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?

 

[Zidane98]

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

Yep. Apparently it would be fine for NATO, Poland and Baltics to invade Belarus because it's a CSTO member and a direct threat to their security with it being a client state of Putin.


This is barreness logic to a tee.

 

[Zidane98]

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

Nope, wrong again on all counts.


Ukraine's constitution wasn't amended to allow joining NATO until 2019.

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

Russia was also a poor, corrupt newly formed nation that was undergoing a transformation away from communism.

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

Russia's economy was even worse in the 90s. See Russian economic crisis of 1997. There was no chance of Ukraine selling nuclear weapons they are a signatory to the NPT which they ratified in 1994.

Transferring nuclear weapons to Russia absolutely was a huge geopolitcal mistake in hindsight after the events of the last 10 years.

Ukraine had the infrastructure to build ICBM's and maybe the technical know how for rockets(questionable?).

Ukraine has more expertise than Russia in this area.

They never had the enrichment capabilities

Any state with nuclear energy has this capability.

, which is the most difficult step. The USSR was pretty cognisant of splitting up the component manufacture so a satellite state couldn't revolt

True, this is also a problem for Russia.

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

TU160 Blackjack bombers, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons were all included in the Budapest agreement. This agreement definitely would not have been signed if Ukraine were to know what Russia would be doing 20-30 years down the track.

There were Black sea fleet treatment agreements too I beleive which said Russia was obliged to not use its position to attack/invade Ukraine. That's why Ukraine ended up with no navy - which must annoy you with Russia losing access to the Black Sea against a state with no functioning navy.

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

That's exactly what Russia also was in the mid 90s.

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

The neutrality policy wasn't stopped. Ukraine's constitution was amended on the 7th of Feb 2019 to allow joining NATO. Before then joining NATO from 2010 to 2019 was not possible at all.

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

We get it is your job but we all know and you know that this is a lie.

There was no coup in 2014. Government stayed the same until elections in Jun 2014. All that changed was a temporary leader agreed by Rada was brought in as it was found Yanukovych had abandoned his position of president by fleeing to Russia (surprise surprise).

Ukraine's constitution at this time did not allow for joining NATO and did not allow so until 7th Feb 2019. Ukraine was neutral, did not want to be subjugated by Russian influence any longer and as a result were invaded by Russia.

This is the reason why Ukraine is going to eventually become a NATO member instead of just a security partner. Russian agreements cannot be trusted whatsover and Ukraine has no nuclear weapons to protect itself from a hostile invading state.

 

[Andre]

Yep. Apparently it would be fine for NATO, Poland and Baltics to invade Belarus because it's a CSTO member and a direct threat to their security with it being a client state of Putin.


This is barreness logic to a tee.

That's completely different!*


* The people of Belarus would welcome their government being overthrown.

 

[Blue1980]

One weird thing I notice with people who are pro Russia (or to be more charitable anti Ukraine) is many are tankies/communists/socialists.

Do they not realise Russia hasn’t been communist for well over 30 years now? They are an oligarchy with capitalism on steroids basically as there are no guard rails.

It seems just people reflexively anti US without paying any second thought that Russia under Putin is like a worse version of the US, totally capitalist and also a dictatorship.

 

[Zidane98]

Russia is running a form of comrade capitalism. Good for the elite, very bad for the everyday person. Because there's a much greater disparity in wealth / power with the everyday person in Russia compared to western democracies this allows Putin to become a dictator almost unchecked.

For such a large nation this isn't a good thing. I'm certain even fore the amazingly stupid decision to invade was made foreign investment was down in Russia due to this system.


Now, the only foreign investment Russia gets is from fellow vatnik states. It's a disaster for the state, disaster for the people of Russia. Disaster for everyone except Putin for whom it allows him to gain even more power virtually unchecked.

 

[Andre]

One weird thing I notice with people who are pro Russia (or to be more charitable anti Ukraine) is many are tankies/communists/socialists.

Do they not realise Russia hasn’t been communist for well over 30 years now? They are an oligarchy with capitalism on steroids basically as there are no guard rails.

