UKRAINE WAR - 1 YEAR AND GOING.

[Ralin]

1) Those were Soviet nukes which just happened to be in the Ukraine when the USSR broke up.

As opposed to the Soviet nukes that just happened to be in Russia with the USSR broke up?

[Gandalf]

Russia is considered the successor state to the Soviet Union. That's is why they still have the seat on the UN Security Council, among other things.

[Ralin]

Russia is considered the successor state to the Soviet Union. That's is why they still have the seat on the UN Security Council, among other things.

And?

[Batman]

Russia can only the successor state to the USSR in ALL aspects, they don't get to pick and choose the once that benefit them and not be bothered by the rest. Either ALL of that heritage is theirs or NONE of it is.

t

[Ralin]

Russia can only the successor state to the USSR in ALL aspects, they don't get to pick and choose the once that benefit them and not be bothered by the rest. Either ALL of that heritage is theirs or NONE of it is.

t

Not sure what you're getting at here.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Except, you know, Russia invaded after annexing Crimea, which was after Ukraine gave up nukes for security guarantees. Russia can only be trusted to stand act as a bully then cry foul when anyone stands up to their crap.

What a load of bullshit.
1) Those were Soviet nukes which just happened to be in the Ukraine when the USSR broke up.

2) You conveniently leave out the 2014 US supported coup in the Ukraine led by Victoria Nuland and friends which literally installed a bunch of fucking Nazis in their government. I've gone over this in a previous thread.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=167839&p=4068107&h ... d#p4068107

3) Crimea is historically part of Russia and damn near everyone there is either Russian or supports the Russians. Following the 2014 coup which installed a hostile government in the Ukraine, the people of the Crimea held a referendum where they overwhelmingly voted for independence from the Ukraine, after which they became part of Russia.

I mean, let's put this shit into terms that your average person with no comprehension of world affairs can understand. Imagine if Russia sponsored a coup in Mexico and installed a bunch of Nazis in power. They then start arming the shit out of Mexico and along with supporting Mexican militias & mercenaries near the border who are shelling US cities with artillery along with staging cross border raids which kill many thousands of Americans. And finally they start massing troops on the border along with stepping up their artillery attacks several fold.

How long do you think the US would tolerate this shit? Because that's exactly what the US and NATO have done to Russia since 2014.

The same referendum that took place at Russian gunpoint and was illegal under the Constitution of Ukraine and is not recognized by most countries? THAT referendum?

[aerius]

The same referendum that took place at Russian gunpoint and was illegal under the Constitution of Ukraine and is not recognized by most countries? THAT referendum?

You don't get to cry about the Constitution after staging a coup to put a bunch of Ukrainian Nazis in power.
That's pretty unconstitutional as well, but somehow it doesn't count since the "good guys" did it.

[Gandalf]

Russia is considered the successor state to the Soviet Union. That's is why they still have the seat on the UN Security Council, among other things.

And?

So "Soviet nukes in Russian territory" is pretty straightforward to them becoming Russian.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The same referendum that took place at Russian gunpoint and was illegal under the Constitution of Ukraine and is not recognized by most countries? THAT referendum?

You don't get to cry about the Constitution after staging a coup to put a bunch of Ukrainian Nazis in power.
That's pretty unconstitutional as well, but somehow it doesn't count since the "good guys" did it.

Pushing the whole Nazi bullshit doesn't work when Zelenskyy is a Jew. Putin didn't figure that one either.

But a referendum that was illegal on multiple levels is completely legit to you?

[Ralin]

Russia is considered the successor state to the Soviet Union. That's is why they still have the seat on the UN Security Council, among other things.

And?

So "Soviet nukes in Russian territory" is pretty straightforward to them becoming Russian.

We were talking about Soviet nukes in Ukrainian territory, dum dum.

[Gandalf]

We were talking about Soviet nukes in Ukrainian territory, dum dum.

My post followed this one:

1) Those were Soviet nukes which just happened to be in the Ukraine when the USSR broke up.

As opposed to the Soviet nukes that just happened to be in Russia with the USSR broke up?

[Batman]

Either 'soviet' is the determining factor or it is not. If it isn't Russia shouldn't have any claim on anything that was soviet, no matter where it was parked.

[Ralin]

We were talking about Soviet nukes in Ukrainian territory, dum dum.

My post followed this one:

1) Those were Soviet nukes which just happened to be in the Ukraine when the USSR broke up.

As opposed to the Soviet nukes that just happened to be in Russia with the USSR broke up?

Yes. With the context being that there's no reason why Russia would have more claim to former Soviet nukes in other former Soviet countries' territory than the people who held them. As you know full well and are pretending not to as part of your troll routine.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

When the USSR was dissolved, President Mikhail Gorbachev resigned and turned over his presidential powers—including control of the nuclear launch codes—to Boris Yeltsin, who was now the first president of the Russian Federation.

