Officials: US agrees to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I am not a historian nor do I live in Europe, but it appears you are putting rose tinted glasses on this.

The Revolutions of 1989 formed part of a revolutionary wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s that resulted in the end of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond. The period is sometimes called the Autumn of Nations,[4][5][6][7][8] a play on the term "Spring of Nations" that is sometimes used to describe the Revolutions of 1848.

The events of the full-blown revolution began in Poland in 1989[9][10] and continued in Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania. One feature common to most of these developments was the extensive use of campaigns of civil resistance, demonstrating popular opposition to the continuation of one-party rule and contributing to the pressure for change (albeit a lot of western equipment doesn't appear to have a laser warning receiver...).

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, the Iron Curtain, Warsaw Pact, and the Soviet Union fell apart. It wasn't Russia trying to be "honorable". I agree that many nations have been going backwards in many respects and that in many respects the Cold War never ended. This includes the US, UK, and Russia.

a reply to: zukitar

Javelin is IR guided, not TV guided.

Also laser warning receivers are a thing. Whilst I am sure Kornet is impressive in its own right, Javelin is fire and forget, Kornet isn't. Kornet can be detected via laser warning receiver, Javelin can't. Smoke screens are likely effective against both kinds of seeker, but with Javelin there is no warning.

But RUSSIA STRONGK!!!

Javelin is IIR guided, it's a kind of TV guidance that uses thermal imaging. It still depends on shape and vulnerable to smoke screen which changes shape.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Potato tomato. I didn't say they are going to annex all of Ukraine. So they just want to prevent Ukraine from cooperating with the west, then they do want to own it. I'm only interested in realpolitik, what the Russians actually do. It makes no difference what narratives they use to justify themselves, or how "real" or "unreal" Ukraine is. I guess next they'll be invading Narnia and Middle Earth then.

Sorry if I made you out to be a fan boy of Russia, though. I'm not the biggest Putin hater either, for what it's worth. I think he's done some good things for Russia, and he just might be the right man for the job. But it doesn't really matter in the end. By the way, it's easy to do the honorable thing when you have no other options left.

And I'm not saying the western powers have not been messing with Russia and the USSR. That's what all big countries do. It would definitely be good if they could find a new way, maybe sit down and work it out like you said. That's pretty much what the UN was supposed to accomplish as far as I know, so I think someone would have to find a new angle to make it work.

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I am not a historian nor do I live in Europe, but it appears you are putting rose tinted glasses on this.

There is so much disinformation put about the end of the USSR. For the most part it was an agreed split while at the same time a collective security system and free trade area was included so nothing really changed. To this very day Russia and most of the FSU are totally dependent on each other and share economic development and military alliances and bases. Nothing has changed really, apart from the Nazi leaning Baltic states going back to central European overlords and Ukraine being taken over by a western orchestrated coup.

originally posted by: MteWamp
Providing lethal weapons? You mean as opposed to the NON-lethal kind? Isn't lethality kinda the point?

to separate them from weapons of mass destruction. these are "only" lethal.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: ufoorbhunter


I'm not the biggest Putin hater either, for what it's worth. I think he's done some good things for Russia, and he just might be the right man for the job.

Same here, Putin may not be perfect but he has done good for a Russia that was emerging from what can only call a death rattle of very near strangulation by the west namely USA and my country the UK. It does make one wonder what would have happened if Putin hadn't taken control. Yeltsin was pissed all the time and the whole thing was going tits up with oligarchs stealing the wealth of the FSU. Left another couple of years Yeltsin style I really do believe Russia itself would have split into regions just how the west manged to split the USSR and Yugolslavia in the same manner. Putin is a strong leader of the old school and without his leadership who knows where we'd be today with all those thousands of nukes getting into the wrong hands.

Growing up there was a balance of power in the world and anything daft getting out of control was sorted by either the USSR or USA. At the same time there was no real hassle from the Asians and new kids on the bloc, the west and the east ruled the roost. We had pretty decent economy here in the UK people had jobs we had a decent manufacturing sector. The USA was the same boat as were the USSR which guaranteed a job for everyone. The USSR was a marvel at the time. Its engineering was amazing planes like the Antonov 124 and Mig 31 blew our western minds. Film led the new world. Its art was/still is totally revolutionary. Moscow set nearly all the firsts in space just a generation after the SU emerged from what was a pre WW1 feudal state, plus this new idea of socialism being put into practice that was a wonder to the world while being a threat to the fat capitalists in the west. The USSR even saved us all from hell on earth with the Nazis if it weren't for Russia Germany would have taken my country and probably killed us all in the long run. Thirty million dies but the USSR saved us from hell.

The world needs a strong Russia, hopefully the west can accept that Moscow needs to be given its sphere of influence in the world and work with Russia to create a better world.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
There is so much disinformation put about the end of the USSR. For the most part it was an agreed split while at the same time a collective security system and free trade area was included so nothing really changed.

Actually, everything changed.

The jack-boot of Russian repression was lifted from Eastern Europe and other places. In their place democracy took hold and sovereign nations chose to turn heir back on Russia. If Russia thought that these European nations would stay in the Russian sphere then they were living in dream land.

The Russians did create the CIS, but that was focussed on non European nations, in the main.

