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]

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

James Baker: "not one inch eastward"

It's referring to NATO forces in East Germany after reunification before the collapse of USSR.


There still is no NATO presence in East Germany to this day.

You're not good at this propaganda malarkey comrade.

Also, Russia didn't exist either in 1990.


Anymore debunked pro Russian lies you'd like to share with everyone ?

 

[IlovethePies]

It's referring to NATO forces in East Germany after reunification before the collapse of USSR.


There still is no NATO presence in East Germany to this day.

You're not good at this propaganda malarkey comrade.

Also, Russia didn't exist either in 1990.


Anymore debunked pro Russian lies you'd like to share with everyone ?

You are ridiculous in your attempts to ward off the truth with stupid nitpicking side points of no significance.

 

[Zidane98]

You are ridiculous in your attempts to ward off the truth with stupid nitpicking side points of no significance.

Says thr person trying to amplify Russian lies about NATO expansion.

It is an absolute fact that there never was any such agreement with the USSR. Let alone the so called Russian Federation dictatorship of today.

 

[IlovethePies]

Says thr person trying to amplify Russian lies about NATO expansion.

It is an absolute fact that there never was any such agreement with the USSR. Let alone the so called Russian Federation dictatorship of today.

Yawn.... I'm tired, I want to read something that actually makes sense so I can wake up again...

 

[wannabejack]

I am not on Russia's side. I am explaining that this situation cannot be resolved under capitalism, because NATO/US are intent on overthrowing the Putin government using Ukrainians as their cannon fodder.

Likewise, Putin - and the ruling class of Russia allied to him - are intent on ensuring their own survival, and if they judge that the conventional missiles/drones/vacuum bombs raining down on them are an existential threat, Putin will face unbearable pressure to respond in the only way it can see to try to stop the avalanche.

What could this be? It could be a conventional attack on German military installations, because Germany is a strong backer of the US/NATO war.

It could be a small nuclear weapon on Kiev, to warn Germany, London etc that if you dont stop, you/re next.

And what happens then?

Will NATO and the US refrain from a nuclear counterresponse? According to your arguments, they will....because otherwise that would unleash a nuclear Armageddon.

So to turn your insane logic back on yourself, Russia should use a nuclear weapon to stop the US /NATO war drive, because - since NATO will never dare respond with a nuclear weapon, it will stop the war for fear of more Russian nuclear attacks.(?)

The entire argument that Putin would never dare because it would unleash Armageddon is stupid in extreme, and quite frankly it is criminally irresponsible and psychopathically insane. It is a threat to the very existence of mankind.

There is only one way out, and that is to abolish the system that is creating the drive to war: capitalism.

You’ve got your own strange storyline going here.
“NATO/US are intent on overthrowing the Putin government using Ukrainians as their cannon fodder.” There was no war until russia invaded. If NATO/US wanted to overthrow Putin’s government why do they place restrictions on the weapons they give Ukraine, why do they give Ukraine their cast off weapons.

And your solution is to get rid of capitalism. Now that is "insane logic".

 

[Mobbs]

You are ridiculous in your attempts to ward off the truth with stupid nitpicking side points of no significance.

Exposing the myth of Western betrayal of Russia over NATO’s eastern enlargement

Thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is still peddling the old myth of Western betrayal of Russia by expanding NATO eastward after the end of the Cold War. Both Vladimir Puti…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

 

[Zidane98]

You’ve got your own strange storyline going here.
“NATO/US are intent on overthrowing the Putin government using Ukrainians as their cannon fodder.” There was no war until russia invaded. If NATO/US wanted to overthrow Putin’s government why do they place restrictions on the weapons they give Ukraine, why do they give Ukraine their cast off weapons.

And your solution is to get rid of capitalism. Now that is "insane logic".

They'd also invade Russia on the Finland & Baltic borders plus send enough troops to Ukraine to turn Russia's current 5-1 advantage over Ukraine into just a 2-1 advantage.


Anyone claiming NATO are expanding to threaten Russia is clearly repeating debunked Russian propaganda. It's nonsense.

 

[Mobbs]

Yawn.... I'm tired, I want to read something that actually makes sense so I can wake up again...

