Russia Ukraine Update Thread

"Welcome To Hell!"

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Good grief man....how many times.

Sure, in my opinion many of the policy decisions made by numerous US/UK/NATO/EU leaders over the years have contributed to the current situation.
I have stated that repeatedly.

But none of that alters the FACT that Poland felt threatened by Russia and that was its primary driver in seeking admittance into NATO.
In fact as far as I can make out it was the ONLY reason they wanted to join NATO.
transatlanticrelations.org...

I don't know how much - or how little - you know about The Cold War, The Warsaw Pact and life for those trapped behind The Iron Curtain.

I was given a quick look around East Berlin whilst I was in Berlin visiting friends who were working there just before the wall came down, I can't describe just what a bleak miserable place it was....and the people resembled their surroundings.
I like Germany and I like the people....these were a beaten, downtrodden people nothing like those I know.

I remember visiting Prague for the very first time only a couple of years or so later.
I went into a locals bar a little off the beaten track.
Smoke stained walls that were covered in portraits of Brezhnev, Andropov and Soviet insignia etc.....and full of miserable people staring vacantly into their drinks. Their souls destroyed by a lifetime of suppression by their Soviet overlords.
That is no exaggeration.

I've spoken to people all over Eastern Europe, people who lived under Russian rule.
None of them had a good word to say about their experiences under Russia.

And that has never been more pronounced than in my visits to Poland - been to Krakow twice, Warsaw and Gdansk briefly.
The people have a deep fear of Russian expansionism.
Every single Pole I ever spoke to about it, even those here in the UK, has a deep rooted dislike and mistrust of Mother Russia.....and Putin.

I could go on but I have the feeling I'm just banging my head against a wall; The West Bad and nothing anyone can say or show you will change your mind.
All your 'If only', 'what ifs' and 'what aboutisms' change nothing; the people of Eastern Europe have genuine fears about Russian expansionism and Putin's actions are clearly vindicating those fears.

And all of that is smoke in mirrors and has nothing whatsoever to do with Putin's invasion Ukraine and all the subsequent death and destruction.

You keep mixing soviet union and Russian federation as if their rule was the same?

Which is it? Give me clear examples of how Russia rule has oppressed Poland anymore than other nations have oppressed others??

You go on like Russia is this evil imperialist when if I count on one hand how many have died at the hands of Russia and how many nations have been invaded at the hands of the Russian federation it PALES in comparison to USA’s imperialism.

If anything, Historical trend points to the fact that Russia is one of the most invaded nations on record. Did you know Ukraine was part of the soviet union? So any actions the USSR took, Ukraine played a part in. So maybe mention that to your readers before painting Ukraine as this poor innocent victim alongside Poland thats always been prodded poked and pillaged.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Which one?

People are allowed opposing opinions to my own ISeekTruth101, even American experts.

As to sides, well if you don't agree that Putin and by extension Russia are a menace to reality and need to turn tail sharpish and head back home one has to ponder the reasons why?

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

"You keep mixing soviet union and Russian federation as if their rule was the same?"

I think that's a question Vladimir Putin should ponder considering his intensions in the Ukraine.

a reply to: wordforword

Well if the reports are true and Russia does invade Lithuania I would wager Putin is of the mindset that NATO wont do anything because, in Putins mind, the Baltic states are not worth defending. If NATO does not act then Putin will go balls to the walls, at least in Eastern Europe, and reform part of the USSR / Russian Empire.

Making a wager like this is extremely dangerous, especially if NATO does fight back.

I would also say it, in Putins mind, would be an easy victory, although Russia thought the same about Ukraine.

As far as removing Putin a former KGB officer now living in the West talked about that and His explanation made sense. The only way to remove Putin would be for the Russian people to do it. Any action to remove Putin by any external force would backfire, solidifying Putins grasp with the added bump in support from the Russian people.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
How can you make the assertion that US withdrawal from ABM treaty did not sour relations and impact Russia’s behaviour to other treaties in place?? As thats what I am asserting.

