|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted September 16, 2024 01:12 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:15, 16 Sep 2024.
|
Well, to be fair, he doesnt claim Russia never wanted ANYTHING. Whether, they had the right to or not, Russia wanted a more neutral Ukraine and was very straightforward about that for years. Even American analysts and academics point out the same thing years before the Russian attack: If we keep intervening in Ukraine politics the way we do and make them think they are an ally, Russia will attack and Ukraine will be facing it mostly alone. Let it stay neutral.
Had that approach been taken, it might have ended in a more European friendly, more democratic Russia, maybe even a EU member Russia in the long run. But the U.S.A. foreign policy, “reelpolitics” if you’d call it that, does not want that. It’s against their national interests, they prefer the Cold War alliances and balance to continue. It is their status quo.
U.S.A. type of intervention is not direct invasion or conquest in most cases. It is to finance puppet regimes, enable coups etc. (I’m not saying they are the ones orchestrating everything from scratch, but military dictators, corrupt regimes etc. get a “go ahead” from U.S.A., if they pledge their obedience.) So, a less aggressive and less “indirectly expansionist” Eastern Europe policy on their behalf could have changed how Russia felt threatened. Once they do feel threatened, it is too late to say “they dont have the right to do this and that because of it.”
Edit: This was meant for JJ, I see Sal got a post in between while I was writing.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 08:39 AM |
|
|
History of Ukraine speaks for itself, though. Ukraine has had a crappy economy since their independence, although being a "rich" part of the late USSR, an economy in decline. In 2005 Yushchenko was elected, and with him a pro-EU man. However, in 2010 in was Yanukovich, and it would seem that from 2010 onwards general corruption was ever increasing. He gave in to Russian pressure and did NOT sign the EU Ukraine Association Agreement, leading to widespread protest and his removal via the parliament- which led to Russia mlore or less declaring war by annexing Crimea.
Economically spoken, for Ukraine stronger ties to the EU made absolute sense. Russia had been a dead end, economically.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 12:19 PM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 17:35, 16 Sep 2024.
|
Edit: Need to resize images.
Edit 2 : Turned all images into links, resizing was too much of a hassle.
Alright, I've been wanting to make this post for a long time, as I promised Doomforge earlier in this thread. It has taken a considerable amount of time to compile and translate all of this information. Please read the disclaimer carefully: I am strongly opposed to this war, despite the escalation that has occurred over the decades.
DISCLAIMER
This document compiles journalistic sources and studies on NATO's expansion, providing insights that might clarify, but not justify, the origins of the current crisis in Ukraine. I want to emphasize that this analysis is purely informative and in no way justifies the ongoing war, which is both atrocious and unjustifiable.
I. 1990-1993
The current crisis thus has its roots in 1990, in the promises made to the USSR not to expand NATO to the East.
Here are the promises as they appear in Western archives. For the lazy Actual sources from National Security Archives
In the early 1990s, the West continued to provide more limited assurances to Boris Yeltsin, indicating that Russia could one day join NATO. Source.
However, as early as September 1993, the major Western leaders who had emerged from the Cold War had less influence in the political arena or had left it, and their successors (such as the new Clinton administration) began to establish plans for expanding NATO. For instance, there was a secret plan submitted to the Secretary of State, envisioning a gradual extension over a decade, culminating in the simultaneous accession of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Source.
NatoExpansion
At the same time, Yeltsin wrote to Clinton that "the spirit of the 1990 agreements forbids the option of expanding NATO to the East." Source
NatoExpansion2
And he publicly stated his opposition to NATO expansion that would exclude Russia, a proposal he deemed "unacceptable" as it would "undermine security in Europe." Source
NatoExpansion3
To fully grasp the significance of the perceived threat by Russia, Russian intelligence services even publicly mention possible "radical" military countermeasures. Source.
NatoExpansion4
On October 22, the U.S. Secretary of State traveled to Russia to meet with Yeltsin. He informed him that his letter to Clinton (which stated that the spirit of 1990 excluded any enlargement) arrived at just the right moment and "played a decisive role with President Clinton." He announced the creation of a "partnership for peace" and clearly confirmed (as indicated in the U.S. report) that he would place all countries on an "equal footing" (including Russia) and that there would be "no membership" (in NATO for Eastern European countries). Source.
NatoExpansion5
Eltsine was enthusiastic about this and referred to it as a "genius idea" that "dispels all Russian tensions" because "it would have been a problem for Russia if it had only obtained second-class status." He described it as a "brilliant idea, truly brilliant," this partnership for all, rather than membership for some.
II. 1994: The Budapest Clash
On September 27, 1994, President Clinton received Eltsine at the White House and told him, "NATO expansion is not anti-Russian; it is not meant to exclude Russia, and there is no imminent schedule... The broader and higher goal is European security, unity, and integration - a goal that I know you share." Source
But the Russians learned in the fall of 1994 that the new Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Richard Holbrooke, was speeding up discussions about NATO expansion, even initiating an NATO study in November on the "how and why" regarding new members. Eltsine complained to Clinton on November 29th. Source
NatoExpansion6
He expressed his disappointment bluntly on December 5, 1994, during the CSCE summit in Budapest. In front of a puzzled Clinton, he strongly criticized NATO's attitude, accusing it of wanting to once again divide the continent.Source
Document 1
Document 2
Document 3
Document 4
Document 5
Document 6
Document 7
Document 8
Document 9
Document 10
Document 11
Document 12
Document 13
Document 14
Document 15
Document 16
Document 17
Document 18
"Our stance on NATO enlargement plans, particularly the possibility of infrastructure advancing to the East, remains and will invariably remain negative. Arguments of the kind that enlargement is not directed against any state and is a step towards the creation of a unified Europe do not withstand criticism. This is a decision whose consequences will determine the configuration of Europe for years to come. It can lead to a slide toward deteriorating trust between Russia and Western countries.