The world needs a strong Russia, hopefully the west can accept that Moscow needs to be given its sphere of influence in the world and work with Russia to create a better world.

Russia is not economically strong (GDP the size of South Korea), so what can they really offer the world? They need to earn their "sphere of influence" and deal with nations as sovereign equals. If Russia wants to be part of a better world then they need to grow up.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I may be totally wrong, apologies if I am or if this has been posted. . . .



When the USSR broke up, the Ukraine had nukes. A team of US politicians (including then senator Barak Obama) talked the new Ukranian government into giving up all their nukes with the condition that, if attacked, the US would defend them.

Obama went back on that treaty.

Trump is actually doing more towards that treaty.

If memory serves.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Ukraine gained its independence in '91. Obama definitely wasn't a Senator at that point.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ukraine gained its independence in '91. Obama definitely wasn't a Senator at that point.

It was 2005.

fas.org...

a reply to: DBCowboy

The Budapest Memorandum, the agreement that led to Ukraine getting rid of their nuclear weapons in exchange for a defensive pact, was signed in 1994.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

The Budapest Memorandum, the agreement that led to Ukraine getting rid of their nuclear weapons in exchange for a defensive pact, was signed in 1994.

Nukes and T-160 strategic bombers. However the Budapest referendum never specified Ukraine borders and Russia did not accept Crimea as Ukrainian territory.

a reply to: yommm

Actually it did specify the borders.

According to the memorandum,[14] Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:

Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and the existing borders.[15]
Refrain from the threat or use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, "if Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.[11][16]

Ironically the border guarantee was not the only section Russia violated.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You just have to cherry pick.

Russia kept its Naval Base as part of the agreement.

CIA toppled the previous Government, Russia responded to the threat to its Fleet Operations.

What else did you expect Russia to do?

You are so one sided.

P

originally posted by: yommm
However the Budapest referendum never specified Ukraine borders and Russia did not accept Crimea as Ukrainian territory.

1. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances(to give it its proper name) was not an agreement on borders per se, it was an agreement on Ukraine in giving up nukes for guarantees of peace.
2. What "specified" the Ukrainian borders was their independence in 1991. It's worrying revisionism to say that Russia never agreed Crimea was a part of Ukraine when they agreed the borders in 1991.
3. If anything, the Budapest Memorandum consecrated the territory of Ukraine by building on the Helsinki Accords
4. Russian interference (both politically, economic and militarily) in Ukraine, coupled with their invasion and annexation of Crimea is in direct contravention of the Budapest accord.

Too much RT.com methinks?

originally posted by: Theprodicalson
And Russia in retaliation will now start selling weapons to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan....

The cycle of proxy war continuing.


No one will win. Except American and Russian arm dealers.

Wrong both of those would be counter to Russian interests. They aren't going to hurt themselves thats just stupid.

originally posted by: pheonix358
Russia kept its Naval Base as part of the agreement.

The naval base at Sevastopol was leased to Russia. It was Russian only as part of a contract. When the lease came up for renewal the Ukrainian authorities decided not to renew it. Ukraine gave notice to Russia in 2009 that the lease would not be renewed and would end in 2017. The discredited former Ukraine President - who we now know was on Russian payroll - extended the lease in 2010 for 25 years.

I bring attention to the above only to demonstrate that Sevastopol was leased and not owned by Russia. Of course, now Russia have illegally taken control of the entirety of Crimea the lease was burned along with the law by Russia troops.

a reply to: paraphi

I seriously don't get how people can continue to claim the annexation of Crimea was legitimate when not even Russia's supposed ally China is willing to back the move.

a reply to: pheonix358

No just presenting the facts that others ignore because it doesn't support their false reality.It is not cherry picking when someone claims the Budapest agreement didn't include Ukraine's borders when it clearly did.

Secondly it is not Russian base. The base belonged to Ukraine and was in turn leased to Russia before Russia opted to shred the agreement, violate their lease, violate Ukraine's sovereignty and in turn occupied Crimea and 2 provinces.

the CIA didnt topple anything and repeating the lie put out by Russia to somehow justify its illegal invasion and occupation doesnt work (although it apparently works on Russians and those who are weak wiled and stupid).

Russia is the largest country on the planet in terms of territory. No country or organization wants to invade / occupy russia. What is going in is Putin is unable to accept the fact they arent a superpower anymore, that the USSR lost the cold war and all the countries the USSR lied to and then occupied want nothing to do with them anymore.

Putin is incapable of existing in this world and is desperately trying to cling to the 1980's.

If you think the facts make me one sided then thats your problem.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: paraphi

I seriously don't get how people can continue to claim the annexation of Crimea was legitimate when not even Russia's supposed ally China is willing to back the move.

Neither did Belarus.

Of course Russian apologists invoke the russiaophobe lie to undermine the truth and reality of it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: paraphi

I seriously don't get how people can continue to claim the annexation of Crimea was legitimate when not even Russia's supposed ally China is willing to back the move.

Neither did Belarus.

Of course Russian apologists invoke the russiaophobe lie to undermine the truth and reality of it.

Russia is a super power. Russia don't need Belarus backing. Crimea was illegally taken from Russia and given to Ukraine by Khruschev. Russia had the right to take it back.

If the UN general secretary takes California from America and gives it to China, yeah you bet Americans would be pissed and would try to take it back.