Because Putin said it was not a threat to Russia... unless he was lying? Was he? Also, under that treaty Russia actually had there own ABM shield for Moscow and as far as I know it is still in operation.

1. Where did Putin say the withdrawl was not a threat? I have on hand multiple sources including an interview with Putin and CNBC where Putin asserts that US withdrawal from the ABM treaty was a great disappointment and soured the relations between Moscow and Washington, as a nexus point in their relations where things took a turn for the worse.

So please provide a clear statement from Putin where he said “its no threat”

2. So what if Moscow still has ABM shield in operation? What does that have to do with anything? The point or the ABM treaty was to LIMIT the ABM deployments, not ability to have an ABM shield in place. Its a numbers game, controlling the amount on each side among other things. USA gave their reasons tor leaving in order to pursue ABM deployment that otherwise they would violated the treaty in 2002 long before any supposed INF treaty violation.

quote]originally posted by: Xcathdra

Kind of like Putins advisors and ministers who saw no reason to invade Ukraine and didnt support the action? Hell his personal assistant just quit because of the invasion of Ukraine. Withdrawing from the ABM treaty makes sense because the relevant agreements did not cover China (or any of the other declared nuke nations). As I said Putin did not see it as a threat to Russia. He only did recently because it was politically expedient. Russia violated the INF treaty and the US didnt withdraw from it until 2019, 11 years after Russia violated it.

America pulled out of ABM treaty in 2002 long before Russia supposedly violated the INf treaty, and it was called a grave mistake by US policy makers themselves.

You are yet to provide clear statements by Putin saying the withdrawal was not a threat.

And I’ve shares three highly ranked, prominent figures on Us foreign policy who unanimously agree that NATO expansion into eastern europe was a big mistake that would provoke the russians into reacting adversely and that AMERICA recklessly ignored Russias concerns on Ukraine. And this predates everything you have cited.

Starting in 1995 1998 and reaffirmed in 2014 by former us defence secretary

Ukraine Gets 2,700 M72 EC LAW Anti-Tank Weapons Was From Denmark

a reply to: Erno86

The irony being, our own army is not ready for combat at all if we get sucked into a war directly. We are even lacking bullets -.-

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

"You keep mixing soviet union and Russian federation as if their rule was the same?"

I think that's a question Vladimir Putin should ponder considering his intensions in the Ukraine.

Russia... the prequel and sequel to the Soviet Union.

Why 'Cope Cages' On Busted Tanks Are A Symbol Of Russia's Military Failures || 2022

originally posted by: flice
a reply to: Erno86

The irony being, our own army is not ready for combat at all if we get sucked into a war directly. We are even lacking bullets -.-

But are we possibly seeing the end of the "tank war era"?

Methinks so...



Erno

a reply to: Erno86 Yes , ushered in by the era of the drone.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

"You keep mixing soviet union and Russian federation as if their rule was the same?"

I think that's a question Vladimir Putin should ponder considering his intensions in the Ukraine.

Well Putin has already spoken, I’ve heard his side.
Whats yours?

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
1. Where did Putin say the withdrawl was not a threat? I have on hand multiple sources including an interview with Putin and CNBC where Putin asserts that US withdrawal from the ABM treaty was a great disappointment and soured the relations between Moscow and Washington, as a nexus point in their relations where things took a turn for the worse.

So please provide a clear statement from Putin where he said “its no threat”

Russian President Vladimir Putin's response to the U.S. decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty

December 13, 2001

The administration of the United States of America announced today that it is withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with six months' notice

The treaty indeed gives each party the right to withdraw under extraordinary circumstances. The U.S. leadership repeatedly has spoken about that, and this step was not a surprise for us. However, we consider it a mistake

As it is known, Russia like the United States and unlike other nuclear powers, has long had an effective system capable of penetrating missile defenses. So, with full certainty, I can say that the decision made by the President of the United States does not threaten Russia's national security.