Russia also expects its security to be taken into account. For the first time, we are laying the foundations for a common area of trust in the military domain, covering a significant part of three continents and the world's oceans. We are concerned about the changes happening in NATO. What will this mean for Russia? NATO was created during the time of the Cold War. Today, not without difficulty, it is seeking its place in the new Europe. It is important that this approach does not create two demarcation zones but, on the contrary, consolidates European unity. This goal, for us, is contradictory to NATO expansion plans. Why sow the seeds of mistrust? After all, we are no longer enemies; we are all partners now. We hear explanations that this is allegedly about expanding stability, just in case there are undesirable developments in Russia. If, on these grounds, the goal is to extend NATO to Russia's borders, let me tell you one thing: it is too early to bury democracy in Russia. We will not repeat the mistakes of the past. No major country will live by the rules of isolation.
Europe, which has not yet freed itself from the legacy of the Cold War, is at risk of plunging into a cold peace. How to avoid this is the question we must ask ourselves. History shows that it is a dangerous illusion to suppose that the destinies of continents and the global community in general can be managed from a single capital in one way or another. Military coalition blocks will also not provide genuine security guarantees. The creation of a full-fledged pan-European organization with a reliable legal basis has become a vital necessity in Europe.
The year 1995 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War. Half a century later, we are increasingly aware of the true meaning of the Great Victory and the need for historical reconciliation in Europe. There must no longer be adversaries, winners, and losers. For the first time in its history, our continent has a real chance to find unity. To miss it is to forget the lessons of the past and to question the future itself."
Youtube
NTfrontPage
94Sommet s
Clinton then responded with a refrain that would become a classic:
"NATO will not automatically exclude any nation from membership. [...] At the same time, no country outside will be allowed to veto expansion."
Youtube
Vice President Al Gore was then dispatched urgently to Moscow to reassure the Russians, starting with the Parliament's President Ivan Rybkin, whom he met on December 14, 1994. He conveyed that there would be "no rapid expansion" of NATO but that it would be "gradual, well thought out, entirely open and transparent, with no surprises," featuring "frank and in-depth discussions with Russia at every stage of this process." Source
NatoExpansion7
He repeated this to Eltsine two days later. Source
NatoExpansion8
On May 10, 1995, during the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, Eltsine summed up his dilemma perfectly: "I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you continue [...] Why do you want to do this? We need a new structure for pan-European security, not the old ones! [...] But if I agreed to NATO's borders extending to Russia's borders, it would be a betrayal of the Russian people on my part." In response, Clinton emphasized a "progressive, regular, and measured" expansion of NATO and stated that he "would not support any changes that undermine Russia's security or redraw the map of Europe." Source
NatoExpansion9
The following events would quickly contradict these new promises.
III. 1995-1996: War and Alarms over NATO Expansion
In September 1995, during the Yugoslav Wars, the "purely defensive alliance of NATO" launched Operation Deliberate Force, aimed at bombing the Bosnian Serb Republic, which was close to the Russians, even though it had not aggressed any of its member states.
During the 3,515 aerial sorties, 338 sites were bombed, receiving a total of 1,026 bombs. It was during these operations that 2 French pilots, whose plane was shot down, were captured and later released.
During this time, President Clinton had been facing pressure for several months from both Republican and Democratic hawks to rapidly expand NATO. Source
NatoExpansion10
President Eltsine continued to warn about the future risk of war in Europe, particularly the reconstitution of two blocs, and he criticized the Europeans for their compliance with a fundamental issue regarding their security. Source
NatoExpansion11
On October 7, 1996, Alexander Lebed, the head of Russian security, made a statement at NATO headquarters. Source.
"I suggested today that the question of NATO enlargement or not should be left to the next generation that won't have the confrontation in their veins. I hope the next generation won't have so many complexes and will have a fresh approach to things. Unfortunately, we are all products of the Cold War."
This perspective on the subject is a central element of Russian state thinking. It was that of President Gorbachev, it was that of President Yeltsin, it has been that of Presidents Putin and Medvedev, and most likely, it will be that of their successors.
III. 1996-1999: The Beginning of Eastern Expansion
Eltsine was reelected in July 1996, but he came very close to not being reelected, and it wasn't due to the voters. It was revealed in September that he had suffered a severe heart attack just before the second round of voting, without disclosing it to the voters. It would later be revealed in 2004 that he had experienced five heart attacks during his presidency. s ; s
He underwent a quintuple heart bypass surgery in November 1996, which saved his life for the next 10 years. He ultimately died from a heart attack on April 23, 2007, at the age of 76.
It was during this period of Eltsine's significant weakness in the fall of 1996 that Bill Clinton made the decision to expand NATO. This decision was made under pressure from Richard Holbrooke and with the support of Vice President Al Gore, despite the opposition of Secretary of Defense Perry. Perry later described in his memoirs how this crucial decision was taken rather lightly.
Perry1
Perry2
Perry3
Furthermore, in the months that followed, Russia faced severe financial problems. The interest rates on public loans exceeded 100% s, and the country had to restructure its debt. Bankruptcy was not far off (it occurred in August 1998), but in the meantime, the Russian state was "on the brink of financial collapse" s and survived primarily thanks to international support, including that of the Americans.
