Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 2

a reply to: musicismagic

Temporary detention on suspicion of spying German Ambassador to Japan

Really? Wow.

Cheers

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: musicismagic
Russian hardliners insist on “use of small nuclear weapons”

There is no such thing as a "small" nuke.

Any use of a nuke will lead to the economic destruction of Russia for a generation, and all involved being hunted as war criminals. Hopefully, Putin will be assassinated the moment he tries to order the use of a nuke. He won't survive the cruise missile, though!

They will not go after Putin even if he uses nukes. The likely scenario is NATO has told Rusia use of nukes will cause NATO troops to expell Russia from Ukraine and loss of the black sea fleet.

If this is triggered within a week all Ukrainian territory will be returned including Crimea.

I doubt Russia could last 3 days against a coalition force. They can't fight at night and western troops can.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: musicismagic
Russian hardliners insist on “use of small nuclear weapons”

There is no such thing as a "small" nuke.

Any use of a nuke will lead to the economic destruction of Russia for a generation, and all involved being hunted as war criminals. Hopefully, Putin will be assassinated the moment he tries to order the use of a nuke. He won't survive the cruise missile, though!

Technically, today you can use a low yield nuke to devastate a battle field without destroying the region completely.
And it would be low in relative terms, compared to the systems of highest yield.

Tactical vs Strategic

You wanna know the irony of it all?
We are all told EU cut off Russian gas right? Well Gazprom found a deal to send gas through Austria anyways. Both Italy and France have filled their gas stockpile to 100%........ talk about sanctions /Facepalm

Also, the EU might not be buying their gas, but Russia doesn't care, they are still selling it elsewhere, and to add to that, EU has increased our diesel imports from Russia by 12% since last years... another /Facepalm.

originally posted by: dragonridr
They will not go after Putin even if he uses nukes.

I agree with all you say, except this.

I think if Putin uses a nuke, or even chemical/bioweapons at scale, he will have crossed the proverbial "Rubicon". Nato would make short order of Russian forces in Ukraine and impose order, and I am sure Putin would be quickly "dealt with", either at the hands of a fellow Russian, or at the hands of a Western initiative. Either way, his days would be numbered, alongside the whole chain of command that pressed the button.

a reply to: BigfootNZ

The Ukraine military is certainly trained up by NATO regardless of actual numbers on the ground. Well British instructors maybe others too, in bases in Britain and Poland. NATO weaponry supplied to them too. Add that to security guarantees nothe being given to the Russians regarding stationing NATO military and nukes in Ukraine and one really does understand why Moscow is getting a little narky about what it has sees happening on the other side of the border.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter


Russia did not respect the earlyer agreements it signed since the Soviet Union break up . Ukraine had huge nuclear arsenal, the deal was it give them to Russia and get security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence . Russia was not going to respect the agreement as we now know, so once it start the terror war against Ukraine, other countrys jumped to help Ukraine .



1994 Trilateral Statement

The Massandra Accords set the stage for the ultimately successful trilateral talks. As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia. Ukraine agreed to transfer its nuclear warheads to Russia and accepted U.S. assistance in dismantling missiles, bombers, and nuclear infrastructure. Ukraine’s warheads would be dismantled in Russia, and Ukraine would receive compensation for the commercial value of the highly enriched uranium. Ukraine ratified START on February 3, 1994, repealing its earlier preconditions, but it would not accede to the NPT without further security assurances.

1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. Parallel memorandums were signed for Belarus and Kazakhstan as well. In response, Ukraine officially acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state on December 5, 1994. That move met the final condition for ratification of START, and on the same day, the five START states-parties exchanged instruments of ratification, bringing the treaty into force.

2009 Joint Declaration by Russia and the United States

Russia and the United States released a joint statement in 2009 confirming that the security assurances made in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum would still be valid after START expired in 2009.



Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

There has never been any NATO troops in Ukraine.
Ukraine was denied membership of NATO and EU.
And there has definitely never been any nuclear or chemical weapons in Ukraine.
Ukraine had to beg for equipment to enable them to fight the invasion.

So, exactly how was Russia threatened?

Just another lame and crap excuse by Putin to justify his paranoia fuelled invasion.

a reply to: Kenzo

In The Budapest Memorandum Russia promised not only to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine but also to NEVER invade Ukraine.
As you rightly point out this was confirmed as recently as 2009.

I have very little faith in the word of any politician, Putin's word is completely worthless.

a reply to: Freeborn

NATO troops may not be there now, but I know US troops were there in 2006 (a few companies at least) for joint training with the Ukrainians. As far as I know, no troops were stationed there. I know this because my unit was supposed to go, but they swapped us with another unit and we went to the Republic of Georgia instead.

a reply to: Freeborn






It`s impossible to trust Putin`s word , and there was this too :

a reply to: Kenzo

Exactly....straight from the horses mouth.

a reply to: SgtEsquire

As far as I'm aware its pretty commonplace for countries to train with each other.
China and Russia have done it a few times, sometimes near relatively sensitive areas and potential flashpoints.

I wouldn't be that surprised to learn that Russian troops have trained at some point with US and/or NATO troops though I have no definite knowledge of this.

That's something quite different to permanently having troops stationed there.

There was no realistic military threat to Russia in Ukraine.
NATO has no desire to invade Russia.

a reply to: Kenzo

You see the whole affair too one sidedly Kenzo. I guess you are a Yank so fair doos, no criticism there, you guys do good generally in the world. yet when dealing with Russia you have shown very little respect to Russia's expectations in its near abroad. You can list all the agreements you want yet the West has sought to destabilise Russia and surround it with NATO bases. From a Russian perspective they are being encircled. You can flip it and see how the Yanks felt when Moscow was positioning nukes into Cuba. That was an exercise to infiltrate the USA backyard, yet Kennedy reacted just like Putin has done here. Russia had its security concerns and these were ignored for years, all the while the Russian minority in Ukraine was being subjucated and made to feel like second class citizens. Russians have their sense of pride, a constant barage by the West namely USA and Britain was always going to get a response at some point in time, but hey that's what the West wanted I guess

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Unfortunately for Putin he's getting more NATO now because of his crazy miscalculations.

a reply to: Freeborn

Ben Wallace has visited Ukraine every year since 2014. A blind man could see the direction Ukraine was being channelled into by outside forces. Once you get a 'coloured' revolution it's NATOfication at some point down the line guaranteed. Check out anywhere it happened. Yankee and British advisors come in, western puppets are installed into government Sakashvilli stayle. As sure as night follows day this was going to happen in Ukraine. Putin had no other choice. You have to take the blinkers off, step in a Russian pair of shoes and look at it from their perspective

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Putin had another choice: don't invade.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

For sure and that's how it goes when dealing with NATO, constant encroachment one way or another.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Putin had another choice: don't invade.

and then what? NATOfication Yanks and Brits on his border for sure

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

So what?

NATO is hardly going to invade Russia.

It's Putin who wants to expand his borders.

Soviet style.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

We are never going to agree on Ukraine just like we will never agree Japan was forced into WW2 by the same western powers devious tactics