Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Gallus]

With so many alternative channels, honestly, why didn't Russia project its soft power mechanisms over Ukraine instead. Maybe the almost costless Crimea landgrab caused victory disease.

It did, but the Maidan revolution made that no longer possible. As soon as it happened it was clear Russia was going to either orchestrate a counter-revolution or come for Russian-speaking territories.

[z3n]

Finally the Russian PoV makes more sense to me, thanks.
But still there's the agreement that Ukraine would disarm its nuclear program in exchange for sovereignty. There's a diplomatic cost for Russia in terms of international trust in disarmament agreements.
With so many alternative channels, honestly, why didn't Russia project its soft power mechanisms over Ukraine instead. Maybe the almost costless Crimea landgrab caused victory disease.
Not sure.
Only sure that symbolically speaking, Putin has a bone to pick with Khruschev's legacy.
Hence why it's interesting you mentioned Cuban missile crisis. In leadership abilities it's expected for Khruschev and Putin to have different skillset and tendencies, which one of them is better or worse, I leave it up to debate.

Russia definitely attempted the soft channels first over the past decade or two. But the Maidan revolution meant they resorted to a type of subtle warfare and then finally to open warfare after negotiations with USA broke down. About international trust, to me it seems like Russia has pivoted away from attempting to gain Western trust and toward Africa, the Middle East and Asia. We see Russia is much more active in those areas of influence now, with energy deals, mercenaries fighting for African governments, and closer economic integration with Asian powers.

You might be surprised to know that Cuba's military is larger than 1,500 soldiers. And while it's smaller indeed, its population is over 11 million, so about a quarter of Ukraine. 1500 is not a quarter of the size of the army Russia sent into Ukraine. It's not even a tenth of the number of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine.

I'm definitely taken aback by the suggestion that the US was really that incompetent. I doubt they envisioned they could do a full scale invasion and occupy the entire country with that few troops. Both Eisenhower (a former general in WW2) and Kennedy approved the plan. The CIA had their best people on it, and we put in all the pieces necessary based on the earlier 1954 Guatemalan coup d'etat.

Zelensky claims that about a dozen (12) of his aides in bulletproof vests armed with handguns and automatic rifles held off the coup d'etat attempt on him by the Russians, so perhaps 1000 troops was by some standards a bit much for a coup d'etat attempt on a small country.

That Russia does all of those things, constantly.

I don't think that great powers like USA, Britain or the rest of the usual suspects in NATO and Russia doing those things constantly over the years is in dispute.

We also saw the buildup on Ukraine's border ahead of time. "Forseen and done nothing."

Ukraine buildup is much different to a buildup on NATO's border.

By 100km.

I don't know if you've observed it, but advancing 100km under heavy artillery fire is rather difficult. Furthermore, most of the Russian population lives in the South and East of Moscow.

Russia's openly threatening to do so, with Russian lawmakers going as far as to propose withdrawing recognition of the Baltic states.

Legal action (shenanigans) doesn't really strike me as an invasion, it's a symbolic gesture similar to Kyiv's city council revoking their recognition of Russia as a state. And an invasion seems like it's not possible to me still. I don't see any massive mobilization of 5 million Russian troops happening right now, neither do I see Russian artillery, tank and air forces being miraculously pumped out in record numbers.

Implying that just because he said he'd commit atrocities if they resist him means it's alright to commit atrocities if they resist him is an odd line of argumentation. Hitler also said he'd invade Poland as a punitive actions if they don't give him Danzig, but I don't think many would argue that the invasion of Poland was justified because Hitler said he'd do it before he did it.

I wasn't aware we were only including arguments instead of observations. It's rather interesting to note, at least for me, that Putin directly announced his plans and stated his intentions years ahead of time.

Joining NATO will be worth it to protect from future Russian agression, yes. NATO membership is the only thing keeping the Baltic countries safe, it will soon be keeping Finland and Sweden safe, and more countries should follow suit.

The question is probably, will NATO accept an application from a state that's currently being occupied or would this constitute a direct challenge to NATO? Would NATO have to go to war over the occupation of these territories? How should we respond to such a thing? These sorts of questions are what probably (at present) paralyze NATO with respect to Georgia, even though the war is over. If we were to see the countries join, it would undermine the belief in NATO's strength as we would wilfully accept the occupation or potentially have to go to war over it. Neither of which are palatable prospects.

