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

 

[IlovethePies]

Also let's stop with the NATO claims. Quite simply they are complete & utter bs. It's embarrassing:

x is not equal to y.
Apples are not equal to oranges.
Finland is not equal to Ukraine.

Ukraine occupies a geostragically critical position in terms of the Russian government's conception of its own national security which Finland does not.

The posters here who keep putting forward Finland supposedly as proof that the war is not between NATO and Russia and simply about Russia expanding its empire should therefore explain why Russia has not invaded Finland to expand its empire? It would have been much easier...far fewer people, far smaller military etc.

 

[IlovethePies]

They are allowing Ukraine to attack military stockpiles, logistics, staging grounds and infrastructure, weakening Russia's ability to attack Ukraine (a defensive act), and hastening the point at which realistic negotiations can take place by forcing Russia to the table with sensible demands (bringing forward a peaceful resolution and ending the senseless loss of life of the working class on both sides).

I'm all for it. Strangely you aren't?

No I am opposed to NATO playing Russian roulette with nuclear war.

I don't agree that NATO should have the right to put human civilisation in danger.

2 years ago Biden said he wouldn''t send tanks to Zelensky because that "would mean World War 3".

Now suddenly he is authorising missile strikes with US equipment and assistance on Russian territory. (It is a non-secret that US military specialists are assisting the ukrainian army in using and maintaining the weaponry).

For 2 years the temperature has been rising slowly as the US and NATO apply the heat, but the frogs in the saucepan have not been noticing it. Will they notice before the water boils over?

 

[rodney86]

All of which could been avoided if Russia had stayed on its side of the border.

 

[IlovethePies]

All of which could been avoided if Russia had stayed on its side of the border.

NATO and the US were always going to start a proxy war against Russia, one way or the other.

 

[Zidane98]

x is not equal to y.
Apples are not equal to oranges.
Finland is not equal to Ukraine.

Ukraine occupies a geostragically critical position in terms of the Russian government's conception of its own national security which Finland does not.

The posters here who keep putting forward Finland supposedly as proof that the war is not between NATO and Russia and simply about Russia expanding its empire should therefore explain why Russia has not invaded Finland to expand its empire? It would have been much easier...far fewer people, far smaller military etc.

Seriously? USSR already invaded Finland tovarisch.

 

[Zidane98]

 

[Zidane98]

Putin's fascist unprovoked invasion has directly lead to Finland seeking NATO membership after being neutral for decades.

It is idiotic on so many levels to argue that Putins invasion is about NATO.

Putin wants a new Russian empire and that includes Ukraine which he publicly states in his deluded mind is a possession of Russia. End of story.

Unfortunately for him the days of empirical expansion are over. All other previous empires are shrinking.

Putin should stick to North Korea, Belarus, Syria & Russia plus central Asian allies.

We don't need another Hitler. Him and his fascism can **** right off out of Ukraine. Anyone who defends his actions is cooked.

 

[IlovethePies]

It is idiotic on so many levels to argue that Putins invasion is about NATO.

It is idiotic on so many levels to argue that Putin's invasion is NOT about Nato.

 

[Zidane98]

Putin's ruining Russia wasting ridiculously high proportions of state money on the military and an invasion that provides absolutely zero benefit to the state of Russia.

Right from day one Putin wanted Ukraine. Here's his former advisor:

I was Putin's adviser. I accused him of crimes to his face

He didn't expect such an affront. We shared a harsh exchange of views, each of us raising the stakes.

www.newsweek.com

Back in 2003 he was already planning a Ukraine takeover / invasion.

No wonder this piece of scum is reviled in the civilised world. Of note back in 2003 Ukraine was a puppet Russian state, under the thumb. Yet here is Vlad plotting a takeover.

 

[wannabejack]

NATO and the US were always going to start a proxy war against Russia, one way or the other.

One would think that if NATO was going to start any kind of war with russia (proxy or not) they would have started increasing military spending long before 2014.


The 2% guideline is a commitment by NATO member countries to spend at least 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense. (the action of defending from or resisting attack)
No spending allocated to attacking.

 

[Jamolad]

No I am opposed to NATO playing Russian roulette with nuclear war.

I don't agree that NATO should have the right to put human civilisation in danger.

2 years ago Biden said he wouldn''t send tanks to Zelensky because that "would mean World War 3".