I'm also tired. Let's relax with images of a Muskovy apologist's arseh*le everytime they bring unsupported claims to an evidence fight.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I am not on Russia's side. I am explaining that this situation cannot be resolved under capitalism, because NATO/US are intent on overthrowing the Putin government using Ukrainians as their cannon fodder.

Likewise, Putin - and the ruling class of Russia allied to him - are intent on ensuring their own survival, and if they judge that the conventional missiles/drones/vacuum bombs raining down on them are an existential threat, Putin will face unbearable pressure to respond in the only way it can see to try to stop the avalanche.

What could this be? It could be a conventional attack on German military installations, because Germany is a strong backer of the US/NATO war.

It could be a small nuclear weapon on Kiev, to warn Germany, London etc that if you dont stop, you/re next.

And what happens then?

Will NATO and the US refrain from a nuclear counterresponse? According to your arguments, they will....because otherwise that would unleash a nuclear Armageddon.

So to turn your insane logic back on yourself, Russia should use a nuclear weapon to stop the US /NATO war drive, because - since NATO will never dare respond with a nuclear weapon, it will stop the war for fear of more Russian nuclear attacks.(?)

The entire argument that Putin would never dare because it would unleash Armageddon is stupid in extreme, and quite frankly it is criminally irresponsible and psychopathically insane. It is a threat to the very existence of mankind.

There is only one way out, and that is to abolish the system that is creating the drive to war: capitalism.

Don’t worry mate, China won’t give Russia permission to use Nukes.

 

[IlovethePies]

I'm also tired. Let's relax with images of a Muskovy apologist's arseh*le everytime they bring unsupported claims to an evidence fight.
View attachment 2138683

Everyone to his own. You can relax with an arseh*le if you like, certainly would seem to be a like match.

 

[IlovethePies]

You’ve got your own strange storyline going here.
“NATO/US are intent on overthrowing the Putin government using Ukrainians as their cannon fodder.” There was no war until russia invaded. If NATO/US wanted to overthrow Putin’s government why do they place restrictions on the weapons they give Ukraine, why do they give Ukraine their cast off weapons.

And your solution is to get rid of capitalism. Now that is "insane logic".

So you think the conflict between Russia and Ukraine/NATO began the day Russia invaded Ukraine?
That is where you are utterly wrong.
You are ignoring 30 years of previous history which led to the conditions for this war.
If you are going to blinker yourself to the offical propaganda, ie everything began the day Putin invaded Ukraine, then you a
a) you will understand absolutely nothing about this war
b) you will remain a sucker for US/NATO imperialist propaganda.

It is your decision whether you remain blinkered, or make a conscious effort to tear those blinkers off by finding out about the history leading up to this conflict, and adopting a critical attitude to the official narrative.

 

[Mobbs]

So you think the conflict between Russia and Ukraine/NATO began the day Russia invaded Ukraine?
That is where you are utterly wrong.
You are ignoring 30 years of previous history which led to the conditions for this war.
If you are going to blinker yourself to the offical propaganda, ie everything began the day Putin invaded Ukraine, then you a
a) you will understand absolutely nothing about this war
b) you will remain a sucker for US/NATO imperialist propaganda.

It is your decision whether you remain blinkered, or make a conscious effort to tear those blinkers off by finding out about the history leading up to this conflict, and adopting a critical attitude to the official narrative.

Yeltsin tried to revise history while history was still current Straight-up trying to tell everyone that the agreement said this and that, while everyone else pointed at the same agreement and asked him to show them where. And his response: "It's just the vibe"

Oppression of Ukraine by Moscow began way longer than 30 years ago.

"There would have been no war if Russia had not invaded." is a true statement. Although Russia would inevitably invade someone else if not Ukraine, so from that perspective you can use semantics. There would have been "a" war, as Moscovy just cannot help itself.

I'm surprised you haven't brought up the "one inch eastward" talking point and attempted to dust the wrong off it.