NatoExpansion12
On May 27, 1997, during the NATO summit in Paris, the "Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation, and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation" was signed, paving the way for NATO expansion. Source
Youtube
At the Madrid Summit in July 1997, NATO leaders fought for... to expand it as quickly and as far as possible, paying no attention to the (still) firm Russian protests. s ; s
At this summit, NATO invited Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland to join the military alliance, which was accomplished on March 12, 1999. s
IV. 1999: The turning point of the Kosovo war, based on lies
These new members arrived just in time for the NATO's "Operation Allied Force" launched on March 24, 1999. It was the first large-scale operation in NATO's history, aimed at bombing Serbia, a historical ally of Russia, which had not attacked any NATO member states. During the 38,000 aerial sorties, 7,600 sites were bombed, receiving 25,000 bombs over 78 days. In total, approximately 500 civilians and 1,000 military personnel were killed in these interventions in the former Yugoslavia. NATO, established on April 4, 1949, could not have imagined a more significant way to celebrate its 50th anniversary. s ; s
4-1/ War Propaganda
The press unquestioningly picks up the alleged "signs of genocide." s
NYTkosovo
To further justify this operation, NATO, through the German Defense Minister, engaged in a campaign of war propaganda with false information to manipulate public opinion in the West. They presented details of a supposed "secret Serbian plan (Operation Horseshoe) established months earlier, aiming to forcibly expel native Albanians from Kosovo." s
Two days later, Le Monde published an extensive report on this "Serbian Plan 'Potkova'". s
But, keep in mind, all of this was not "warlike" but simply "punchy and catchy."
Unfortunately, this plan was a disinformation operation originating from Bulgaria, "which was eager to join NATO at the time." s
s
To fully grasp the high degree of media fact-checking on these astounding pieces of information, as well as the high degree of crudeness in these fabrications, one must know that even the name of the plan, "Potkova," is not the Serbian translation of "horseshoe," which is "Potkovica."
On September 7, 2001, the UN officially confirmed that there had never been a genocide in Kosovo, nor had there been tens of thousands of deaths. s ; s
NYTkosovo2
4-2/ The Impact on Franco-Russian Relations
George Kennan, an eminent Sovietologist and arguably the greatest American diplomat of the 20th century s, had written in 1989 s :
"Today, with the end of the Cold War, people think that Yugoslavia is no longer in a position to cause any harm. I think they are wrong... I think the events in Yugoslavia will take a violent turn and place Western countries, especially the United States, in one of their biggest foreign policy problems in the years to come."
At the very moment of NATO enlargement, the Kosovo War ended the friendship between Clinton and Yeltsin, as well as between the United States and Russia. The beginnings of this change in the relationship between the two leaders can be seen clearly in this 1998 exchange. The Russian position is clear: they refuse NATO's bombing of their historical ally, believing that military intervention should be a last resort and require UN approval. "Any use of force by NATO is unacceptable." Clinton, however, does not commit to this point. Source
NatoExpansion13
Russia continued to express its strong opposition in early 1999 s.
NatoExpansion14
On March 24, 1999, Clinton called Yeltsin to inform him that, due to the Serbian government's lack of cooperation, NATO countries had decided to bomb Serbia without the approval of the United Nations, as they felt they had no other option. This day marked the rupture of Russia's trust in the West. s ; s
NatoExpansion15
NatoExpansion16
In this section, we should note the Russian plea: "It is easy to drop bombs. However, the long-term political research for a constructive solution to the situation is another matter. But it is the only correct approach, the only correct path. If we join our forces together, we could overthrow Milosevic."
NatoExpansion17
Clinton's reiteration of his false "We have no choice" statement ends the conversation, with Yeltsin making it clear that this choice signifies the loss of the Russian people's trust, "there will no longer be such dynamism or friendship [between us] as before. It's over." And he firmly conveyed this, ushering the West into a climate of fresh pre-war tension. s
NatoExpansion18
The New Yorker succinctly summarizes the dramatic consequences of this conflict. It changed the United States, which now allows itself to launch military offensives without the approval of the United Nations, altering the nature and method by which it resorts to the use of force. And it changed Russia, increasing fears in the West, bolstering nationalism, and likely solidifying the path for Vladimir Putin's succession.
NatoExpansion19
Having started this section with Kennan, we will conclude with him as well. Regarding Kosovo, he summed up his analysis of the Russian need for prestige and reassurance with a well-phrased statement: "There will be many disagreements. Compromises will be necessary on many points. Such is the essence of international life." s
NatoExpansion20
Nevertheless, after the establishment of a unipolar world in 1991, in an atmosphere of "end of history," it became more challenging for the United States to make compromises. Robert Skidelsky summarized Kennan's thinking very well in 2014, which helps to understand current difficulties. s
"However, before plunging into a second Cold War, we would do well to remember the reasons why we descended into the first one. The collapse of communism eliminated one of the original causes of that first Cold War, namely a gargantuan expansionist push by the Soviet Union, countered by a firm resolve from Western democracies to oppose it. Nevertheless, a number of sources of the old Cold War remain today.
American diplomat George F. Kennan identified them as follows: neurotic insecurity and dissimulation on the Russian side, as opposed to legalism and moralism in the Western camp; the middle ground of a reasonable discussion, focusing on interests, perspectives, and risks in play, remains elusive to this day."
It is indeed challenging for a moralist to compromise, as they might not accept an agreement that results in 1,000 deaths in Kosovo instead of 3,000, if that is their criterion for decision.
The power of this moralistic mindset, based on values rather than traditional interests, becomes evident when we observe the decision to violate the UN Charter to bomb one of Russia's historical allies without Russia's consent, an ally they were willing to abandon without military force. It's this military force that reignites Russia's neurotic insecurity because if the United States bombs Serbia today without reason, who's to say that another American president won't want to bomb Russia tomorrow?