[Dominus Atheos]

When the USSR was dissolved, President Mikhail Gorbachev resigned and turned over his presidential powers—including control of the nuclear launch codes—to Boris Yeltsin, who was now the first president of the Russian Federation.

On December 25 1991, almost 2 years after Ukraine declared independence on 22 January 1989 and took all soviet property on their land with them, including the nuclear weapons. They weren't Gorbachev's to turn over.

[Dominus Atheos]

Except, you know, Russia invaded after annexing Crimea, which was after Ukraine gave up nukes for security guarantees. Russia can only be trusted to stand act as a bully then cry foul when anyone stands up to their crap.

I don't know what's more baffling about this post, the idea that it is an "Except" to anything, the way it totally erases 30 years of post-Cold War history from 1991 to 2014, or the nonsensical claim that "Ukraine gave up nukes for security guarantees" - nukes it never owned and could not maintain let alone operate, in exchange for security guarantees it actually never received.

The Budapest Memorandum

Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America,

Welcoming the Accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon state,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces,

Confirm the following:


The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

On the bottom of the PDF you can see Boris Yeltsin's signature.

[Ralin]

More to the point, whether there was an explicit promise of security guarantees or not, seems pretty clear that turning their nukes over to the new Russian government was sending the message that Ukraine didn't have any hostile intentions towards them. Much more solid than the possibility that unless brought to heel Ukraine MIGHT at some point in the future join NATO who MIGHT set up military infrastructure there which MIGHT be used to invade Russia in the future.

I mean, unless you work from the assumption that Ukraine is some bullshit rebel territory that needs to be reabsorbed whenever is sufficiently convenient like China's Taiwan province instead of a sovereign country in its own right.

[Dominus Atheos]

Except, you know, Russia invaded after annexing Crimea, which was after Ukraine gave up nukes for security guarantees. Russia can only be trusted to stand act as a bully then cry foul when anyone stands up to their crap.

What a load of bullshit.
1) Those were Soviet nukes which just happened to be in the Ukraine when the USSR broke up.

2) You conveniently leave out the 2014 US supported coup in the Ukraine led by Victoria Nuland and friends which literally installed a bunch of fucking Nazis in their government. I've gone over this in a previous thread.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=167839&p=4068107&h ... d#p4068107

3) Crimea is historically part of Russia and damn near everyone there is either Russian or supports the Russians. Following the 2014 coup which installed a hostile government in the Ukraine, the people of the Crimea held a referendum where they overwhelmingly voted for independence from the Ukraine, after which they became part of Russia.

I mean, let's put this shit into terms that your average person with no comprehension of world affairs can understand. Imagine if Russia sponsored a coup in Mexico and installed a bunch of Nazis in power. They then start arming the shit out of Mexico and along with supporting Mexican militias & mercenaries near the border who are shelling US cities with artillery along with staging cross border raids which kill many thousands of Americans. And finally they start massing troops on the border along with stepping up their artillery attacks several fold.

How long do you think the US would tolerate this shit? Because that's exactly what the US and NATO have done to Russia since 2014.

There was no "coup" in Ukraine. On February 22nd 2014 the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove their president by a vote of 328 out of 450 members. Link. Presidential elections were then held on the 25th of May 2014 and Petro Poroshenko was elected with 54.70% of the vote while no other candidate received more then 12.81%. Link.

Where was the coup?

[Gandalf]

When the USSR was dissolved, President Mikhail Gorbachev resigned and turned over his presidential powers—including control of the nuclear launch codes—to Boris Yeltsin, who was now the first president of the Russian Federation.

And somewhat weirdly, the ones in Ukraine were also controlled from the Kremlin in 1991. It's hard to claim that they were Ukraine's in that context.

[wautd]

EU ready to strip Orban of voting rights over blocking €50 billion for Ukraine - Politico

Good. It's not very democratic when the leader of a member state of 10 million people constantly uses his veto against the vast majority of countries. Veto powers can only work when there are few member states, but when you're getting close to 30 it's just stupid and majority rules would make a lot more sense

[wautd]

So Vympel, what exactly would you propose Ukraine and its allies in Europe and North America do about this whole being invaded and partially conquered by Russia situation?

2. Insistence that the Russians can't be trusted and will attack again to 'finish the job' at a time of their choosing, which even if true (and there's no compelling reason to think so)

Maybe you should listen to Russian state media and officials more, because they regularly claim their goal is to destroy/dissolve Ukraine. Any peace deal with Putin's regime would be a cease fire at best

[wautd]

So Vympel, what exactly would you propose Ukraine and its allies in Europe and North America do about this whole being invaded and partially conquered by Russia situation?