At the same time, our country has not agreed to repeated U.S. proposals to jointly withdraw from the ABM treaty and has done all it could to preserve the treaty

I continue to believe now that such a stance is correct and well-founded. Russia first of all has proceeded from a concern for the preservation and strengthening of international legal foundations in the field of disarmament and the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction

The ABM treaty is one of the foundations of the legal system in this sphere. This system has been created by joint efforts over the last decades.

We believe that the logic of modern global developments calls for a certain logic of action.

Now, when the world has confronted new threats, we must not allow a legal vacuum in the sphere of strategic stability. We must not undermine the regime of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

I believe that the existing level of bilateral relations must not only be preserved but used to work out a new framework of strategic relations as soon as possible.

Along with the missile defense issue, especially important in current conditions is the codification of agreements on further radical, irreversible and verifiable cuts in strategic offensive weapons to a level, which we believe should be from 1,500 to 2,200 nuclear warheads for each country.

In conclusion, I would like to note that Russia will further continue to firmly follow its principled course in world affairs, aimed at strengthening strategic stability and international security.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
2. So what if Moscow still has ABM shield in operation? What does that have to do with anything? The point or the ABM treaty was to LIMIT the ABM deployments, not ability to have an ABM shield in place. Its a numbers game, controlling the amount on each side among other things. USA gave their reasons tor leaving in order to pursue ABM deployment that otherwise they would violated the treaty in 2002 long before any supposed INF treaty violation.

The US did not violate the ABM treaty and our exit from it used the mechanisms the treaty required.
Russia DID violate the INF starting in 2008. The US withdrew from the INF treaty in 2019.

As I said before - the ABM treaty and the INF treaty are separate and dont rely on each other to be in force.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
America pulled out of ABM treaty in 2002 long before Russia supposedly violated the INf treaty, and it was called a grave mistake by US policy makers themselves.

The 2 treaties are separate and dont require each other for the treaties to be in force.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
You are yet to provide clear statements by Putin saying the withdrawal was not a threat.

Contrary to what some may think I try to respond to other users questions and not just certain posters.. In this response to your post is the link to Putin speech in 2001 and him saying the US leaving the ABM treaty does not pose a risk to Russian national security.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
And I’ve shares three highly ranked, prominent figures on Us foreign policy who unanimously agree that NATO expansion into eastern europe was a big mistake that would provoke the russians into reacting adversely and that AMERICA recklessly ignored Russias concerns on Ukraine. And this predates everything you have cited.

and yet in the end NATO made NO promises to not expand East. Even President Gorbachev has stated this. When Germany was reunited the only agreement NATO made to the Soviet Union / Russia was to not deploy NATO member troops, other than German, in East Germany to allow the Soviet Union time to withdraw its forces. Again even Gorbachev stated NATO followed through on that promise.


Every time Putin repeats the lie about NATO gets old and confirms the fact that Putin is a liar.

As for you going back to the argument of what Western officials thought about NATO expansion - so what.What is your point? Opinions are like a##holes - everyone has one.

NATO has an open door policy, meaning any country that meets the criteria can petition to join NATO. Since East Europe had the experience of living under Soviet rule for 50+ years, when they finally got out they asked to join NATO to ensure they would never be under Soviet / Russian domination again.

Has anyone thought of telling Putin this is why the former SSR's want nothing to do with Putin/Russia?

Putin's ego / head have gotten so large as of late he could be mistaken as a fugitive from Easter Island.


Now, with all thats been said can we go back to Russia's ill conceived invasion of the Sovereign country of Ukraine? If you wish to debate the treaties more you can start a separate thread so we dont continually derail this thread?

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: flice
a reply to: Erno86

The irony being, our own army is not ready for combat at all if we get sucked into a war directly. We are even lacking bullets -.-

But are we possibly seeing the end of the "tank war era"?

Not the end of tanks, but definitely the end of how russia uses tanks.

New tactics and technology makes tanks still a very useful tool, but they no are longer capable of being used to overrun a battlefield or protect soldiers in urban settings.