In conclusion, it's important to remember that this monumental deterioration of our relations with Russia was done in exchange for the creation of a Kosovo state recognized by only half of the world, regularly accused of being a mafia state, and whose President is the only one in the world accused of involvement in organ trafficking. s ; s
KosovoTrafic
KosovoTrafic2
The famous report from the Council of Europe is available in French here (click on the explanatory memorandum/Exposé des motifs at the bottom).
Pegre
It states that Hashim Thaçi, the Prime Minister and later President of Kosovo, referred to by Joe Biden as the "George Washington of Kosovo," "was usually referred to in intelligence reports as the 'most dangerous of the UCK mafia bosses'." s
V. 2000-2004: Wars and Expansion Toward the East up to the Russian Border
However, there was little time for the news to sink in to shape the ethics of the press. Just five days later, on the evening of September 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, NATO Allies invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty (regarding a military aggression against one of its members) for the first time. This led to the establishment of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which operated in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021.
s
On March 12, 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia finally joined NATO.
Now, 5 NATO member countries share a land border with Russia: Norway as since 1949 (200 km), Estonia (320 km), Latvia (270 km), as well as Lithuania (270 km) and Poland (200 km) through the Kaliningrad Oblast.
In the end, it is worth noting that such an attitude is remarkable: it has significantly expanded the number of countries that, if they were to be aggressed, would automatically involve us in a war. According to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty s:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.»
Let's remember that these "defensive" military alliances are anything but trivial: they triggered the First and Second World Wars. However, for these leaders, it seems that they function as train stations: anyone can enter without considering the consequences that an unforeseen political situation will cause 10, 20, 50 years later.
VI. "We have absolutely no intention of isolating Russia"
These expansions explain Russia's past, present, and future reactions.
Furthermore, during the Budapest Summit in 1994, NATO Secretary-General Willy Claes also supported the alliance's expansion plans. He even remarked with a mocking tone:
"We don't want to create two different zones of influence in Europe once again. We are not seeking to isolate Russia at all." Youtube
Gorbachev counterattacks: "Do not humiliate Russia."
Although he resigned as President of the USSR on December 25, 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev did not give up all political roles. He continued to be concerned about European security in general and NATO in particular.
In 1995, he brought his idea of a "common European home" back into the spotlight to bring all Europeans closer together. According to him, "attempting to solve the most delicate problems related to national issues using missiles is simply absurd." s
In 1997, he spoke out against the expansion of NATO, which he considered "not serious."
NatoExpansion21
He also addressed the U.S. Congress on April 10, 1997, criticizing the expansion of NATO:
"I believe it is a mistake, a very grave mistake, and I am not convinced by the claims I hear that Russia has nothing to fear. […] You cannot humiliate a nation, a people, and think it will have no consequences. So my question is: is this a new strategy? […] I have a sense that if the same kind of game continues to be played, if one country plays one card against another country, then all the problems I just mentioned will be very difficult to resolve." s
Youtube.
NatoExpansion22
In 2014, he was still condemning Western military adventurism, recalling that, "The decision by the United States and its allies to expand NATO to the East was made decisively in 1993. I called it a big mistake from the very beginning. It was certainly a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances that had been given to us in 1990. As for Germany, they were enshrined in binding legal forms and are respected." s
1996-97
Basic principles of war propaganda
The first three points, the most important ones, logically follow: "We don't want war (and are not responsible for it), it's our enemy who is the aggressor, and it's because their leader is diabolical."
Far from facing a conflict that would result from inevitable problems - because we tried to avoid them at all costs - it is essential to show that this situation stems from deliberate political choices that could have been different. The current crisis highlights this in a striking way, as recently reiterated by George Kennan, a leading American expert.
Indeed, Kennan, arguably the greatest American Sovietologist, former U.S. ambassador to the USSR, architect of the Truman Doctrine of containment, and a major player in the early days of the Cold War, did not mince words in 1997: "The expansion of NATO would be the most catastrophic error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." S
NatoExpansion23
NatoExpansion24
Michael Mandelbaum, a professor and director of the American Foreign Policy program at Johns Hopkins University, pleaded not to expand NATO to preserve the new peace. s ; s
NatoExpansion25
About twenty former senior officials from the Department of State published a letter in 1995 denouncing this expansion. s
NatoExpansion26
Spanish academic X. Murillo argued that the expansion of NATO "could bring Europe back to the era of the Cold War." s
John Lewis Gaddis, a well-known professor for his research on the Cold War, often referred to as the "dean of Cold War historians" and the official biographer of George Kennan, wrote s :
NatoExpansion27
L'expansion didn't sit well with Thomas Friedman, the influential foreign affairs columnist for the Herald Tribune and the New York Times, a three-time winner of the prestigious Pulitzer Prize.
NatoExpansion28
Etc.
Not even the pleas of Russian intellectuals in the press could sway American lawmakers. s
Isolate
2007: Putin's last warning?
"In Bulgaria and Romania, we see the appearance of ‘forward-stationed light bases’ of 5,000 men each. It is obvious, I think, that NATO enlargement has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance or with security in Europe. On the contrary, it is a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual confidence. We have the right to ask openly against whom this expansion is intended. Where are the assurances of our Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are those guarantees?"
"The blocks of concrete and stones of the Berlin Wall have long been historical artifacts. They have become souvenirs. However, we must not forget that its fall was made possible by a historic choice of our people—the people of Russia—in favor of democracy, freedom, openness, and genuine partnership with all the members of the European community. Now, they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us. They are, if you will, splitting the continent with new Berlin Walls. And people who lived on both sides of the wall, on both sides of the dividing line, and the states that were divided by the wall, remember only too well that it is much easier to create a barrier, to provoke mutual fear and even hatred, than to build a fair and lasting peace."