2. Insistence that the Russians can't be trusted and will attack again to 'finish the job' at a time of their choosing, which even if true (and there's no compelling reason to think so)

Maybe you should listen to Russian state media and officials more, because they regularly claim their goal is to destroy/dissolve Ukraine. Any peace deal with Putin's regime would be a cease fire at best

As a recent example

“The existence of Ukraine is mortally dangerous for Ukrainians,” wrote Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy head of Russia’s powerful Security Council, on the Telegram messaging app.

“The presence of an independent state on historical Russian territories will now be a constant reason for the resumption of hostilities,” he said, elucidating an irredentist policy towards all of Ukraine.

“There is a 100 percent probability of a new conflict,” Medvedev said, even if Ukraine entered the EU and NATO. “This could happen in ten or fifty years.”

How can you make peace or a compromise with that? And it's not just Ukraine that Russia has its targets on. For many years Putin has been insinuating to restore the old borders of the old Russian empire (which includes Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,...). Heck, the other day, Moscow showed a billboard with Putin's quote that Russia has no borders. Future Russian imperialism and aggression is an inevitability with the current regime

[Ralin]

2. Insistence that the Russians can't be trusted and will attack again to 'finish the job' at a time of their choosing, which even if true (and there's no compelling reason to think so)

Maybe you should listen to Russian state media and officials more, because they regularly claim their goal is to destroy/dissolve Ukraine. Any peace deal with Putin's regime would be a cease fire at best

As a recent example

“The existence of Ukraine is mortally dangerous for Ukrainians,” wrote Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy head of Russia’s powerful Security Council, on the Telegram messaging app.

“The presence of an independent state on historical Russian territories will now be a constant reason for the resumption of hostilities,” he said, elucidating an irredentist policy towards all of Ukraine.

“There is a 100 percent probability of a new conflict,” Medvedev said, even if Ukraine entered the EU and NATO. “This could happen in ten or fifty years.”

How can you make peace or a compromise with that? And it's not just Ukraine that Russia has its targets on. For many years Putin has been insinuating to restore the old borders of the old Russian empire (which includes Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,...). Heck, the other day, Moscow showed a billboard with Putin's quote that Russia has no borders. Future Russian imperialism and aggression is an inevitability with the current regime

And before Vympel repeats the "lol there is no Ministry of Truth" thing, Russia has strong media controls and censorship policies. Bans on things like disrespecting the nation or the armed forces or spreading globohomo propaganda are written into law and backed by court rulings. If something like that is being said and published in national media and repeated by the vice president or whatever Medvedev is at the moment then that means the national government is making a decision to allow and therefore tacitly support it.

Again, I live in China. If I started seeing a bunch of articles in local media about the Cantonese menace and how Cantonese culture has to be wiped out and how Cantonese are just Mandarin speakers with a retarded accent then I'd be pretty damned sure Xi Jinping et al did not take issue with this and and probably agree because no one would be dumb enough to go on TV and say that crap without official approval.

[Vympel]

Could you give proof that is the reason why they started the war in the first place? Because to all appearances they're doing it because Putin considers Ukraine a bullshit breakaway province

That's not 'to all appearances', its just bottom of the barrel war propaganda. Look at the Russian demands made of the US and NATO before the war. Look at NATO officials admissions that's what the war is about. This stuff is not hard to find, you would have to deliberately ignore the entire leadup to the war to think this is at all controversial. I mean, let's quote Stoltenberg last year:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite. He has got more NATO presence in eastern part of the Alliance and he has also seen that Finland has already joined the Alliance and Sweden will soon be a full member.

and that sounds like a great reason why they should build NATO military infrastructure there.

Why is it a great reason? Why does NATO owe Ukraine anything, exactly? (This is not a rhetorical question)

By massively increasing international military aid to Ukraine, including sending troops from the US and other NATO countries to directly take part in the fighting.

Well that's just delusional and absolutely never, ever going to happen, so what else do you have?

Well trying to curb NATO didn't exactly work out for Russia, did it? Along with neighbouring Sweden, Finland applied to join NATO on 18 May 2022. Following ratification, Finland became a member of NATO on 4 April 2023. Finland has a 1,340-kilometre (830 mi) border with Russia, which upon accession more than doubled NATO's pre-existing border with Russia.

Russians don't care about Sweden and Finland. They were already de facto western allies for years before this, and they're both tiny countries with a tiny population and is physically disconnected from the rest of the Alliance, and its nowhere near Russia's political center of gravity (Moscow). Learn the geo in geopolitics.

The same referendum that took place at Russian gunpoint and was illegal under the Constitution of Ukraine and is not recognized by most countries? THAT referendum?

