Russia Ukraine Situation

[windwalker]

So far, the most serious thing being forwarded by Western nations.

Cutting the Russians out of SWIFT would destroy Russian bank's, and industry, ability to move money around internationally. A sanction that would actually hurt.

On the plus side, it would also start putting the world down the long road of crushing globalist aspirations of controlling all foreign governments economically. Which is why the usual suspects resisted this from the get go.

The world is rushing towards the neo-medievalist world order that 9/11 started.

Exciting.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us ... d=msedgntp

For an explanation of what that means....

https://www.ft.com/content/7a6613c7-f2f ... 867c9b8a0a

There is talk of limited sanctions regarding SWIFT....
Should raise the question among other countries should the same actions be applied to them

Have read about other systems besides SWIFT in use....
If they do use it, wonder how would the countries currently being supplied with oil from Russia pay for it ?

[Peacedog]

I view historical agreements as prologue. Mainly because none of the main players involved really care.

Russian leadership has a long-term paranoia about being invaded. When in reality their desire to dominate their immediate neighbors is the root cause of this.

The border states are always going to be looking for security from someone bigger for that reason as history has shown that being a Russian vassal state is a bad deal.

The Russian paranoia issue is also buffered by the reality that all of the European states are militarily on their butts and functionally useless without the very limited capabilities of the French and the slightly greater abilities of the British. Neither of which have any need to march into Moscow anytime soon. The "free rider" solution to 2000 years of non-stop European warfare as imposed by the USA after WWII worked a little too well. I think the Luftwaffe has a utility rate of less than 35%. The only thing they'll be bombing is the men's room at Denny's.

On a more strategic level, I welcome this kind of instability. The globalist shenanigans favored by the usual suspects has always boded ill for humanity writ large. Their creeping socialist, goofball environmentalist and anti-humanist positions being the least of their decidedly negative behavior.

The willingness to give that crowd the finger by places like Russia, and Turkey, is a good sign that the world has had enough of their BS.

The bad news is that this means a more historically accurate representation of human affairs with lots of regional conflict. And this is really crappy for places like the Ukraine, and Syria, amongst others that are caught in-between. And it means a lot of the world is about to get much poorer as a result of it being harder to develop and maintain long term investment in development. This war probably sets Ukraine back 30 years economically even if they survive it. Eastern Europe eternally being a battleground between bigger powers is a main reason why it never developed the way Western Europe did.

Globalism and the subsequent free trade that came with its stability made for good quality of life for large portions of the world, but it came at the price of empowering a bunch of unelected know it all jerks. Things like this demonstrate the limitation of their power.

Long term the worst outcome of the Ukraine situation will be lots of countries either developing, or buying, nuclear weapons as a deterrent to their more aggressive neighbors. And sooner, or later, a few of those will get used. I'm not talking worldwide nuclear war, but I could easily see a place like Mali, or Chad, taking one of their more annoying neighbors out 50 years hence following a slap fight gone wrong.

[windwalker]

I view historical agreements as prologue.
Mainly because none of the main players involved really care.

Interesting comments thanks

Had to check to see if there were any agreements regarding NATO made at the time...
Turns out there was...

Should give pause to other countries who made agreements with the US as to what those agreements really mean.
Taiwan comes to mind...

yep,,,gonna be a lot countries trying to nuke up

The history is interesting

The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances, and on the basis of his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor.

He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.

But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe.

Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave

“the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO. (See Document 27)

The view of the State Department was that NATO expansion was not on the agenda, because it was not in the interest of the U.S. to organize “an anti-Soviet coalition” that extended to the Soviet borders, not least because it might reverse the positive trends in the Soviet Union. (See Document 26) The Bush administration took the latter view. And that’s what the Soviets heard.

In reading it, how would any not expect Russia to react as it has....for its security concerns.

[Bob]

So the pre-supposition is if NATO and the US were not involved the EU and Russia would have no relational problems regardless of Russia's nuclear stockpiles and own self-interest - the EU & Eastern Europe would not have any security issues with Russia and no incentive to create their own quasi- NATO alliance.

I suppose it is US policy that "blackmails" Eastern European countries into joining NATO - and countries like Finland, the Ukraine and others can't chart their own pathway regarding NATO - Russia has made it quite clear that Finland & Sweden had better never consider NATO or the consequences will be dire.

Everyone has their sources cited and positions staked out - okay end of the line

[windwalker]

According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)

Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO.


Instead, the dissolution of the USSR was brought about by Russians (Boris Yeltsin and his leading advisory Gennady Burbulis) in concert with the former party bosses of the Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, in December 1991. The Cold War was long over by then.

The Americans had tried to keep the Soviet Union together (see the Bush “Chicken Kiev” speech on August 1, 1991).

NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.

Washington, D.C., March 16, 2018 – Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership for Peace was the alternative to NATO expansion, rather than a precursor to it, while simultaneously planning for expansion after Yeltsin’s re-election bid in 1996 and telling the Russians repeatedly that the future European security system would include, not exclude, Russia.

eltsin showed only limited acquiescence when Clinton came to Moscow in May 1995 to mark the 50th anniversary of victory over Hitler in World War II. The U.S. memcon of the one-on-one meeting at the Kremlin (Document 19) features repeated Yeltsin objections:

“I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you proceed …. Why do you want to do this? We need a new structure for Pan-European security, not old ones! .... But for me to agree to the borders of NATO expanding towards those of Russia – that would constitute a betrayal on my part of the Russian people.”

For his part, Clinton insisted that “gradual, steady, measured” NATO expansion would happen: “You can say you don’t want it speeded up – I’ve told you we’re not going to do that – but don’t ask us to slow down either, or we’ll just have to keep saying no.”