Now suddenly he is authorising missile strikes with US equipment and assistance on Russian territory. (It is a non-secret that US military specialists are assisting the ukrainian army in using and maintaining the weaponry).

For 2 years the temperature has been rising slowly as the US and NATO apply the heat, but the frogs in the saucepan have not been noticing it. Will they notice before the water boils over?

2 years ago he and others were uncertain whether to believe Putin's bullshit red lines.

Now, we all know Putin is full of shit (I suspect even you do).

It is idiotic on so many levels to argue that Putin's invasion is NOT about Nato.

Correct, it is 100% about NATO.

If Ukraine were part of NATO there would have been no invasion; therefore it is about NATO.

Still no one signing up to your revolution.

 

[IlovethePies]

One would think that if NATO was going to start any kind of war with russia (proxy or not) they would have started increasing military spending long before 2014.
View attachment 2178551View attachment 2178552

The 2% guideline is a commitment by NATO member countries to spend at least 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense. (the action of defending from or resisting attack)
No spending allocated to attacking.

Your graph contradicts the point you are attempting to make.
From 2015 onwards, according to your graph, NATO began expanding military expenditure in an exponential fashion. 2014 was the year of the Maidan coup, which marked the moment when the pro-Russia Yanukovic government was overthrown and a pro-NATO government was installed.

This was the time at which the NATO powers began consciously and systematically preparing for just such a proxy war.

 

[IlovethePies]

2 years ago he and others were uncertain whether to believe Putin's bullshit red lines.

Now, we all know Putin is full of shit (I suspect even you do).

So you know for sure that Putin will never react to the escalating military aggression of NATO with a nuclear weapon?
You'd want to be really, really, really sure.
Because your fate and mine depend on it.

How do you know with utter certainty that one day in the future, with conventional NATO weapons raining down on Moscow, Putin will not be forced to prove that his red lines are not bs?

Today's Ukrainian attacks on Russian military dumps, military installations etc will tomorrow become attacks on Russian civilian centres. (I suspect even you know that).

 

[wannabejack]

Your graph contradicts the point you are attempting to make.
From 2015 onwards, according to your graph, NATO began expanding military expenditure in an exponential fashion. 2014 was the year of the Maidan coup, which marked the moment when the pro-Russia Yanukovic government was overthrown and a pro-NATO government was installed.

This was the time at which the NATO powers began consciously and systematically preparing for just such a proxy war.

This decision was taken in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea.
Following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, NATO countries committed to the goal of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.

So you’re saying that these countries joined NATO to participate in your proxy war.
Sweden 2024. (Sweden was neutral in armed conflicts for over 200 years)
Finland 2023. (was militarily non-aligned)
North Macedonia 2020
Montenegro 2017

If NATO wanted to go to war with russia they would let Ukraine join NATO now

 

[IlovethePies]

^As regards military expenditure, from 2014 to February 2022 the US alone spent $2.8 billion in military aid to Ukraine - an average of $350 million per year. This amounted to 10% of Ukraine's own annual military budget from 2014 to 2017, until the year 2018 when Ukraine's military expenditure really took off in a big way. Since 2022 alone, the US has supplied $64 billion in military aid to Ukraine.

This decision was taken in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea.
Following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, NATO countries committed to the goal of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.

So you’re saying that these countries joined NATO to participate in your proxy war.
Sweden 2024. (Sweden was neutral in armed conflicts for over 200 years)
Finland 2023.
North Macedonia 2020
Montenegro 2017

If NATO wanted to go to war with russia they would let Ukraine join NATO now

The Russian annexation of Crimea was triggered by the installation of a hostile anti-Russia pro NATO government in Ukraine. I am not justifying the annexation, I am simply explaining to you that it was a consequence of the Maidan coup.

Russia's annexation of Crimea then became the basis for further military training and arming of the Ukrainian army by the NATO powers.

 

[Jamolad]

Today's Ukrainian attacks on Russian military dumps, military installations etc will tomorrow become attacks on Russian civilian centres. (I suspect even you know that).

No, I don't know that, and I have seen absolutely zero to suggest that Ukraine will attack civilians. In fact I would say attacking civilian targets would see the support to strike targets in Russia rescinded (an actual red line that would have consequences if crossed).

There has only been one side in this conflict attacking civilian centres and murdering innocent unarmed civilians (the same side that also looted their own citizen's homes and businesses). I suspect even you know that

 

[RonSon]

Never has a post contained more lies than this one.