Oh please. The results of the referendum have been ratified as reflecting popular will by numerous western pollsters in the aftermath. No serious person denies that Crimea's annexation was popular with the majority of its population - its historically Russian territory full of Russians who have no particular connection to or love for Ukraine whatsoever. The only reason Crimea was part of Ukraine at all is an accident of history (i.e. Khruschev meaninglessly transferring it to Ukrainian SSR administration in 1954, which didn't matter because SSRs were all part of the USSR). It has nothing to do with Ukraine - geopolitically - apart from that.

Maybe you should listen to Russian state media and officials more, because they regularly claim their goal is to destroy/dissolve Ukraine. Any peace deal with Putin's regime would be a cease fire at best

Leaving aside that appealing to comments made 2 years into a war have very little to do with what caused the war and what Russian demands were at the outset, sounds like it'd be a good idea to try and negotiate an acceptable peace to see if you're right!

But its not about that, its just manufacturing reasons why the war should go on and keep huffing hopium that we're living in a movie, and that Rohan is going to come over the hill, isn't it?

There was no "coup" in Ukraine. On February 22nd 2014 the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove their president by a vote of 328 out of 450 members. Link. Presidential elections were then held on the 25th of May 2014 and Petro Poroshenko was elected with 54.70% of the vote while no other candidate received more then 12.81%. Link.

Where was the coup?

This is totally mendacious Western propaganda bullshit. The Ukrainian parliament had no authority to remove Yanukovych. Everything that flows from that event is totally illegitimate. You can see the obvious illegitimacy even in Wikipedia's summary of what happened.

(Hilariously, its obvious even in the opening paragraphs of the BBC article about that vote, if you can see the obvious subtext)

The reality is that Yanukvoych fled the capital in the aftermath of the opposition (and specifically the sizeable far-right elements who gave the Maidan its street muscle) reneging on a deal for early elections which everyone signed*, and then the coup forces (Yanukovych's supporters having also largely fled) put a figleaf of legitimacy on their seizure of power by unilaterally declaring he was 'unable to fulfil his duties' pursuant to a provision of a constitution that wasn't even force at the time - something Yanukovych of course, disputed. You don't magically stop being President because you're not in the capital.

If this shit had happened in a western country, it'd be called a January 6th. The western propaganda about this event is just Exhibit A in the way westerners hail shit in foreign countries that they would never tolerate in their own country for a nanosecond, so long as it advances their interests.

A proper article on what actually happened on the Maidan:

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-prot ... ato-crimea

*Impossible not to overemphasize this point. There were going to be new elections and a unity government. Yanukovych was on the way out anyway. None of this needed to happen.

Pushing the whole Nazi bullshit doesn't work when Zelenskyy is a Jew.

Its also well known that ever since the US elected Obama, the US ceased being racist, lmao.

Ever since the Maidan, where the far right was instrumental in its success, Ukraine's governmental structures and security forces have been totally lousy with far right figures and neo-Nazis in key positions, who have promoted Holocaust revisionism and denial (given how gleefully their heroes participated in it) and the open glorification of notorious Ukrainian Nazi collaborators from WW2. None of this is at all controversial to anyone willing to do literally two seconds of research. While its an overstatement to say Ukraine has a 'Nazi' government, their government, security forces and civil society is infected with them.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well trying to curb NATO didn't exactly work out for Russia, did it? Along with neighbouring Sweden, Finland applied to join NATO on 18 May 2022. Following ratification, Finland became a member of NATO on 4 April 2023. Finland has a 1,340-kilometre (830 mi) border with Russia, which upon accession more than doubled NATO's pre-existing border with Russia.

Russians don't care about Sweden and Finland. They were already de facto western allies for years before this, and they're both tiny countries with a tiny population and is physically disconnected from the rest of the Alliance, and its nowhere near Russia's political center of gravity (Moscow). Learn the geo in geopolitics.

What part of "more than doubled NATO's pre-existing border with Russia" is confusing to you?

The same referendum that took place at Russian gunpoint and was illegal under the Constitution of Ukraine and is not recognized by most countries? THAT referendum?

Oh please. The results of the referendum have been ratified as reflecting popular will by numerous western pollsters in the aftermath. No serious person denies that Crimea's annexation was popular with the majority of its population - its historically Russian territory full of Russians who have no particular connection to or love for Ukraine whatsoever. The only reason Crimea was part of Ukraine at all is an accident of history (i.e. Khruschev meaninglessly transferring it to Ukrainian SSR administration in 1954, which didn't matter because SSRs were all part of the USSR). It has nothing to do with Ukraine - geopolitically - apart from that.

Countries in green actually recognise the legitimacy of said referendum. You may notice a certain lack of them.