(Mar 5, 2022 07:32 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Can somebody explain to me the logic of bombing cities that you are trying to "take over"?
What does taking over a city or a country entail anyway? Seems like business like normal for the people who live there. What did they gain by flying their flag? It just makes no sense to me.
I don’t think that Russia wants to take over Ukraine. Just like we didn’t want to take over any of the countries that we invaded. They’ve even said as much. They want to prevent them from joining NATO and install a regime that’s not pro-western.
(Mar 5, 2022 05:57 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]A less paranoid and more likely possibility would be COVID (social distancing).
What I said earlier is a far cry from Putin apologetics. The subject of NATO's expansion has been hotly debated among its members since it began. During the exclusive interview, Putin said that during the USSR era, Gorbachev received a verbal promise on the expansion to the east. The interviewer asked, "where is that promise written down?"
The conversations misleading Russia were written down and we have them.
The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances and based on his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.
But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990, was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO. (See Document 27) The view of the State Department was that NATO expansion was not on the agenda, because it was not in the interest of the U.S. to organize “an anti-Soviet coalition” that extended to the Soviet borders, not least because it might reverse the positive trends in the Soviet Union. (See Document 26) The Bush administration took the latter view. And that’s what the Soviets heard.
As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)
When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)
Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO. Instead, the dissolution of the USSR was brought about by Russians (Boris Yeltsin and his leading advisory Gennady Burbulis) in concert with the former party bosses of the Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, in December 1991. The Cold War was long over by then. The Americans had tried to keep the Soviet Union together (see the Bush “Chicken Kiev” speech on August 1, 1991). NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.
The Archive compiled these declassified documents for a panel discussion on November 10, 2017, at the annual conference of the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies in Chicago under the title “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”
There were many that were against the expansion and blame the current events on the U.S. for misleading Russia and losing their trust, and others that blame Russia and are appalled by the invasion, but I do think it's important for Americans to understand the role that we played leading up to the invasion.
I potentially agree with you if this is coming from a top-down or general conception of the US/West being unreliable, manipulative, hypocritical, overly aggressive in policy, etc. And the supposed "causes" of the Ukraine invasion are merely a specific example of that broader interpretation (though IMO, Putin was determined to do this eventually, regardless).
But going back to an era considerably prior to the 1960s, members of US communist parties were railing about our relations with the USSR and China. Then, after disillusionment, came their switchover to the New Left of the '60s and '70s, with a continuing negative view of Establishment policies extending well beyond what the old school disparaged.
Soon Hollywood started regularly cranking out entertainment movies with backdrop themes of the US government, industrial/military complex, etc doing all sorts of insidious things. Along with both printed and online media jumping wholesale into the once fringe tradition of condemning US activity (the arguably non-fictional stuff). With now the latest hysterics of "white supremacy" and systemic bigotry pervading every nook and cranny of American society.
The point being that it is states like Russia, China, North Korea, etc that cannot look at themselves in a mirror because [serious or deep] criticism of the government and its practices are not allowed.
In contrast, citizens of the West are so constantly bombarded with proclamations about what a twisted-up, crescent-moon outhouse our governments, businesses, and communities are -- that it eventually becomes a background noise akin to cicadas droning in the background during the summer. Like some street preacher daily wailing about the wages of sin or Extinction Rebellion blocking traffic in the name of climate change.
An apathetic response sets in (with respect to many) of "Yeah, yeah -- we know life is full of all kinds of ####. We know we're contradictory sphincters who cause our own problems, but still blame others. Tell us something we don't know -- or better yet, just shut your ____ mouths up since that would still be a monotonous nuisance after several weeks."
Another large segment is very much recruited by the "revelations" -- some quite legit in taking up crusading (including such stemming from a redemptive impulse); but others simply seizing an opportunity for attention, noble status, and career advancement.
The utile nature and accomplishments of the latter not being dismissed here. Only that either publicly acknowledging or privately knowing that _X_ is #### or that we're #### isn't anything new for Westerners.
Only reposting this to get it out of that annoying automatic merger of two replies that occurs if submitting more than one response to a thread during a one-hour period (that was the situation before this).