Odd that none of those hyperlinks show a Ukranian application to join NATO.

The link was meant to show Sweden and Finland's currently failed attempt to get Turkey's approval.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I'm definitely taken aback by the suggestion that the US was really that incompetent. I doubt they envisioned they could do a full scale invasion and occupy the entire country with that few troops. Both Eisenhower (a former general in WW2) and Kennedy approved the plan. The CIA had their best people on it, and we put in all the pieces necessary based on the earlier 1954 Guatemalan coup d'etat.

Russia didn't go for a coup, it went for a full scale military invasion and annexation of foreign territory. The bay of pigs isn't even comparable. Not by scale, sheer brutality of the Russian fascist regime, not by any metric. That you attempt to claim that sending 1500 Cubans to Cuba is at all comparable sending nearly 200,000 Russians into Ukraine under the flimsiest justification imagineable (muh denazification) is beyond ridiculous.

Zelensky claims that about a dozen (12) of his aides in bulletproof vests armed with handguns and automatic rifles held off the coup d'etat attempt on him by the Russians, so perhaps 1000 troops was by some standards a bit much for a coup d'etat attempt on a small country.

Did the 1500 troops enter the Cuban presidential palace? I think you'll find that the bay of pigs is nowhere near Havana.

Ukraine buildup is much different to a buildup on NATO's border.

K.

I don't know if you've observed it, but advancing 100km under heavy artillery fire is rather difficult. Furthermore, most of the Russian population lives in the South and East of Moscow.

I measured from the centre of Moscow. If you feel like adding another km or two to the calculation by going a bit more east will drastically change the equation you do you.
100km under heavy artillery.. in their own territory? Do you imagine Russia would start the war with their army in Moscow and not on the border..? I mean, the Russian army is incompetent, but not THAT incompetent.

Legal action (shenanigans) doesn't really strike me as an invasion, it's a symbolic gesture similar to Kyiv's city council revoking their recognition of Russia as a state. And an invasion seems like it's not possible to me still. I don't see any massive mobilization of 5 million Russian troops happening right now, neither do I see Russian artillery, tank and air forces being miraculously pumped out in record numbers.

It's obviously not going to happen right now. But if you don't see how this can be used as justification to invade a country by the country that used "denazification" as justification then there's no point in continuing this discussion. There's only 1 reason Russia would demand NATO to withdraw from Poland and the Baltic: It wants to invade them. Simple as.

I wasn't aware we were only including arguments instead of observations. It's rather interesting to note, at least for me, that Putin directly announced his plans and stated his intentions years ahead of time.

Just as interesting as him then denying an invasion is about to happen and delaying the date of the invasion just to say "haha american intel wrong where invasion???" and then invading, in an apparent attempt to emulate a 7 year old child.

The question is probably, will NATO accept an application from a state that's currently being occupied or would this constitute a direct challenge to NATO? Would NATO have to go to war over the occupation of these territories? How should we respond to such a thing? These sorts of questions are what probably (at present) paralyze NATO with respect to Georgia, even though the war is over. If we were to see the countries join, it would undermine the belief in NATO's strength as we would wilfully accept the occupation or potentially have to go to war over it. Neither of which are palatable prospects.

Georgia already had part of its territory occupied before 2008, not that it stopped Russia from grabbing some more. This alone isn't the reason why it's not in NATO.

The link was meant to show Sweden and Finland's currently failed attempt to get Turkey's approval.

Yes, and?

[Ludicus]

The IMF warned in its annual report on Germany last week that a cut in natural gas from Russia was the largest threat to the German economy. German consumers could face a tripling of gas prices in the coming months Dutch join Germany, Austria, in reverting to coal - France 24

Coal is the single largest source of global temperature rise, but who cares?

Russia-Ukraine war: what we know on day 122 of the invasion

UK prime minister Boris Johnson has said that he would resign if he had to abandon Ukraine because it became too difficult or expensive.

How much sacrifice is too much?

The Polish P.M. called on Europe to not leave Ukraine at the mercy of Russia just because it is not an EU member. The European Council has approved €9bn of financial aid to Ukraine. In a statement made by the Polish prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, at the European Council summit in Brussels on Friday, he said: “There is a war in Ukraine and there is nothing to pay nurses, teachers, police, border guards or many other public services.”