It seems just people reflexively anti US without paying any second thought that Russia under Putin is like a worse version of the US, totally capitalist and also a dictatorship.

Add in Russia takes all the worst interpretations of parts of Christianity (anti-gays, anti-women, don't question authority), without any of the good parts (love thy neighbour, charity, community, anti-violence).

 

[Theseventhhamster]

One weird thing I notice with people who are pro Russia (or to be more charitable anti Ukraine) is many are tankies/communists/socialists.

Do they not realise Russia hasn’t been communist for well over 30 years now? They are an oligarchy with capitalism on steroids basically as there are no guard rails.

It seems just people reflexively anti US without paying any second thought that Russia under Putin is like a worse version of the US, totally capitalist and also a dictatorship.

Yeah, Russia is basically a combo of the worst and most right wing aspects of Australia and the US but loved by cooked gen xers who still identify as lefties for whatever reason.

 

[IlovethePies]

Either way my point remains. Neither Ukraine nor Russia have treated the Crimea properly.

So why are we supporting one countries rights to treat it like a colony over another?

Ukraine isn't the good guy everyone pretends it is. Before the war it was carrying out pogroms - state security and far right groups have been documented ethnically cleansing Roma people, 100,000s of who weren't given citizenship there. They were denied the right to vote and access to state supplied services like education and medical care.

According to his biography their current education minister is a former youth mentor for c14. Coincidentally Ukraine banned the speaking of Russian on school grounds recently, at least in some states. So Ukrainian refugees who speak Russian can't even speak to each other in their first language while at school.

Obviously invading Ukraine was a nightmare for Ukrainians and they've suffered terribly at the hands of a prick who rose to power off false flag attacks against his own people but we materially support other invasions. Like Israel in Lebanon, or the Saudis when they invaded Yemen. Our major ally, the US is doing exactly the same thing in Northern Syria that Russia did in the Donbass and also "stealing" resources there against the wishes of the sovereign Syrian state.

There are other invasions where civilians are mistreated, r*ped, murdered and subject to genocide and we don't do jack shit cos its black people in Africa (Or Papua) who are suffering.

Obviously invading other countries is wrong. Maybe we should just focus on stopping our allies from doing it first.

Very good post Ferball.

You are absolutely right in pointing out the horrible hypocricy that reigns on this thread with all those here who (rightly) condemn Putin as a criminal dictator, but fail to notice that Biden and NATO support Israel's genocide in the Middle East.

Yet somehow they want us to believe that Zelensky, Biden and US/NATO are the 'good guys'

And you are absolutely correct in your description of Ukraine: the Zelensky regime is not a democracy, but is a police state which has cancelled elections, banned all left wing political opposition parties, and imprisons anyone who opposes the war.

As your comments also illustrate, it is based on xenophobia (primarily anti Russian), but also anti-Roma.

 

[Blue1980]

Add in Russia takes all the worst interpretations of parts of Christianity (anti-gays, anti-women, don't question authority), without any of the good parts (love thy neighbour, charity, community, anti-violence).

Yes it’s just what MAGA America aspires to be

 

[Blue1980]

Yeah, Russia is basically a combo of the worst and most right wing aspects of Australia and the US but loved by cooked gen xers who still identify as lefties for whatever reason.

It’s by the far right MAGA types and by the term Kyle Kulinski came up with on the far left who he dubbed inverted neo cons.

The inverted neo cons believe anyone who is anti the US is automatically good and right, where as a neocon just believes anyone who US ally is right regardless. They aren’t even really far left, just reactionary contrarians.

It’s a really really stupid position to take.

 

[Blue1980]

Russia is running a form of comrade capitalism. Good for the elite, very bad for the everyday person. Because there's a much greater disparity in wealth / power with the everyday person in Russia compared to western democracies this allows Putin to become a dictator almost unchecked.

For such a large nation this isn't a good thing. I'm certain even fore the amazingly stupid decision to invade was made foreign investment was down in Russia due to this system.