 

[Zidane98]

So you think the conflict between Russia and Ukraine/NATO began the day Russia invaded Ukraine?
That is where you are utterly wrong.
You are ignoring 30 years of previous history which led to the conditions for this war.
If you are going to blinker yourself to the offical propaganda, ie everything began the day Putin invaded Ukraine, then you a
a) you will understand absolutely nothing about this war
b) you will remain a sucker for US/NATO imperialist propaganda.

It is your decision whether you remain blinkered, or make a conscious effort to tear those blinkers off by finding out about the history leading up to this conflict, and adopting a critical attitude to the official narrative.

It began when your comrades launched a policy of Russification in Donbas back in the 1800s. Continued in the 1930s when Moscow deliberately starved millions of Ukrainians to death and continued to 2914 onwards when a fascist Russian dictator Putin thought that Ukraine was really Russian & invaded.

Thus continues until now with a full scale invasion of,Russia including mass deportation of children, filtration camps, rape, murder & torture by Russian soldiers of Ukranians for daring to be Ukraine and speak Ukrainian in Ukraine.

These are the people you support

 

[Mobbs]

It began when your comrades launched a policy of Russification in Donbas back in the 1800s. Continued in the 1930s when Moscow deliberately starved millions of Ukrainians to death and continued to 2914 onwards when a fascist Russian dictator Putin thought that Ukraine was really Russian & invaded.

Thus continues until now with a full scale invasion of,Russia including mass deportation of children, filtration camps, rape, murder & torture by Russian soldiers of Ukranians for daring to be Ukraine and speak Ukrainian in Ukraine.

These are the people you support

2914 might be a typo. Also might be a prediction!

But they are one and same people, Zidane! The only differences between Moscovites and Ukrainians are like, pretty much everything.

 

[wannabejack]

So you think the conflict between Russia and Ukraine/NATO began the day Russia invaded Ukraine?
That is where you are utterly wrong.
You are ignoring 30 years of previous history which led to the conditions for this war.
If you are going to blinker yourself to the offical propaganda, ie everything began the day Putin invaded Ukraine, then you a
a) you will understand absolutely nothing about this war
b) you will remain a sucker for US/NATO imperialist propaganda.

It is your decision whether you remain blinkered, or make a conscious effort to tear those blinkers off by finding out about the history leading up to this conflict, and adopting a critical attitude to the official narrative.

You read into things you want to read.
You say I’m “utterly wrong” but you are the one who is “blinkered”. I used the word “war”. Some how in that twisted mind of yours you decide I meant conflict. Well no, I meant war.

Some say the war started in 2022 but it was a major escalation of the war, which started in 2014. It didn’t start 30 years ago.
Even the “conflict” between russia and Ukraine speakers has gone on for more than 30 years (“centuries of conflict”).
“The minister of internal affairs [russia] issued a decree in 1863 banning publication and instruction in the Ukrainian language that remained in force until 1905. Ukrainian writers and activists, such as Taras Shevchenko, regarded as the father of Ukrainian literature, were arrested and exiled.”

You “understand absolutely nothing” about the conflict between russia and Ukraine. It’s about the survival of a people who want to to be Ukrainians and not “little russians”.

 

[Rob R]

I am not on Russia's side. I am explaining that this situation cannot be resolved under capitalism, because NATO/US are intent on overthrowing the Putin government using Ukrainians as their cannon fodder.

Likewise, Putin - and the ruling class of Russia allied to him - are intent on ensuring their own survival, and if they judge that the conventional missiles/drones/vacuum bombs raining down on them are an existential threat, Putin will face unbearable pressure to respond in the only way it can see to try to stop the avalanche.

What could this be? It could be a conventional attack on German military installations, because Germany is a strong backer of the US/NATO war.

It could be a small nuclear weapon on Kiev, to warn Germany, London etc that if you dont stop, you/re next.

And what happens then?

Will NATO and the US refrain from a nuclear counterresponse? According to your arguments, they will....because otherwise that would unleash a nuclear Armageddon.

So to turn your insane logic back on yourself, Russia should use a nuclear weapon to stop the US /NATO war drive, because - since NATO will never dare respond with a nuclear weapon, it will stop the war for fear of more Russian nuclear attacks.(?)

The entire argument that Putin would never dare because it would unleash Armageddon is stupid in extreme, and quite frankly it is criminally irresponsible and psychopathically insane. It is a threat to the very existence of mankind.

