Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread:

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/backdrop-to-the-war-in-ukraine.1302028/ If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Zidane98]

You keep repeating this and I keep linking this, move on man. It's not hard to find out

In April 2005, Viktor Yushchenko returned to Ukraine's military doctrine the mention of Ukraine's strategic goal – "full membership in NATO and the European Union." The new text read as follows: "Based on the fact that NATO and the EU are the guarantors of security and stability in Europe, Ukraine is preparing for full membership in these organizations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#Presidency_of_Leonid_Kuchma_(1994–2005)

Ukraine had not joined NATO was it even on the agenda in 2014.

There is an interesting what if history argument here

Yeh, no one wanted Ukraine to keep those nukes, for obvious reasons

If signatories to this agreement knew how Russia would behave 20-30 years later they absolutely would not have signed the treaty. Ukraine retaining its nukes would have been better for security in the area. It has the expertise to maintain them (they manufactured many Soviet era nukes).

It is certain that had Ukraine retained its nuclear arsenal and TU-160 fleet Russia would not dare to invade or attack Ukraine.

The US helping Russia get its hands on Ukranian nukes was a shocking geopolitical blunder that did the opposite of what its intentions were - bring security & stability to the region.

Part of the greater Polish Lithuanian commonwealth? Unironically this could end up being something for a west Ukrainian province

A vague reference to debunked Russian propaganda about Poland wanting Ukranian territory. Which of course is nonsense.

You keep repeating this and I keep linking this, move on man. It's not hard to find out

In April 2005, Viktor Yushchenko returned to Ukraine's military doctrine the mention of Ukraine's strategic goal – "full membership in NATO and the European Union." The new text read as follows: "Based on the fact that NATO and the EU are the guarantors of security and stability in Europe, Ukraine is preparing for full membership in these organizations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#Presidency_of_Leonid_Kuchma_(1994–2005)

Nope.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

"From 2010 to 2014, Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression. In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine's Constitution entered into force."

In other words, Ukraine tried being non aligned. The price that Ukraine paid was being invaded because it wanted to pursue economic ties with Europe over being subjugated by Russia. The constitution didn't even allow the possibility of NATO membership until 2019.

 

[wannabejack]

...

In other words, Ukraine tried being non aligned. The price that Ukraine paid was being invaded because it wanted to pursue economic ties with Europe over being subjugated by Russia. The constitution didn't even allow the possibility of NATO membership until 2019.

Sweden tried being non aligned. Sweden wasn’t willing to pay the price. Sweden became a member of NATO. Like other NATO countries Sweden hasn’t been invaded.

Whether you’re a fan of NATO or not the only chance you have of not being invaded by russia is to join NATO, go nuclear or become russia’s puppet.

 

[barreness]

Ukraine had not joined NATO was it even on the agenda in 2014.

of course they hadn't joined NATO, they don't want them really, too spicy. They did try though, which was your argument

If signatories to this agreement knew how Russia would behave 20-30 years later they absolutely would not have signed the treaty. Ukraine retaining its nukes would have been better for security in the area.

Lol, they were soviet nukes, not Ukrainian. The US was very clear on this, as was Russia; No one wanted 3000 nukes in the hands of a poor, corrupt nation that had just received capitalist shock doctrine

It has the expertise to maintain them (they manufactured many Soviet era nukes).

Not really, they didn't have the launch codes for a start. The economy was in freefall and has never really recovered, nuclear weapons are pretty costly and the incentive to sell them off to some non state actor/self destructive regime was too high

Ukraine had the infrastructure to build ICBM's and maybe the technical know how for rockets(questionable?). They never had the enrichment capabilities, which is the most difficult step. The USSR was pretty cognisant of splitting up the component manufacture so a satellite state couldn't revolt

It is certain that had Ukraine retained its nuclear arsenal and TU-160 fleet Russia would not dare to invade or attack Ukraine.

Russia bought both the bombers and the black sea fleet, cash money

The US helping Russia get its hands on Ukranian nukes was a shocking geopolitical blunder that did the opposite of what its intentions were - bring security & stability to the region.

lol nah, thousands of nukes in the hands of a barley functional state was in no ones interests

A vague reference to debunked Russian propaganda about Poland wanting Ukranian territory. Which of course is nonsense.

It's a meme man, similar to the Kievan rus stuff you throw out

Nope.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

"From 2010 to 2014, Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression. In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine's Constitution entered into force."

How do you not understand this? 10-14 was under Yanukovych, the neutrality policy was what stopped a Russian invasion. He was overthrown and Crimea was annexed, and so it goes

In other words, Ukraine tried being non aligned. The price that Ukraine paid was being invaded because it wanted to pursue economic ties with Europe over being subjugated by Russia. The constitution didn't even allow the possibility of NATO membership until 2019.

They did, and they weren't invaded. Then the US installed a western backed regime(with grass roots protests too) and they were invaded. The dots really aren't that hard to connect

Maybe neutrality was the way to go

 

[Aussie in exile]

of course they hadn't joined NATO, they don't want them really, too spicy. They did try though, which was your argument

Lol, they were soviet nukes, not Ukrainian. The US was very clear on this, as was Russia; No one wanted 3000 nukes in the hands of a poor, corrupt nation that had just received capitalist shock doctrine

Not really, they didn't have the launch codes for a start. The economy was in freefall and has never really recovered, nuclear weapons are pretty costly and the incentive to sell them off to some non state actor/self destructive regime was too high

Ukraine had the infrastructure to build ICBM's and maybe the technical know how for rockets(questionable?). They never had the enrichment capabilities, which is the most difficult step. The USSR was pretty cognisant of splitting up the component manufacture so a satellite state couldn't revolt

Russia bought both the bombers and the black sea fleet, cash money

lol nah, thousands of nukes in the hands of a barley functional state was in no ones interests

It's a meme man, similar to the Kievan rus stuff you throw out

How do you not understand this? 10-14 was under Yanukovych, the neutrality policy was what stopped a Russian invasion. He was overthrown and Crimea was annexed, and so it goes

They did, and they weren't invaded. Then the US installed a western backed regime(with grass roots protests too) and they were invaded. The dots really aren't that hard to connect

Maybe neutrality was the way to go

So with your thinking you wouldn't object to the US invading a country that installed a Russia backed regime then?