uncle knows that Ukraine will never get the 30 votes required for membership any more than Georgia will, another country invaded by Russia.
This war began in 2014 when Ukraine tried to sign the road map for EU membership taking it further away from Putin’s sphere of influence.
Putin has stationed nuclear weapons on NATOs eastern border for years, ergo NATO has every right / obligation to station them in those countries most at threat from a Russian tactical nuclear strike.
Putin has lied at every stage of this recent aggression, just as he lies about the west being any kind of military threat to a nation holding, arguably the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous proposition.
Of course you want NATO to step back and disarm itself but in reality NATO needs to massively rearm itself on the conventional front so it can deal with Russian aggression on its eastern flank.
Nuclear disarmament is a great idea but only if everyone including Russia disarms.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidGood post.
I think the point I was trying to discuss is getting missed as we bog down in the blame game.
Again, look at WW1: did Germany really start it?
Quick recap:
since the Franco-Prussian war Germany, France and Britain are stock-piling weapons. Especially since Germany is expanding its empire into traditionally British and French territories (Africa).
Then a duke gets ...[text shortened]... aced assissination to blow us all up at this moment in time?
Eyes wide open. And still stumbling.
I think right now there is one difference from WW1. Now, the US has enormous influence over Europe and the US is creating these conditions in which something bad tends to happen. In the case of Ukraine, it already succeeded in triggering a war. But it has not stopped. The US is going down. China is going up and the US is nervous to keep its dominance in the world. But it has 30 trillion dollars in debt. After the coronavirus pandemic, the US economy is ruined. The dollar may fall. So they simply decided that a war in Europe probably will not extend to the US/Russia nuclear war. They hope that this war will keep them up as Europe and Russia are going down. And the US and Russia both have 5000 nuclear warheads. So the US is happy if Russia wastes its energy and weapons in Ukraine and Europe. The Ukrainian war also gave the possibility for an unprecedendent economic blockade of Russia.
After all, Russia has hypersonic missiles now. The US hypersonic missiles do not work properly as yet. The US air defence is helpless against Russian hypersonic missiles. So, the US is very interested in Russia wasting its new missiles in Ukraine. They are counting every strike with the hypersonic missiles and are calculating, how many of them have remained and how many of them and how quickly Russia is able to produce.
So, I am inclined to think that the US is not doing this blindly. It is doing it knowingly.
The Soviet Union collapsed without a big bang. The US has decided to collapse with a big bang, but they want to make that bang in Europe.
@kevcvs57 saidKev: This war began in 2014 when Ukraine tried to sign the road map for EU membership taking it further away from Putin’s sphere of influence.
That whole page was simply a constructed excuse for your president’s rape and murder campaign in the territory of its smaller non threatening neighbour.
Not one iota about Russias global aggressions in Syria, Georgia or Chechnya. It seems, according to your logic that the problem is smaller states uniting in defence against a demonstrably aggressive more powerful neighbour ...[text shortened]... s eastern flank.
Nuclear disarmament is a great idea but only if everyone including Russia disarms.
Actually, the Ukraine tried not to sign such an agreement and their President was violently and illegally overthrown for having the temerity to not do what the West desired.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@shavixmir saidOnly rabid anti-German Anglophones still believe that WWI was Kaiser Wilhelm's personal fault.
I think the point I was trying to discuss is getting missed as we bog down in the blame game.
Again, look at WW1: did Germany really start it?
If anything, it was the fault of the other Kaiser, Franz Joseph, and... surprise... the Czar of Russia.
Of course, the real difference between then and now is that then, most of the countries in Europe were champing at the bit to have a go at one another. The United Kingdom hardly least of all - they were raring to have a go at The Hun and The Turk. Now, most European countries are trying very hard not to actively combat others, and the only actual aggressor is, no, not the USA or NATO, but the new Czar, Vladimir Putin.
@eintaluj saidSeems like the neo nazis are dictating what Zelenskyy does if his life is on the line. And the ADL says the neo nazis are Jew friendly.
Russia demands such things no Ukrainian politician can sign: that Ukraine should accept Donetsk and Luhansk republics as independent states and Crimea as a part of Russia. If Zelensky would sign such a document, he would be murdered immediately.
@shallow-blue saidYet everyone is pumping weapons into a vulcanic situation.
Only rabid anti-German Anglophones still believe that WWI was Kaiser Wilhelm's personal fault.
If anything, it was the fault of the other Kaiser, Franz Joseph, and... surprise... the Czar of Russia.
Of course, the real difference between then and now is that then, most of the countries in Europe were champing at the bit to have a go at one another. The United Kingd ...[text shortened]... others, and the only actual aggressor is, no, not the USA or NATO, but the new Czar, Vladimir Putin.
Nuance is out the window. You’re either with us or against us.
There’s an evil bad guy… and the rest smell of roses and holy water…
It is literally history repeating itself.
@shavixmir saidYou have just betrayed your Star Wars fandom.
Yet everyone is pumping weapons into a vulcanic situation.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidSo your solution is to abandon Ukraine to the tender mercies of Putin.
Yet everyone is pumping weapons into a vulcanic situation.
Nuance is out the window. You’re either with us or against us.
There’s an evil bad guy… and the rest smell of roses and holy water…
It is literally history repeating itself.
I do not understand how else the west can deal with the situation other than give Ukraine the means to hang on to as much of their sovereign territory as possible. The US poured arms into Afghanistan in order to thwart the soviets in their attempt to take the place over, someone must have been arming the Iraqi insurgency against the US and it’s allies same in Afghanistan. Why is arming a victim against its aggressor suddenly a moral or strategic issue.
Ukraine has every right to defend itself from invasion and other nations have every right to equip them in order that they can. To do anything else is to emphatically state the Russia has dominion over every nation that shares a border with it and in the modern age that would be the stumble into WWIII just like we stumbled into WWII via a catalogue of appeasement and vacillation. At the very least we need to make sure that this is Putins last land grab even if Ukraine does end up losing control of some of its sovereign territory in the east.