There is only one way out, and that is to abolish the system that is creating the drive to war: capitalism.

I am not Russia's side but everything Putin says and does is true and justified .........

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Aussie in exile]

The West is arming Ukraine with long range missiles to hit targets deep inside Russia. If the Putin regime considers that to be an existential threat, it will use nuclear weapons.
What would Washington do if Russian proxies were launching conventional weapons across the Mexican border into the heartland of the USA?

The issue with your posts is that you don/t think anything through.

Has the West threated Russia with nuclear weapons like Russia has Ukraine, Yes or no.

 

[Aussie in exile]

So you think the conflict between Russia and Ukraine/NATO began the day Russia invaded Ukraine?
That is where you are utterly wrong.
You are ignoring 30 years of previous history which led to the conditions for this war.
If you are going to blinker yourself to the offical propaganda, ie everything began the day Putin invaded Ukraine, then you a
a) you will understand absolutely nothing about this war
b) you will remain a sucker for US/NATO imperialist propaganda.

It is your decision whether you remain blinkered, or make a conscious effort to tear those blinkers off by finding out about the history leading up to this conflict, and adopting a critical attitude to the official narrative.

Be honest. Little Legs thought Russia would be in Kiev within 3 days of it's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the exercise has failed and all Little Legs is doing is sending 100's of 100'000 of Russian soldiers to their deaths.
Putin like all little men suffers from little man syndrome

 

[Aussie in exile]

...and what about the agreement that NATO would never expand to Russia's borders, that dated back to the same time??

Post the link to that so we can all see it.
IF you can't post the link it will confirm what we already know and that is there isn't one.
So come on i challenge you to post the link if one exists.

 

[Aussie in exile]

The West is arming Ukraine with long range missiles to hit targets deep inside Russia. If the Putin regime considers that to be an existential threat, it will use nuclear weapons.
What would Washington do if Russian proxies were launching conventional weapons across the Mexican border into the heartland of the USA?

The issue with your posts is that you don/t think anything through.

Is Iran and North Korea arming Russia with long range missles, yes or no?

 

[Aussie in exile]

For all the lightminded airheads out there who think that Russia would never dare use nuclear weapons, and so NATO can just go on arming Ukraine with more and more lethal and far ranging weapons forever without consequence:

Putin outlines new rules for Russian use of vast nuclear arsenal

Comments appear to significantly lower the threshold for Russia to use its vast nuclear arsenal.

www.aljazeera.com

IF Russia was to start to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine the West would retailiate and wipe Russia off the map with 24 hours, and Little Legs knows this, but knowing Little Legs he would probably be hiding in Iran or North Korea, who as you know have been supplying Russia with long range weapons.

 

[jatz14]

For all the lightminded airheads out there who think that Russia would never dare use nuclear weapons, and so NATO can just go on arming Ukraine with more and more lethal and far ranging weapons forever without consequence:

Putin outlines new rules for Russian use of vast nuclear arsenal

Comments appear to significantly lower the threshold for Russia to use its vast nuclear arsenal.

www.aljazeera.com

Oh my god. Russia might use nukes. Those disgusting imperialist capatilist pigs must be stopped. Death to America.

Is that how it goes?

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Andre]

The West is arming Ukraine with long range missiles to hit targets deep inside Russia. If the Putin regime considers that to be an existential threat, it will use nuclear weapons.
What would Washington do if Russian proxies were launching conventional weapons across the Mexican border into the heartland of the USA?

The issue with your posts is that you don/t think anything through.

A) The Ukrainians aren't US proxies.
B) Which follows from, for this to be a valid comparison, the US would first have had to have invaded Mexico.

Russia could withdraw it's forces back to Russia tomorrow and say it's not going to attack again and the war would be over. Ukraine would withdraw it's forces from Russia, any strikes in Russia would stop. There's no existential threat to Russia. As the previous 327 times, the nuclear threats are about trying to limit the West supporting a democracy on Russia's doorstep. Nothing to do with some global anti-Socialist conspiracy, to make baby Russian's drink Capitalism instead of breast milk.