re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

They were rationally backed. Concern about both NATO and its proximity to historical invasion routes was expressed on a litany of occasions.

---

And how likely is a land invasion of European Russia from the Eastern European Plain?

quote:

---

Interesting "agreement," especially in light of conversations involving German reunification under NATO.

---

What? Are you suggesting there wasn't an act signed by both parties?

quote:

---

Starting with NATO's exclusion of and expansion against Russia under Yeltsin. Yeltsin was elected. He was a potential ally. It was a window of opportunity. Instead of embracing him, NATO expanded against Russia which politically undercut Yeltsin.

---

Firstly, the founding act I mentioned earlier was to be the foundation upon which Russia and NATO developed a security framework, much like the agreements that NATO signed with other countries. That said, what drove interest in NATO expansion was former Warsaw Pact countries, who became more worried about Russia after their behavior in Chechnya, and indeed turned out to be presicent. Secondly, we should cast some doubt on the degree to which Russia could have been integrated into NATO in the 90s, given that Russia protested mightily to NATO intervention in the Balkans. But the seeds of Russian distrust of predate heavy American involvement in Europe at all, as Dugin makes clear repeatedly in his works. Dugin makes the implicit argument that the battle Russia faces is a cosmic one, to borrow some of the apocalyptic language of the Islamists. His view, and one that the Russian spy agencies have put into practice, is that any alliance which moves the center of the world away from West Asia has to be confronted by Russia and its satellites. I would like to give Russian security concerns the benefit of the doubt, but their actions post-2000 suggest a deeply cynical worldview. That they were not sidelined much earlier was due to Merkel's policy of 'change through trade,' as German policy became a proxy for the policy of all of continental Europe.

quote:

---

FALSE, and dumb.

---

What? I'm quoting Putin himself from 2007, when he stated that he regarded it as a threat when the US withdrew from the ABMT in 2002.

quote:

---

Putin reiterated a desire for Russia to join NATO. It was a request first made by Gorbachev, then Yeltsin, and finally Putin in 2001.

---

This is disputed.

quote:

---

Which had ziltch to do with the collapsed April talks.

---

No. Zelensky said that an agreement was conditional on security guarantees from other powers. There is no situation in the world where a country would provide security guarantees to another without being privy to the actual negotiations. That just does not happen in international politics. It's insane that Zelensky said the agreement was conditional on those specific demands, and you continue to ignore his statement.

Please give me a list of people siding with Iran, I have old friends that need it. (Lol)

if you do that, they can and may kill you at any time because you will be labeled an domestic terrorist my friend, have fun with that shite. It will not be washed off with time and Trump can’t help you, hell Jesus Christ can’t help you, you have committed suicide

We need a RU political discussion and separate war discussion.

Here is an excellent discussion of Ukrainian offensive

Bakhmut seems to be the AO of interest for the Russians currently.

Warographics (Simon Whistler) just released a video about tac nukes:

YT

British Defence Intelligence
UPDATE ON UKRAINE 18 October 2022
INTELLIGENCE UPDATE

Since 10 October, Russia has maintained a heightened tempo of long-range strikes against targets across Ukraine. These have been conducted by cruise missiles, air defence missiles in a surface-to-surface role, and Iranian-provided Shahed-136 one way attack uncrewed aerial vehicles.

It is highly likely that a key objective of this strike campaign is to cause wide-spread damage to Ukraine's energy distribution network.

As Russia has suffered battlefield setbacks since August, it has highly likely gained a greater willingness to strike civilian infrastructure in addition to Ukrainian military targets.

quote:

---

You're kind of hopping around there, doubleb. The quote you're responding to refers to Apr2022 when Ukraine-Russia negotiations were progressing.

---

My point is that negotiations are Russian window dressing. THEY DO NOT LIVE UP TO THE TERMS OF THEIR AGREEMENTS.

quote:

---

Let's keep it to separatists. There is no evidence Russia
was directly involved. Regardless, Russia was not the country under threat of potential invasion. Ukraine should have ensured they adhered to Minsk. Ukraine should have sought direct convos with the Kremlin. Is that fair? Nope. But it is what it is.

---

You can’t separate the separatists from Russia. Russia was part of the separatist war. And they supplied regular troops as well as arms and munitions. They never backed down. It was a Bietnam rerun with the Russians using the Minsk agreements as a smokescreen
.

quote:

---

You refer to war as a violation the UN Charter. Given UN impotence, my focus is on avoidance. War is the failure of diplomacy. In that, ALL parties failed so miserably that it appears some were looking for war.

---

This is a load of crap too. Russia wanted one thing. Ukraine, and Putin was going to war if he wasn’t going to get his way.

The situation mimics Hitler and Chamberlain. Could diplomacy have ever stopped Hitler? No.

quote:

---

This is a load of crap too. Russia wanted one thing. Ukraine, and Putin was going to war if he wasn’t going to get his way.

---

So you say, "Russia wanted one thing, Ukraine."
Why?

Why Ukraine?

If this is, as you and others here claim, a simple Russian land grab, why not grab land to the more lucrative south?

The answer is obvious.
Yet, you term it a "load of crap"?

Putin is many things. He is ruthless, duplicitous, calculating, almost certainly a murderer. He's also a pragmatist though. He is not "crazy." He doesn't do things willy-nilly. Actions he takes are purposeful. They're designed to maximize benefit for effort/cost.

Putin and the Russian body politick knew the international cost of Ukrainian invasion would be huge. e.g., Much more so than a similar move into the more lucrative, less populated territory of Kazakhstan. What made that cost/risk/effort of Ukraine War worthwhile IAW Russian perception?

@UAWeapons Twitter

quote:

---

#Ukraine: A Russian T-80BV tank was hit by Ukrainian fire, losing a track and with the crew killed/wounded- but the engine was still running, leading to a never ending collection of circles.

---