In this way, it is better than belonging to the EU. It won't be long before the draconian measures that Northern Europe imposed in the past on the southern pigs will start again. Who still hasn't forgotten…? Schäuble strikes again - POLITICO

Schäuble, 74, who revels in playing the grumpy Uncle Scrooge of the eurozone, has long contended that Athens…should be ejected from the currency area.

Poles and Ukrainians…demand an end to discrimination against the LGBT+ community

Where? in Russia or, according to the latest news, in the USA? in both countries? Roe v. Wade: Supreme Court Justice Thomas says gay rights contraception rulings should be reconsidered

---

Does anyone remotely understand what Ludicus even trying to argue here at this point?

I think I have already answered this question. Here in Europe - whose policy is all about following the Americans, NATO and Zelensky - ordinary citizens are now beginning to realize the price of a war that was not prevented when it could have been and that no one wants to stop. Russia, which we were assured was an economic "paper tiger" that would crumble in three moments with sanctions, is apparently much better off than the Europeans.

[z3n]

Russia didn't go for a coup, it went for a full scale military invasion and annexation of foreign territory. The bay of pigs isn't even comparable. Not by scale, sheer brutality of the Russian fascist regime, not by any metric. That you attempt to claim that sending 1500 Cubans to Cuba is at all comparable sending nearly 200,000 Russians into Ukraine under the flimsiest justification imagineable (muh denazification) is beyond ridiculous.

The Russian's definitely went for a coup, practically every western media outlet and politician I know of claims that one of Putin's war goals has been to depose of Ukraine's leadership. Not only do we have Zelensky on record claiming a coup attempt occurred to him before open warfare began by Russia, we also have another coup attempt in February. We also have some evidence at hand with Zelensky's referenced coup d'etat claim that he was under extreme threat from Russian's attempting to remove him from power during February 24th. So I'm not sure why you're trying to claim Russia did not go for a coup.

States having "national security" interests in foreign territory very close to their most populated areas is a comparable factor. These national security interests are underlined by the invasion USA undertook and an embargo that has lasted until the present day. Russia has similar "national security" interests in Ukraine, only they're proportionately much larger due to the size disparity between Ukraine and Cuba.

Did the 1500 troops enter the Cuban presidential palace? I think you'll find that the bay of pigs is nowhere near Havana.

Not sure you think you know better than Eisenhower, Kennedy, and all the CIA planners. The Guatemalan coup started from El Salvador and Honduras, which was nowhere near Guatemala City. In addition, the Bay of Pigs plan was approved and modelled on the 500 troops which invaded the Guatemalan state (populated by 3 million more than Cuba) and launched a successful coup d'etat with the aftermath resulting in 200'000 civilian casualties.

I measured from the centre of Moscow. If you feel like adding another km or two to the calculation by going a bit more east will drastically change the equation you do you.
100km under heavy artillery.. in their own territory? Do you imagine Russia would start the war with their army in Moscow and not on the border..? I mean, the Russian army is incompetent, but not THAT incompetent.

How is that 100km of Russian territory suddenly a foreign powers? Russia would be firing at the forces approaching Moscow using artillery. The forces trying to advance 100km into Russian territory under heavy artillery fire would have a difficult time.

It's obviously not going to happen right now. But if you don't see how this can be used as justification to invade a country by the country that used "denazification" as justification then there's no point in continuing this discussion. There's only 1 reason Russia would demand NATO to withdraw from Poland and the Baltic: It wants to invade them. Simple as.

As per David M. Glantz, "The Russian history of constant invasion from the west motivated any government in Moscow to seek buffer territories in central and eastern Europe."; a history that is confirmed when reading back. 50 foreign policy experts stated that NATO expansion into the Baltic's would undermine European stability (especially since the Baltic states have historically been considered a buffer themselves for the central NATO powers of Germany and France).

To put it simply, the reasons Russia would want NATO to withdraw from Baltic states is similar to those same 50 western foreign policy experts.

We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S.led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability for the following reasons:


In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the "ins" and the "outs," foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included;


In NATO, expansion, which the Alliance has indicated is open-ended, will inevitably degrade NATO's ability to carry out its primary mission and will involve U.S. security guarantees to countries with serious border and national minority problems, and unevenly developed systems of democratic government;
In the U.S., NATO expansion will trigger an extended debate over its indeterminate, but certainly high, cost and will call into question the U.S. commitment to the Alliance, traditionally and rightly regarded as a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.