This was design goal of the Javelin program.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: McGinty

Truman nuked Japan twice. Was he a madman?

Completely different scenario.

Japan declared war on the USA.
Ukraine didn't attack Russia and had absolutely no intentions of attacking Russia.
NATO hasn't attacked Russia and has repeatedly stated they will only get actively involved if a member nation is invaded.
No mention of using nuclear weapons, at all.

Nuclear bombs had only just been invented.
No-one had actually seen the effects of nuclear weapons.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific....but they were lessons mankind had to learn.
If they hadn't been used then it would only have been a matter of time before someone used one in anger.....possibly with even worse results.

We no longer have that excuse....we know too well what the effects of nuclear war will be, largely because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Which is why no-one has threatened to use them as a first strike option....until now.

Wow, just wow.

The hypocrisy is incredible. Palpable, all human life is equal but the numbers are 1K in ukraine and all of a sudden Putin is the most evil man in history. 1K collateral damage.

And then here we have two Japanese cities filled with purely civilians going about daily life. Sons, moms, dads, husbands, babies, grandparents, wives... being bombed into oblivion by nuclear wepaons.

Purely civilians were attacked, and there progeny were affected vy genetic mutations, babies born disfigured and in pain for decades after.

Attacking military installations and assets OKAY, but civilians? They had nothing to do with war or anything.

Unarmed people. Bombed to death in the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

No justification exists. And if you don’t condemn it then you are just as evil as the people who dropped the bombs.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Hell of a wager to place over people dying and lives being ruined and places being destroyed.

And i don't mean so much with that assassination Putin malarkey but the soldiers on both sides now dying because of his actions

Anyhoo who do you think you are Howard Hughes or Aristotle Onassis?

Just pointing out that I doubt Putin will be assassinated in two months and that the only way to establish peace and end this conflict is by addressing Putins concerns not ignoring him.

And bashing putin russia all day, and arming ukraine is not going to solve anything.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Which one?

People are allowed opposing opinions to my own ISeekTruth101, even American experts.

As to sides, well if you don't agree that Putin and by extension Russia are a menace to reality and need to turn tail sharpish and head back home one has to ponder the reasons why?

Yeah which are the opinions that carry more weight? Those who spend most of their time at McDonalds and on ATS forums? Or those have dedicated careers to foreign policy and decades in experience with handling international relations between global superpowers, not deciding whether to go large or not on McFries?

There are opinions then there are,informed opinions. I side with the latter.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

You keep mixing soviet union and Russian federation as if their rule was the same?

Err, no I don't.
With all due respect maybe that's down to your comprehension skills and lack of historical knowledge?

Same people with same goals; a Greater Russian Empire.

You go on like Russia is this evil imperialist when if I count on one hand how many have died at the hands of Russia and how many nations have been invaded at the hands of the Russian federation it PALES in comparison to USA’s imperialism.

Yet again, we aren't discussing the USA.

If my neighbour went out and killed two random strangers then a couple of weeks later I went and killed a random stranger if, when the police arrested and questioned me, I excused my actions by pointing out that my neighbour had killed two people would the police then say 'Ok, that's alright then, we'll let you go just don't do it again'?

Now in this instance, the here and now, it is Russia that is behaving like the 'evil imperialist'.
Just like they did when it was the USSR.

If anything, Historical trend points to the fact that Russia is one of the most invaded nations on record.

You reckon?
Not as far as I'm aware of.

Did you know Ukraine was part of the soviet union? So any actions the USSR took, Ukraine played a part in.

Are you serious?
You do know Ukraine was forced into the USSR around 1922 if memory serves me right.
Being the student of history you allege to be you will also know about the brutal subjugation the Ukrainian people suffered.
You do of course know about the Holodomor don't you?

So maybe mention that to your readers before painting Ukraine as this poor innocent victim alongside Poland thats always been prodded poked and pillaged

My readers?

They are the innocent victims in this invasion....which is what we are attempting to discuss.