Now, the only foreign investment Russia gets is from fellow vatnik states. It's a disaster for the state, disaster for the people of Russia. Disaster for everyone except Putin for whom it allows him to gain even more power virtually unchecked.

Is it pretty much back to pre 1917 Russia then, or a version of?

 

[ferball]

One weird thing I notice with people who are pro Russia (or to be more charitable anti Ukraine) is many are tankies/communists/socialists.

Do they not realise Russia hasn’t been communist for well over 30 years now? They are an oligarchy with capitalism on steroids basically as there are no guard rails.

It seems just people reflexively anti US without paying any second thought that Russia under Putin is like a worse version of the US, totally capitalist and also a dictatorship.

Maybe its this sort of shit.



or this:

 

[barreness]

Yep. Apparently it would be fine for NATO, Poland and Baltics to invade Belarus because it's a CSTO member and a direct threat to their security with it being a client state of Putin.


This is barreness logic to a tee.

See now you're getting close to the truth, the US has tried for years to take the former socialist republics under their thumb, Ukraine and Georgia were the red line

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.

Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.

Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko.

 

[barreness]

Nope, wrong again on all counts.


Ukraine's constitution wasn't amended to allow joining NATO until 2019.

They applied in 2004 after the orange revolution, even sending troops to Iraq in ~2005 to suck up to the US

Russia was also a poor, corrupt newly formed nation that was undergoing a transformation away from communism.

True, shock doctrine wasn't great right

Russia's economy was even worse in the 90s. See Russian economic crisis of 1997. There was no chance of Ukraine selling nuclear weapons they are a signatory to the NPT which they ratified in 1994.

It was a more stable state than Ukraine and had the infrastructure to detect and deploy nuclear weapons. Yes they signed the NPT the same day they gave the 3000 nukes back

Transferring nuclear weapons to Russia absolutely was a huge geopolitcal mistake in hindsight after the events of the last 10 years.

The mistake was US interference in Ukraine, well probabloy not for the US, they get to bleed Russia with Ukrainian blood

Ukraine has more expertise than Russia in this area.

lol

Any state with nuclear energy has this capability.

Not really, only certain types of reactors can create weapons grade material. You need uranium235 ~5% for a power plant but ~90% for a bomb(excluding dirty bombs which they could do). Enrichment facilities are the difficult bit and what say the US monitors in Iran or North Korea

True, this is also a problem for Russia.

Que?

TU160 Blackjack bombers, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons were all included in the Budapest agreement. This agreement definitely would not have been signed if Ukraine were to know what Russia would be doing 20-30 years down the track.

There were Black sea fleet treatment agreements too I beleive which said Russia was obliged to not use its position to attack/invade Ukraine. That's why Ukraine ended up with no navy - which must annoy you with Russia losing access to the Black Sea against a state with no functioning navy.

Yeh I know, what's your point?

That's exactly what Russia also was in the mid 90s.

The people were deeply impoverished, the state structure remained though. Compared to Ukraine that has had many revolutions and is now a punching bag for various empires you can see the decision to disarm them was probably right

The neutrality policy wasn't stopped. Ukraine's constitution was amended on the 7th of Feb 2019 to allow joining NATO. Before then joining NATO from 2010 to 2019 was not possible at all.

And what happened in 2022?

We get it is your job but we all know and you know that this is a lie.

This must be projection by this point. This thread and the zionist posting over the years, who pays your salary Zidane?

There was no coup in 2014. Government stayed the same until elections in Jun 2014. All that changed was a temporary leader agreed by Rada was brought in as it was found Yanukovych had abandoned his position of president by fleeing to Russia (surprise surprise).

lol

Ukraine's constitution at this time did not allow for joining NATO and did not allow so until 7th Feb 2019. Ukraine was neutral, did not want to be subjugated by Russian influence any longer and as a result were invaded by Russia.

Well done, finally connecting the dots

This is the reason why Ukraine is going to eventually become a NATO member instead of just a security partner. Russian agreements cannot be trusted whatsover and Ukraine has no nuclear weapons to protect itself from a hostile invading state.

Yes probably, whatever rump state remains in the west will maybe be let into nato in a few decades