Because of these serious objections, and in the absence of any reason for rapid decision, we strongly urge that the NATO expansion process be suspended while alternative actions are pursued. These include:

—opening the economic and political doors of the European Union to Central and Eastern Europe; —developing an enhanced Partnership for Peace program;
—supporting a cooperative NATO-Russian relationship; and
—continuing the arms reduction and transparency process, particularly with respect to nuclear weapons and materials, the major threat to U.S. security, and with respect to conventional military forces in Europe.

Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger. For this reason, and the others cited above, we believe that NATO expansion is neither necessary nor desirable and that this ill-conceived policy can and should be put on hold.

_________

Just as interesting as him then denying an invasion is about to happen and delaying the date of the invasion just to say "haha american intel wrong where invasion???" and then invading, in an apparent attempt to emulate a 7 year old child.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here but will add that I also found the invasion date interesting. Ukraine's Crimea region was from my understanding subtly invaded on February 27th, 2014 and the current invasion started on February 24th, 2022.

Georgia already had part of its territory occupied before 2008, not that it stopped Russia from grabbing some more. This alone isn't the reason why it's not in NATO.

If you're referring to the Georgian civil war in South Ossetia, that's an internal dispute and doesn't really preclude a country from being in NATO (see Catalonia in Spain for an internal dispute example).

Russia occupying 20% of Georgian land is a different story, as this is an external dispute directly problematic to NATO accession as per the principles of enlargement under section 6. Furthermore, while this factor could be ignored the direct challenge by Russia to USA and other NATO powers would be an issue as well. We'd either have to go to war or look weak; which really is the reason why we haven't invited them in

States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.

_______

Yes, and?

Are you actually trying to ask something here or agreeing that it wasn't clear other countries would block (as per the Turkey example in the link) a potential Ukrainian application to NATO? Perhaps my point was worded in a way that made it difficult for you to grasp.

[Ludicus]

On 24 May, I read the press conference that the President of the European Commission gave to various media outlets. In the very third sentence, Ursula fires off this pearl: "There has to be military support (to Ukraine) and we are doing our part with about 2 billion euros channeled through the European Peace Facility.(EPF)" EU support to Ukraine: Council agrees on further increase of

.. After having adopted three tranches of support totaling 1.5 billion this year, a fourth tranche will add €500 million to the resources already mobilized under the EPF for Ukraine, thereby bringing the total amount to €2 billion.

The European Union has a system of support for wars that is hypocritically called "peace support."
----
Let’s talk a little more about the EPF.Last year the text of European Council Decision 2021/509, dated March 22, 2021, said that this " European Peace Facility" could only spend 540 million euros during 2022. The figure Ursula points to is 3.7 times higher and is the result of a sequence of European Council decisions taken between February 28 and May 23, following the Russian invasion.
In addition to buying weapons for Ukraine, this "Peace Facility" is funding operations in the Balkans, the Horn of Africa, Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic, Libya, and Mozambique.In Libya, as a report in the New Yorker magazine denounced, in addition to other tasks, this "Peace Support Mechanism" also serves to indirectly prevent the entry of immigrants into Europe, who end up being taken to prisons in miserable conditions in Libya, subject to the arbitration of violent, corrupt guards and slave traders. The Secretive Prisons That Keep Migrants Out of Europe - New Yorker

What a beautiful concept of human rights Ursula has! I would also like to know what part of my taxes is being used to buy weapons for the war in Ukraine, and since money is finite, in what areas did my taxes stop being used so Ukraine could have these weapons?