Clinton also assured Yeltsin, “I won’t support any change that undermines Russia’s security or redivides Europe,” and urged Yeltsin to join the Partnership for Peace. At the end, the two leaders agreed that any NATO expansion would be delayed until after the 1996 Presidential elections (in both countries).

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... tsin-heard

As some have pointed out, whats happening now has been a long time in the making....

[Peacedog]

Bob,

It is very much a pre-WWI situation where a patchwork of agreements and general purpose paranoia combine with big egos to send things cartwheeling out of control.

At the end of the day someone important is going to get their ego slapped and be butthurt. And that’s when bad decisions writ large get made.

Gen Z better stop worrying about pronouns, shoot some steroids and breakout their draft cards if things get out of hand. We all may be heading towards killing time here shortly if people can’t take a time out.

[windwalker]

Everyone has their sources cited and positions staked out - okay end of the line

Thought this clip outlined it quite well


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=3452s


History

U.S. primacy
The doctrine establishes the U.S.'s leadership role within the new world order.

The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.

In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.

We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

While the United States cannot become the world's policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own.

Where our allies interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own.

Seems like other countries might have a similar doctrine concerning their interest.

[Bob]

Peacedog

There are probably a few on this board that grew up during the Cold War era as I previously posted and Russian policy and world domination were a real - although I don't agree with a lot of US policy the gist of these posts imply that because of NATO the US is responsible for Putin's decision to topple the Ukrainian government - sweet, simple and direct I just don't buy it.

[windwalker]

Was part of the "cold war" in the military at the time

So the pre-supposition is if NATO and the US were not involved the EU and Russia would have no relational problems regardless of Russia's nuclear stockpiles and own self-interest - the EU & Eastern Europe would not have any security issues with Russia and no incentive to create their own quasi- NATO alliance.

I suppose it is US policy that "blackmails" Eastern European countries into joining NATO - and countries like Finland, the Ukraine and others can't chart their own pathway regarding NATO - Russia has made it quite clear that Finland & Sweden had better never consider NATO or the consequences will be dire.

Everyone has their sources cited and positions staked out - okay end of the line

Not quite understanding the point considering

In 1959, the US began a policy to keep any Communist influence out of the Western hemisphere.

This led to US involvement in Latin America.

They maintained control until the end of the Cold War, when US-backed rebels took it from them.
Castro’s Cuban Revolution took place between 1953 and 1959

The US military intervened often with covert operations to protect American interests.

They wanted to stop socialist or communist governments from
reclaiming land in Latin America owned by American companies.

Looks like everyone has their own interest

[windwalker]

Peacedog

There are probably a few on this board that grew up during the Cold War era as I previously posted and Russian policy and world domination were a real - although I don't agree with a lot of US policy the gist of these posts imply that because of NATO the US is responsible for Putin's decision to topple the Ukrainian government - sweet, simple and direct I just don't buy it.

Not because of NATO but because of what was agreed to, and never happened...
Putin, is reacting to what he perceives as a threat just as a US would react the same way if put in the same position.

Actually it did during the Cuban missile crisis.

Why is not any European country like say Germany for example
taking the lead regarding the Ukrainian crisis.

[Bob]

Sorry Windwalker but:

"Putin, is reacting to what he perceives as a threat just as a US would react the same way if put in the same position."

Putin's motivation is much more than that and I think Ann Applebaum has it well sorted out regarding Putin's personality and motivations

BTW Germany has gotten on board and the French have cut a pathway.

[windwalker]

Don't know nor would guess what Putins "motivations" are

Only know that in looking at some of the historical beginnings none of the Russian leaders expected NATO to be on its borders.
Had they been able to foretell this, I'm sure that many of the events like the coming down of the Berlin wall , reunification of Germany
would not have happened as they did...

What would be the US's interest aligning itself to a small country that has no strategic value to its own interest,
but has the capability of calling on the US as an ally should it be engaged in a war

Article 5 - also known as collective defence - commits members of the treaty organization to protect each other.
It means that an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all members.

Hope things work out with out it escalating.

[Bob]

Regardless of where these discussions have gone I do agree with you:

"Hope things work out with out it escalating."

[Bao]

Don't know nor would guess what Putins "motivations" are

Only know that in looking at some of the historical beginnings none of the Russian leaders expected NATO to be on its borders.
Had they been able to foretell this, I'm sure that many of the events like the coming down of the Berlin wall , reunification of Germany
would not have happened as they did...

What would be the US's interest aligning itself to a small country that has no strategic value to its own interest,
but has the capability of calling on the US as an ally should it be engaged in a war

Did you listen to Putin's full speech? = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc43wHhb1Vc

It's pretty clear that he is worried that the USA and Nato continue trying to turn Russia into another Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. Of course he should be.

He also wants to de-militarize Ukraine and get rid of the fascist US puppet regime.

There are good proofs that the USA organized the coup and put this regime in place:

"EVIDENCE: US directed Ukraine's coup in 2014 leading to today's war"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhDQ_mM8xPY

More about this regime and what they have done in this video:

"Who is responsible for the Russia Ukraine War?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFkIbAP-SJc


....

Of course, every invasion and war is tragic. No sane person want any war in Ukraine. But why can't we just accept the truth for what it is? The truth is that it was the Obama administration that threw over a democratically elected president and put a neo-nazi, fascist regime into it's place. It's the USA who is the cause of an ongoing 8 conflict that caused 14 000 -16 000 people's death. This is just facts, the plain reality as it is. I have given proofs and sources for all of what I have said so far in the thread.

If the USA keeps on meddling in this area and Nato keeps on pushing regardless of what Russia does, more innocent people will get killed.
Why do people in the West refuse to see the truth and why doesn't the West accept reality for what it is?

[origami_itto]

Hey Bao,

Putin said I have a real nice bridge to sell you, cheap.