(Mar 5, 2022 07:32 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Can somebody explain to me the logic of bombing cities that you are trying to "take over"?
What does taking over a city or a country entail anyway? Seems like business like normal for the people who live there. What did they gain by flying their flag? It just makes no sense to me.
Yah, they mercilessly reduced Syrian cities like Aleppo to rubble because they weren't going to inherit the mess. I think most of us are coming around to that idea that Putin really has lost his marbles (not just recreational exaggeration anymore), like Hitler in the final months/years. So kind of pointless to look for sense in a Salvador Dali landscape.
Why Russia might not care about the cities or citizens..
Quote:In 2020, Ukraine exported more than $9.4bn worth of cereals – about one-fifth of its total exports. It was the second-largest cereal exporter, behind the US. In fact Ukraine’s cereal exports were slightly higher than Russian cereal exports ($9.3bn). Iron and steel exports ($7.7bn) was another notable export commodity for Ukraine. However, in a global context, Ukraine is only the 37th-largest exporter.
(Mar 5, 2022 10:37 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]Why Russia might not care about the cities or citizens..
Quote:In 2020, Ukraine exported more than $9.4bn worth of cereals – about one-fifth of its total exports. It was the second-largest cereal exporter, behind the US. In fact Ukraine’s cereal exports were slightly higher than Russian cereal exports ($9.3bn). Iron and steel exports ($7.7bn) was another notable export commodity for Ukraine. However, in a global context, Ukraine is only the 37th-largest exporter.
That was the "breadbasket" reason for retrospectively mourning the loss of Ukraine. Flirting with spreading radiation around isn't going to make the crops very desirable, though.
Turning a country into a devastated shell isn't conducive to producing the best satellite state, either. It would require a prolonged Russian military presence if the puppet regime (echoing Iron Curtain days) can't defend itself or maintain order.
Good thing there are less than 1% percent Muslims, or some ISIS-like entity might be attracted to incrementally setting up shop in the depopulated ruins and rogue chaos. Like China, Russia can apparently handle peaceful Islamic communities.
EXCERPT: Mufti Ismagilov ... moved to Kyiv, but now, as rockets fall around him, he fears for Ukrainians in general and the country’s Muslim population in particular. He said Russia's actions in Crimea after Moscow annexed the Ukrainian province did not bode well for the Ukrainian Muslim and Tatar communities.
Most Crimean Tatars, a Muslim people indigenous to the Black Sea region, opposed Russia’s seizure of the territory from Ukraine in March 2014. Community members said they faced discrimination and hardship as they came under pressure to align themselves with the Russia-backed authorities.
The Tatar representative assembly, called the Mejlis, was banned, while a Tatar-language television channel was closed down. There are roughly 250,000 Crimean Tatars in Crimea — about 12 per cent of its population.
Crimean Muslims deemed to be members of the Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation — an Islamist group banned in Russia but not in Ukraine — have been sentenced to up to 20 years in prison on terrorism charges.
If Russia takes over the rest of Ukraine, Mufti Ismagilov told The National he worries that Muslims in Ukraine could face repression.
In Ukraine, Muslims have enjoyed relatively normal lives in recent years.
Ah, the invasion frontier for Putin expands: Georgia has applied for EU membership due to the "new reality".
(Mar 6, 2022 01:57 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Do you guys think that this is fake or an actual message sent from Burns a few months before the 2008 Bucharest Summit?
I don't think it matters if it was Fake or an actual message. Unfortunately every wikileak document has had the Russians go through with a fine toothed comb, and anything they saw likely insensitised them further. The concern of insensitising (i.e. causing further world problems) is one of the main reasons why the documents were originally classified.
(Mar 6, 2022 01:57 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Do you guys think that this is fake or an actual message sent from Burns a few months before the 2008 Bucharest Summit?
Summary. Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions. End summary.
Polls between 2005 and 2013 showed that Ukrainian support for NATO membership was low (thus the divided country or "civil war" concerns). But after the Russian annexation of Crimea, those favoring membership skyrocketed to almost 70% in a 2017 poll. Now Georgia has applied for EU membership after the invasion of Ukraine.