What about the macro-financial assistance to Ukraine? For now, 9 billion more and God knows what's coming next. She said,

We are proposing for Ukraine to top up the significant short-term relief provided until now with a new exceptional macro-financial assistance to Ukraine of up to EUR 9 billion in 2022. This is for the short term, for the relief right now, to support the government, this is a budget support. But, of course, we need to think about the day after and the wider reconstruction efforts

For the “short-term”. In fact, Brussels to provide 9bln euro relief, reconstruction package to

United States treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, said Tuesday that Brussel’s financial commitments announced so far were not sufficient for Ukraine’s short-term needs

I've mentioned this before, but later in that interview, Ursula has another brilliant take on the criteria for admitting Ukraine to the Union: the country, she says, "has a functioning parliamentary democracy" and tweeded "Ukraine, a solid parliamentary democracy, was already on a good track before Russia invaded".
Ursula von der Leyen on Twitter: "Ukraine, a solid

Which is a huge lie. Ukraine does have a Parliament that may work, at least some people go there once in a while. But it doesn't have, for example, the name of the party "Opposition Platform - For Life", which had elected 47 deputies and has just been banned. It is one of eleven, all accused of being pro-Russian, which independent observers, for the most part, dispute Why did Ukraine suspend 11 'pro-Russia' parties?

Most “pro-Russian” parties in Ukraine are first and foremost “pro-themselves” and have autonomous interests and sources of income in Ukraine… These parties do command significant public support. For example, three of the recently suspended parties participated in the parliamentary elections in 2019 and combined received about 2.7 million votes (18.3 percent) and in the most recent polls conducted before Russia’s invasion, these parties collectively scored about 16-20 percent of the vote… The irony is that the suspension of these parties is completely meaningless for Ukraine’s security…. The Ukrainian government needs to understand that moves such as these suspensions that alienate parts of the Ukrainian public – and make them question the intentions of their leaders – make the country weaker not stronger

[AqD]

The European Union has a system of support for wars that is hypocritically called "peace support."

Ukraine didn't start this war and it's fighting for self-defense. Are you going to educate us how a country can ensure peace without weapons or perhaps the defense department in your country should disarm itself and replace soldiers with protesters holding "We want peace" banners?

In addition to buying weapons for Ukraine, this "Peace Facility" is funding operations in the Balkans, the Horn of Africa, Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic, Libya, and Mozambique.In Libya, as a report in the New Yorker magazine denounced, in addition to other tasks, this "Peace Support Mechanism" also serves to indirectly prevent the entry of immigrants into Europe, who end up being taken to prisons in miserable conditions in Libya, subject to the arbitration of violent, corrupt guards and slave traders.

True, EU should stop funding them as we don't really care and such money could be used for Ukraine and other allies.

What a beautiful concept of human rights Ursula has! I would also like to know what part of my taxes is being used to buy weapons for the war in Ukraine, and since money is finite, in what areas did my taxes stop being used so Ukraine could have these weapons?

What about the macro-financial assistance to Ukraine? For now, 9 billion more and God knows what's coming next. She said,

Are you going to argue weakening Kremlin is not beneficial to EU security? or that EU would not be better off with a strongly fortified, populous and willing member on the border?

9 billions is nothing in our budget. If money is a problem, fund could be diverted from foreign aid wasted on distant countries that share neither common value nor strategic goals. Funding Ukraine is the same as funding EU defense.

But it doesn't have, for example, the name of the party "Opposition Platform - For Life", which had elected 47 deputies and has just been banned. It is one of eleven, all accused of being pro-Russian,

That party was just changed to Platform for Life and Peace without Putin's friends among the members.

If the move was political, individual members would have been arrested instead of banning the party itself.

[Cyclops]

The Alabama encyclopedia explains USA's direct involvement (beyond directing and financing the effort) in the invasion. They didn't pull the air support either, it was just late (perhaps due to timezones). Other air support that took part included the 60 Alabama Air Guardsmen.


Regardless, the Monroe doctrine is the red line for the USA and all the presidents have continuously reinforced it. .

Bay of Pigs isnt a in any way equivalent to Putin's terrorism, and the Monroe doctrine demonstrably doesnt involve automatic invasion triggers: the Cuban missile crisis was tit for tat over NATO nukes in Turkey and the Russians folded. Ipso facto Zelenskyss children should be delivered to the Kremlin? Nonsense.

Not impressed at the financial calculus for surrender at all, this really is appeasement. How about Russia pays? "Not gonna happen"? Yeah but neither was the invasion, and once it did happen Russia was going win. Its a new world, maybe we can afford less Putin? Hes not Kruschev thats for sure..

[z3n]

Bay of Pigs isnt a in any way equivalent to Putin's terrorism, and the Monroe doctrine demonstrably doesnt involve automatic invasion triggers: the Cuban missile crisis was tit for tat over NATO nukes in Turkey and the Russians folded. Ipso facto Zelenskyss children should be delivered to the Kremlin? Nonsense.