"At this point, it is highly important to reflect on what was said above. When the Berlin Wall tumbled, the Soviet Union, the Soviet state, did not exist. What has remained is Russia. In fact, Russia is the legal successor to the former Soviet Union. In this regard, and I would like to underline this, there are no anti-American, anti-Western or anti-NATO sentiments in our approach. In this sense, there can be no doubt that expansion of NATO may be extended, but it will lead to the same consequences as I have just mentioned. It will mean the appearance of new dividing lines in Europe and the start of a new arms race."
"I am confident that at this new, current stage we should think together about the architecture of global security, and the future layout of European and world order."
— Vladimir Putin, Address to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 10, 2007.
Youtube
As indicated by researcher Ted Charpentier s :
«The speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference should have dispelled any doubt about whether Russia considered NATO's policy in general and the alliance's inexorable march to the east in particular as provocative and threatening. Putin warned his Western counterparts to change course.
In retrospect, this might have been the last opportunity to prevent a new Cold War between the West and Russia.»
2008-2010: Georgia's Aggression Against Russia, Just Endorsed by NATO
While Russia had just the previous year advocated for a renewal of partnership with the West, NATO took another step toward disaster by promising on April 3, 2008, that Ukraine and Georgia would join the organization.
However, due to the disagreement between George Bush, who supported the accession, and Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, who were highly reluctant, no date was set. This was defined as the policy of an "open door." s; s
NatoUkraine1
NatoUkraine2
The recklessness of this decision is clearly evident in this brief summary of the summit s :
"It was a last-minute compromise, reached to avoid the embarrassment of an otherwise uneventful NATO summit. In April 2008, in the Romanian capital of Bucharest, the lines were clearly drawn: U.S. President George W. Bush wanted to offer Georgia and Ukraine a 'Membership Action Plan' (MAP), a roadmap that would lead to the accession of these two countries, bordering Russia, to the North Atlantic military alliance.
Opposing him were Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, united in their resistance, fearing that such an announcement would be seen as a provocation. They were not alone in their concerns. Ahead of the summit, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, William J. Burns, had cabled Washington with his apprehensions: 'Ukraine's entry into NATO is the reddest of red lines for the Russian elite,' he wrote, adding in parentheses 'not just Putin.'
With mediation from the United Kingdom, a compromise was finally reached, and reflected in a press release: 'We agree that (Ukraine and Georgia) will become members of NATO.' The MAP, a very concrete process that would have served as a pre-accession step, was replaced by a vague promise, with no specific timeline."
Ted Charpentier concludes s :
"In private, however, a few more perceptive officials acknowledged that relations with Russia had not been properly managed. In his memoir Duty, Robert M. Gates, who served as Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, made some notable admissions. "When I reported to the president my views on the Munich Conference, I shared my belief that, starting in 1993, the West, and particularly the United States, had severely underestimated the extent of Russia's humiliation in losing the Cold War."
However, even this blunt assessment given to Bush did not fully capture Gates' views on the matter. "What I didn’t tell the president was that I thought relations with Russia had been mismanaged after [George H.W.] Bush left office in 1993." Among other missteps, "the U.S. agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries were an unnecessary provocation."
In an implicit rebuke of the younger Bush, Gates asserted that "trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching." This decision, he argued, was a case of "reckless disregard for what the Russians considered their vital national interests."
In 2007, Putin had clearly stated that Russia opposed Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO due to the security threats it posed.
Unfortunately, his concerns were not in vain. Emboldened by NATO's support, during the night of August 7–8, 2008, after several days of border clashes between the South Ossetian separatist militia, supported and trained by Russia, and the Georgian army, hostilities broke out. The conflict began with a Georgian assault, resulting in 12 deaths among the peacekeeping forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS, predominantly Russian) and 162 South Ossetian victims, according to the official report from the Russian Justice Ministry at the end of 2008. This led to five days of intense fighting. s
Army
Despite recurring propaganda, the responsibility for the outbreak of the conflict has been established. s
GeorgiaWar
On April 1, 2009, Croatia and Albania joined NATO.
On August 17, 2009, the "purely defensive alliance of NATO" launched Operation Ocean Shield, aimed at destroying pirate ships along the East African coast. The operation lasted for seven years.
Boat
2011: NATO's Betrayal of Russia in Libya
On March 17, 2011, the "purely defensive alliance" of NATO launched Operation Unified Protector, targeting Libya, which had not attacked any of its member states. There were nearly 7,000 air sorties over the course of 7 months.
s
As with Kosovo a decade earlier, the operation was based on a grossly misleading war propaganda, claiming large-scale massacres by Gaddafi against his own population. s; s
Today, it is known that this was false, and when there were battles, they were against jihadists, as noted by Patrick Haimzadeh (former French diplomat in Libya and one of our specialists on the country). s
Unlike its French counterpart, the British Parliament clearly established the lies and French responsibility in this war. s; s
Lybia
This war ultimately undermined Russia's trust in NATO, as the alliance violated the agreement reached with Russia at the UN Security Council. s
2012-2020: Heading towards the wall
Since December 2012, NATO has been conducting Operation Active Fence, aimed at protecting the region along Turkey's southern border with Syria in the context of the Syrian Civil War, through the deployment of Patriot missiles.
Turkey
After the political crisis following the Maidan coup, Ukraine abandoned its status as a "non-aligned" country at the end of 2014. s
In 2017, Montenegro joined NATO.
In 2019, Ukraine enshrined in its Constitution its intention to join the EU and NATO. s
On March 27, 2020, North Macedonia became the 30th member state.