Here is the truth:

a) Fascists exist in both the Russian and the Ukrainian armies, likewise in both the Russian and the Ukrainian governments.
b) Russia is not seeking to "advance an empire". Russia is seeking guarantees from NATO that Ukraine will not be used as a platform to undermine, destabilise, militarily attack Russia and overthrow the Putin regime.
c) The biggest threat to peace and security are the NATO powers, and primarily the US, which aim at nothing less than the dismemberment of Russia and the seizure and control of all its critical mineral wealth and other raw materials.
d) The only parallels with Hitler are those between the US government and its NATO allies. Their attempt to colonise Russia resembles that of Operation Barbarossa.
e) The Putin government is a dictatorial and criminal regime, but just as much so is that of Zelensky. Both the Putin and Zelensky regimes represent the interests of criminal capitalist oligarchs who profited out of the liquidation of the former Soviet Union. This war represents a struggle between these two bands of criminal oligarchs, with the US and NATO supporting the Ukrainian oligarchs with the aim of seizing the wealth of the Russian oligarchs who stand behind Putin.

I would love to have seen if you were able to type b) without laughing.

 

[Zidane98]

Never change do the Russians.

Will there ever be a day they try and expand their power base by bilateral means? You know actual diplomacy, nation building projects?

 

[Zidane98]

The differences here couldn't be more stark.

Assad, like his Russian handlers are cowards. Real leaders stay and fight fascist invaders who are trying to impose their empire on them.

 

[Zidane98]

I would love to have seen if you were able to type b) without laughing.

Of course Russia isn't trying to advance its empire.

Being surrounded by special military operations, wars & invasions for the last 25 years is just an unfortunate coincidence.

 

[tricknologist]

The differences here couldn't be more stark.

Assad, like his Russian handlers are cowards. Real leaders stay and fight fascist invaders who are trying to impose their empire on them.

It really does make for a stark contrast. Zelensky stood his ground because he knew the Ukrainian military and the general population were filling to fight for self-determination. Assad fled because, like all third world dictators, his military was only good for brutalising local civilians and the general population wasn't willing to fight for him. The Gaddafi treatment was awaiting him if he stayed (and rightfully so).

 

[IlovethePies]

Of course Russia isn't trying to advance its empire.

Being surrounded by special military operations, wars & invasions for the last 25 years is just an unfortunate coincidence.

Let's look at who has been "surrounded by miitary operations, wars and invasions for the last 25 years. Let's look at who is truly attempting to "advance its empire".
It's not Russia mate, it's the US.
a) 1998 bombardment of Serbia
b) 2001 invasion of Afghanistan
c) 2003 invasion of Iraq
d) 2011 bombardment of Libya
e) 2014 bombardment of Syria
f) 2014 intervention via proxies (Saudi Arabia) in Yemen civil war
g) 2014 to now: arming, equipping, training of Ukrainian proxies in war against Russia
h) 2023 to now: ongoing arming, and politically controlling the Israeli genocide in Gaza

Now count how many US military bases are spread across the globe compared with Russian bases.
The image below shows the distribution of bases.

Which one do you think looks like it is trying to "expand its empire"?

I don't see any Russian military bases virtually on the border of the US.

You have no understanding of reality.

 

[jatz14]

x is not equal to y.
Apples are not equal to oranges.
Finland is not equal to Ukraine.

Ukraine occupies a geostragically critical position in terms of the Russian government's conception of its own national security which Finland does not.

The posters here who keep putting forward Finland supposedly as proof that the war is not between NATO and Russia and simply about Russia expanding its empire should therefore explain why Russia has not invaded Finland to expand its empire? It would have been much easier...far fewer people, far smaller military etc.

Russia occupies a geostratically critical position to Ukraine, which Finland does not.

What should Ukraine do about that?

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Chief]

Ukraine occupies a geostragically critical position in terms of the Russian government's conception of its own national security which Finland does not.

So "NATO on our borders" is just Russian bullshit.

"Ukraine not being under our boot heel" is closer to the truth.

 

[Chief]

The posters here who keep putting forward Finland supposedly as proof that the war is not between NATO and Russia and simply about Russia expanding its empire should therefore explain why Russia has not invaded Finland to expand its empire? It would have been much easier...far fewer people, far smaller military etc.

Finland isn't a step towards their best shot at a defendable empire?