Even following the "recent" increase in Ukrainian support, NATO was still declining to offer a MAP and continuing with the ambiguous singsong of: "Someday, someday. Becoming a member is a very slow and complex process, with much work and a stack of qualifications for the candidate to fulfill. 25 to 50 years, perhaps."
There haven't been any dramatic changes since yesterday.
Surrounded Mariupol continues to hold out. A ceasefire to allow civilians to escape was supposed to have been negotiated, but it fell apart and didn't happen.
The Russians continue to sit in Kharkiv's northern industrial outskirts shelling the city. There appear to be attempts underway to encircle that city, but it hasn't happened yet.
The Russians took the Mykolaiv airport but the Ukranians took it back. The anticipated Russian amphibious assault on Odessa hasn't happened.
There hasn't been much movement towards Kyiv from the northwest, but several armored columns approach from the east.
Advances in the far east of Ukraine north of the separatist areas threaten to encircle Ukrainian troops which apparently are being withdrawn. That was expected.
Several Russian aircraft have been shot down, both fixed wing and helicopters. Ukraine is crying out for more aircraft.
The Mig-29's that were supposed to be supplied to Ukraine from Poland haven't been, because Poland doesn't want to weaken its own air force by giving up the planes. So Ukraine has appealed direct to the US Congress. Voices in Congress (from both parties) are calling for the USAF to supply Poland with ~20 F-16's to replace the Mig-29's that Poland supplies to Ukraine. The US can't just give Ukraine F-16s because Ukraine doesn't currently fly them and it would take a long time to train their pilots and mechanics on the new aircraft type. But Ukraine already flies Mig 29's and their pilots are already familiar with that plane. But taking the F-16's out of the American inventory and giving them to Poland is likely to get bound up in Washington policies, procedures and regulations, and take forever. Ukraine doesn't have forever. So the White House needs to shake things up and create some wartime urgency. It isn't clear that will be happening, though many members of Congress from both parties are agitating for it.
(Mar 5, 2022 05:57 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]A less paranoid and more likely possibility would be COVID (social distancing).
What I said earlier is a far cry from Putin apologetics. The subject of NATO's expansion has been hotly debated among its members since it began. During the exclusive interview, Putin said that during the USSR era, Gorbachev received a verbal promise on the expansion to the east. The interviewer asked, "where is that promise written down?"
The conversations misleading Russia were written down and we have them.
The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances and based on his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.
But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990, was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO. (See Document 27) The view of the State Department was that NATO expansion was not on the agenda, because it was not in the interest of the U.S. to organize “an anti-Soviet coalition” that extended to the Soviet borders, not least because it might reverse the positive trends in the Soviet Union. (See Document 26) The Bush administration took the latter view. And that’s what the Soviets heard.
As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)
When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)
Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO. Instead, the dissolution of the USSR was brought about by Russians (Boris Yeltsin and his leading advisory Gennady Burbulis) in concert with the former party bosses of the Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, in December 1991. The Cold War was long over by then. The Americans had tried to keep the Soviet Union together (see the Bush “Chicken Kiev” speech on August 1, 1991). NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.
The Archive compiled these declassified documents for a panel discussion on November 10, 2017, at the annual conference of the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies in Chicago under the title “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”
There were many that were against the expansion and blame the current events on the U.S. for misleading Russia and losing their trust, and others that blame Russia and are appalled by the invasion, but I do think it's important for Americans to understand the role that we played leading up to the invasion.
Nice to have a solid source backing that widely believed 'verbal memorandum of understanding'. Seems the original Bush senior admin's assurances were actually given in good faith and not a cunning ploy. Or at least a certain faction were sincere.
And that subsequently, new gen Hawks (aka Neocons) outplayed Doves and the result is before us. While US unilateral withdrawal from 1972 ABM treaty has shown even solemnly co-signed treaties are in the long run 'not worth the paper they're written on', at least the other party have that piece of paper to wave around.
Whereas solemn verbal assurances are all too easy to outright deny, or conveniently reinterpret to suit the current circumstances. 'Flexibility'.