In June 2020, NATO granted Ukraine the status of "Enhanced Opportunities Partner." s
In February 2021, the Ukrainian president stated that his first question to Joe Biden would concern his country's accession to NATO. s
In June 2021, the Ukrainian president asked Biden to respond with a "yes" or "no" regarding Ukraine's NATO membership. s
In September 2021, the Ukrainian president met with Biden and asked him to expedite Ukraine's NATO membership. s
On October 21, 2021, Russia stated that it considers the size of Ukraine's military armament supplied by NATO to be a threat to its security, even though Ukraine is not yet a NATO member. s
Indeed, according to Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King's College London s
"This is why we have this crisis. Not so much because of the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, but because the Russians see the current cooperation between NATO and Ukraine as a de facto membership. It is important to understand Putin’s perspective, but one must also see that all this stems from the actions he took in Ukraine in 2014. It was a huge misjudgment on his part, and it is no longer possible to go back."
Since Biden did not refuse, Russia began moving some of its soldiers near the Russo-Ukrainian border. This was a clear message, made even clearer on November 18, 2021: for Putin, the West is taking Russia’s red lines far too lightly. s
NatoUkraine3
On November 30, 2021, he confirmed that this indeed concerned the NATO expansion to the East. s
NatoUkraine4
On December 7, 2021, he asked Biden for guarantees regarding the non-expansion of NATO. s
On December 9, 2021, Biden's response was to tell Ukraine that its NATO membership is in its own hands. s
On December 10, 2021, NATO refused to provide Russia with the guarantees it requested. s
On December 16, 2021, the Ukrainian president was received at NATO. s
s
Following this summit, NATO and the EU issued threats against Russia. s
Russia then requested written assurances from the United States to halt NATO’s expansion and to provide security guarantees. Negotiations began in early 2022 but did not result in an agreement.
This is a classic case of escalation amid misunderstanding. Ukraine feels threatened, wants to join NATO, which prompts a reaction from Russia, thereby reinforcing the perceived threat to Ukraine, which then arms itself, and so on. At this point, it is clearly no longer about finding a culprit, but about seeking—and finding—solutions.
Thus, we hope that wisdom and diplomacy will prevail, and that our government will defend our own interests rather than those of (a part of) Ukraine or those of arms dealers, as American Tulsi Gabbard points out. s
2022: And now?
Given the elements we have just presented, we better understand Stephen Walt's frustration when he writes, "The great tragedy is to see how simple it would have been to avoid this crisis." s
But, strangely, it doesn’t seem to be as simple for everyone. s
This crisis highlights the incompetence of Western diplomacy, tangled in a promise made to Ukraine 15 years ago. Member countries, especially France and Germany, understand that they cannot fulfill this promise without triggering a massive crisis with Russia, yet they are unwilling to lose face and retract their commitment. Much like with Crimea, they have found themselves in an apparently inextricable situation.
However, there are various solutions. For example, one solution could be decided unilaterally by President Macron: to declare that France will veto any further NATO expansion, starting with Ukraine and Georgia, and to establish a neutral status for these countries, ensuring their security and allowing them to cooperate with all their neighbors. This would ultimately offer them better protection. Additionally, it is unlikely that the United States would jeopardize its existence for border issues on the other side of the planet. It is also possible that Ukraine, realizing it will probably never formally join NATO, might choose to withdraw from the integration process and opt for neutrality to ensure its security.
Finally, it’s important to remember that NATO expansion is not obligatory, and in 1990, some were already aware of the danger of maintaining a single bloc that would inevitably seek an enemy to justify its existence. s
s
To conclude, it is important to understand that the current crisis is neither sudden nor unpredictable. It has been long in the making and could have been anticipated 25 years ago by the greatest experts (who are very rarely invited in the media). So let us end by giving the floor once again to George Kennan:
KennanQuote
So, I repeat, I am 100% against this war. This post is solely intended to provide context and explain how the situation escalated.
____________
|
|
gatecrasher
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 01:05 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Moreover, Russia invading Ukraine for land is just a theory, there is not a single validating speech in that direction from Putin,
A theory? So why did Russia annex Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia? Including territories they had not even conquered?
Why are Russian people from mainland being resettled to the Russian-occupied territories?
Why do the occupants offer Russian citizenship to Ukrainians?
Why do the occupants build infrastructure connecting to mainland?
Why is the Ukrainian language banned in Russian-occupied territories?
Why are Russian banks opening branches in the occupied territories?
Why do pupular figures like Solovyov rave on an expanding Russian empire?
Why do even officials like Medvedyev or Rogozin do so?
Why does Putin like to rave on times when the Russian/Soviet empire used to be so much bigger?
No to mention what's going on in public life/social media.
So when Bush talked about mass destruction weapons in Iraq you believed it?
Sure, Putin is notorious for telling the truth.
|
|
gatecrasher
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 01:19 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Putin did what every other power would have done in similar situation, secure what he thought were his interests.
That's an insult to any other "power".
You are right though. HIS very own interests he developed from studying too much historical maps.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
No that you keep emphasizing how well Russia had come of age economically, what could they've done without spending a pretty penny on war?
Sanctions? Blocking Ukraine's ports? Secret service job? Terminating oil/gas/coal delivery? Have China pull some levers?
|
|
Ben80
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 01:39 PM |
|
|
The war in Ukraine is largely the same as the civil war between the north and south of America. A delayed civil war that did not take place immediately after the collapse of the USSR.
gatecrasher said:
Blocking Ukraine's ports?
The northerners also blocked the ports of the south.
|
|
gatecrasher
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 02:49 PM |
|
|
Ben80 said:
The war in Ukraine is largely the same as the civil war between the north and south of America.
As incomparable as two wars can get.
Ukrainians aren't Russians. Cope with it.
Ben80 said:
The northerners also blocked the ports of the south.
What's that "also"?
Why didn't Russia BEFORE/INSTEAD OF invading?
|
|
Pol
Known Hero
.^.
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 03:04 PM |
|
|
Russia has long history of attacking its neighborhoods.
At random:
1939 - Russia attacks Poland (Again, after 1919-1921. Russia simply loves to attack Poland for any pretext.)
1939-1940 - Russia attacks Finland
1940 - Russia attacks all Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)
1944 - Russia free Poland in such way, that 200 000 poles are murdered. Basically another attack.
1944-1960 - A thousand of small wars which erupted against Russia in conquered (not freed) countries (Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Germany, Hungary)
1953 - Supressing East Germany Uprising
1956 - Supressing Hungary Revolt
1968 - Invading Czechoslovakia (because they wanted to place nuclear war heads here and they did that.)
This list in incomplete (!), Russia caused more wars and often just grabbed the land to "export" communist revolution. This is the reason, why no one of the neighborhood states wish to be helped by Russia ever again.
If you believe @Valeriy for a context, this one is the right one.
On the other hand, USA didn't attacked any of these states. They were doing "oil wars" though. But nobody is saying, that USA are "saint".
"Ben80" said:
The war in Ukraine is largely the same as the civil war between the north and south of America. A delayed civil war that did not take place immediately after the collapse of the USSR.
It's a delayed war. Not civil, pretext is important and some small manipulation with words are not allowed. Also it could been prevented if West would have manifested some army power and willingness in that time.
"artu" said:
Well, to be fair, he doesnt claim Russia never wanted ANYTHING. Whether, they had the right to or not, Russia wanted a more neutral Ukraine and was very straightforward about that for years. Even American analysts and academics point out the same thing years before the Russian attack: If we keep intervening in Ukraine politics the way we do and make them think they are an ally, Russia will attack and Ukraine will be facing it mostly alone. Let it stay neutral.
Which is the reason, why things are so bad now. Instead of having balls and keep peace.
This sounds like one Neville Chamberlain wouldn't be enough. Russian wanted, and even openly stated, that they wanted neutral Ukraine which will be on their side only. So, works as russian proxy. That's not neutral but subjugated, diplomatically.
"Salamandre" said:
An overwhelming majority of crimeans voted to go back to Russia. All polls and surveys conducted by international and independent pollsters, from 2008 up to 2014 gave constant results : ~90% for leaving Ukraine then join Russia. Crimea was given as a gift to Ukraine, to evince the boundless trust and love the Russian people feel toward the Ukrainian people , however Russian residents within weren't asked, then they decided to have a voice, democratically.
#1 - You can't have democratical elections under the supervision of army of another state, see "Green Men"
#2 - No elections are valid if you kick out part of citizens before them and even after. Same problem in Donetsk. First were expelled Crimean Tatars, second native Ukranians. Crimean Tatars were expelled in waves even before, originally Crimea was their land.
Crimea wasn't any present from Russia to Ukraine. That's nonsense beyond belief. I never stop to be surprised what all are Russians willing to say, to justify their actions and overall disrespect to others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_in_the_Soviet_Union
Giving Crimea to Ukraine was solving several troubles for CCCP:
#1 - Water and infrastructure financing in Crimea from UA
#2 - International bonds. Stalin got money for giving Crimea to Israel and never realised this. But he kept the money forever. UA wasn't obliged to pay back though.
"Ben80" said:
We don't care what you think. You will not understand that times have changed and no one is interested in the precious opinion of the West anymore.
Never enough disrespect Ben80? How much russian style. If you don't like to communicate with others just don't. No one forces you.
As per previous communication, you have not even idea what the West is. So you are living in some red tale.
"Salamandre" said:
When I said "we should condemn it", I was focusing on the political and diplomatic posture, it has to be that way, like when you say "my condolences for your loss", even if you don't give a damn. Personally, I see no reason to condemn it ; from what I read and listened to, Putin made it clear, since 2008 : any attempt to mutate Ukraine into a US military puppet will be considered as a red line.
That's correct, Putin claimed it several times and no one listened. Very foolish. And even more as no one acted against, to prevent him choosing this route. So even more people are now under impression that breaking international laws is great thing to do. Consequences are fatal.
There for sure will be multipolar world and I'm pretty sure, that China or India will be in. But I wouldn't count on Russia.
|
|
Ben80
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 03:05 PM |
|
|
gatecrasher said:
As incomparable as two wars can get.
Ukrainians aren't Russians. Cope with it.
You definitely don’t understand this, no matter how much you want to show the opposite. Everything you (the West) say is connected only with what you want and has nothing to do with the truth.
If you were more objective and knew more, then you would understand that this is very similar to the war between the North and South of the United States.
|
|
Pol
Known Hero
.^.
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 03:24 PM |
|
|
Ben80 said:
gatecrasher said:
As incomparable as two wars can get.
Ukrainians aren't Russians. Cope with it.
You definitely don’t understand this, no matter how much you want to show the opposite. Everything you (the West) say is connected only with what you want and has nothing to do with the truth.
Funny, how that apply to you.
So, who is the "West"? It's kinda some Black vs White stories or what, in your mind?
Did you ever hear term "russian opposition"?
My God.
|
|
gatecrasher
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 03:55 PM |
|
|
Ben80 said:
Everything you (the West) say
That's not how it works in the West. We haven't got a single person like your swollen-faced grandpa who presumes the right to speak for everyone to themselves.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted September 16, 2024 06:00 PM |
|
|
A new 180.000 troops!
I hope Ben80 goes to the war
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2024 06:18 PM |
|
|
Forbes Magazine gave an estimation of Russian and Ukrainian troops losses so far: Ukraine: 80.000 dead, 400.000 wounded. Russia: 200.000 dead, 400.000 wounded..
Appalling bloodletting.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 17, 2024 06:25 PM |
|
|
|
Basic math isn't a Forbes thing.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2024 08:17 PM |
|
|
Sorry, I had a reading blip. It's an estimation of the Wall Street Journal, known for their math problems. 
Bristish Defense Ministry concurs.
And it's something you'd expect after 30 months of war, sonsidering the amounts of ammunition, mines, missiles, grenades and so on used.
But YOU probably estimate Russian losses at about 2000 and wounded about 10.000, because those Russians are made of steel, right?
|
|
Pol
Known Hero
.^.
|
|
posted September 17, 2024 10:25 PM |
|
|
Russians don't count foreign hirelings, mercenaries, criminals (Storm 2), neither their nazi legions and some soldiers with non-standard contracts. So, they just don't count it all.
Anyway russians are likely having bigger losses, this is purported by some other evidences, going from OSINT to some of few russian organisations, which are trying to count it.
The best thing is on the end, for russian this war, considering human resources, is extremely cheap. They do promise the payement but often mark deceased like they "not died in fight" or merely "mia", so they don't need to pay their families.
Considering the soldier die within half of year, he costs only uniform and machine gun. And might not even received a single payment.
And they have notorious problems with even getting normal payements on time, or bonuses at all. These are often delayed for half of year, or even longer - as someone above just grab them as their.
But fact, that for many people in russia, offered wage is simply outstanding - due to russians low standards of life, make from them almost infinitive supply.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 18, 2024 03:58 AM |
|
|
We are not in StarWars clone wars. We have data about Russian mobilization back in 2022, then data about how many freely volunteered, then data about Ukraine starting troops, so when you add the parameters, then compare with terrain realities and fire power discrepancies, those NATO estimations given without any described method on how they were calculated do not sum up. It's a Christmas wishlist.
NATO "estimations" are nothing more than the echo-chamber of Ukraine estimations made out of desperation. They need money and supplies, thus they need to buzz, and here you go. Of course none of you will do any search on the mathematical reality of that because they say exactly what you want to hear. Like when they said Russian economy will shortly crumble, then when they say Russian lack ammunition, then when they said people will revolt - we saw the election results, like then when they said Putin will be assassinated or die because 7 cancers ; so now the new thing is the victory Pyrrhus style - they will probably win but they lost half of their army. How we reached to that conclusion, is crickets. We just affirm it and don't discuss.
600k out of combat would be 3/4 of Russian existing forces in Ukraine. Note that Nato sources still affirm that 700k military troops are valid on the field right now, so that puts Russian total mobilized army way beyond of what they really have, a net of 2 times bigger. Such military disaster would have had as immediate consequences instant retreat, reorganization, the stop of any offensive then a second mobilization. Ukraine would have succeeded its June offensive then would not daily kidnap people in the street due to lack of men power.
NATO is OK with the current status-quo, as long as it penalizes Russia somehow. No matter Ukraine and its men are decimated, who cares about. Wasn't Madeleine Albright who told when asked about the death of 500 000 Iraqis children "the price was worth it"?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted September 18, 2024 04:16 AM |
|
Edited by Ghost at 05:29, 18 Sep 2024.
|
|
Klaymen
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted September 18, 2024 07:51 AM |
|
|
Valeriy said:
Not in defence of the current war but for the sake of balanced historical perspective on countries it is worth taking a look at how many times each country / union [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions]invaded another country[/url].
Between 1945 and 2024:
United States invaded another country 13 times.
Soviet Union & Russia invaded another country 7 times (2 of which are Ukraine).
Since WW2 United States engaged in almost twice the number of invasions compared to Soviet Union & Russia.
Most of the invasions initiated by United States were on the opposite side of the world from the United States.
None of the invasions initiated by Soviet Union & Russia were on the opposite side of the world.
Let’s also not forget how Iraq was invaded by USA to confiscate/destroy the alleged weapons of mass destruction which were never found. And while USA possessed such weapons itself all along. Most notable thing was how this invasion was covered by the Western media.
As another poster mentioned, USA dropped nuclear bombs on cities with civilians. This was at a time when the war was almost won and their use was arguably unnecessary. Soviet Union & Russia have not dropped nuclear bombs on cities.
It is worth juxtaposing all of this with one’s default perception of which of the two countries is more likely to be an aggressor.
This does not necessarily define the current war, but I think that it is worth pointing out the subconscious bias that is often in the background when entering these discussions. Noticing it gives one more freedom to research with less bias.
I'm sorry, but this smells....no this reeks of whataboutism. Tu quoque fallacy at its finest.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2024 09:22 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
600k out of combat would be 3/4 of Russian existing forces in Ukraine.
Russian forces without pressed recruits from India, mercenaries, convicts and so on, has been around a million plus 2 millions in reserves. The reserves mobilization two years ago was 300.000 (which would already cover half of the estimated losses and incapacitations).
So it absolutely fits with the numbers.
The numbers also make sense considering the "success" of the Russian army in gaining ground. They have too many losses. Same goes of course for Ukraine - while they have an estimated lower death count they have as many wounded. Keep in mind that "wounded" can mean a lot of things in a 30-month war:
a) it may mean being out for a certain time (like 6 months) and after that be available again (that is, only temporarily out) and
b) out for good, being seriously wounded (for example losing an arm or a leg), but not dead;
Generally, though, "wounded" means: a burden for logistics, economy and supply, since the wounded must be treated, transported and supplised with stuff.
So the actual numbers read not the way you seem to understand them. Russia has around 200.000 dead plus up to 400.000 more which are in different states of incapacitation, part of them quite probably being in service again.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