Not impressed at the financial calculus for surrender at all, this really is appeasement. How about Russia pays? "Not gonna happen"? Yeah but neither was the invasion, and once it did happen Russia was going win. Its a new world, maybe we can afford less Putin? Hes not Kruschev thats for sure..

To quote myself "States having "national security" interests in foreign territory very close to their most populated areas is a comparable factor. These national security interests are underlined by the invasion USA undertook and an embargo that has lasted until the present day. Russia has similar "national security" interests in Ukraine, only they're proportionately much larger due to the size disparity between Ukraine and Cuba."


No other US doctrinal policy has been as continuously upheld and reinforced as the Monroe doctrine. The US initially placed the nukes in Turkey during 1959, so yes it was a tit for tat but it's odd you claim only the Soviets folded; both sides removed their strategic provocations after the USSR escalated.The strategic threat was a red line and reason why the Monroe doctrine was invoked in that situation. Arguing that an automatic invasion trigger on the Monroe doctrine in the face of nukes would be something USA wants seems odd to me. I don't see such a trigger as useful.



About financial calculus, I'm not seeing where this came from?

[Mithradates]

Russia Is Hours Away From Its First Foreign Default in a Century

A grace period on about $100 million of missed bond payments -- blocked because of wide-ranging sanctions -- ends on Sunday night. There won’t be an official declaration, and Russia is already disputing the designation, but if investors don’t have their money by the deadline, there will be an “event of default” on Monday morning, according to the bond documents.
...
For Russia, it will mark its first foreign default since the Bolshevik repudiation of Czarist-era debts in 1918.

Well, good luck with that. hehhehe

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Pontifex Maximus]

There wasn't an "I don't care and further we should not be funding non-allied nations in a proxy war against a strategic enemy" option, so I just selected I don't care.

[conon394]

The European Union has a system of support for wars that is hypocritically called "peace support."

Did Ukraine declare war on Russia which nominally had agreed to secure in itspost USSR status as a sovereign nation?

Which is a huge lie. Ukraine does have a Parliament that may work, at least some people go there once in a while. But it doesn't have, for example, the name of the party "Opposition Platform - For Life", which had elected 47 deputies and has just been banned. It is one of eleven, all accused of being pro-Russian, which independent observers, for the most part, dispute Why did Ukraine suspend 11 'pro-Russia' parties?

What a profoundly out of date opinion piece to link now. Yep clearly the Ukrainian people have signaling for now they really wanted to stay a Russian puppet state just like Belrussia. And good do they want Viktor Medvedchuk back in Parliament because his buddy is really doing wonders for Ukrainians economy and people.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The Russian's definitely went for a coup, practically every western media outlet and politician I know of claims that one of Putin's war goals has been to depose of Ukraine's leadership. Not only do we have Zelensky on record claiming a coup attempt occurred to him before open warfare began by Russia, we also have another coup attempt in February. We also have some evidence at hand with Zelensky's referenced coup d'etat claim that he was under extreme threat from Russian's attempting to remove him from power during February 24th. So I'm not sure why you're trying to claim Russia did not go for a coup.

As much of a coup as the German invasion of Norway was. The attempt to put a Quisling in power as part of the invasion doesn't mean that the whole invasion was done with the purpose of performing a coup.

States having "national security" interests in foreign territory very close to their most populated areas is a comparable factor. These national security interests are underlined by the invasion USA undertook and an embargo that has lasted until the present day. Russia has similar "national security" interests in Ukraine, only they're proportionately much larger due to the size disparity between Ukraine and Cuba.

You're once again comparing the sheer scale of the 1500 Cubans being landed by the USA in Cuba to the Russian army invading with some 200,000 soldiers, annexing territory and occupying large swaths of land. Had the bay of pigs been a success, the USA would not have annexed any Cuban territory.

Not sure you think you know better than Eisenhower, Kennedy, and all the CIA planners. The Guatemalan coup started from El Salvador and Honduras, which was nowhere near Guatemala City. In addition, the Bay of Pigs plan was approved and modelled on the 500 troops which invaded the Guatemalan state (populated by 3 million more than Cuba) and launched a successful coup d'etat with the aftermath resulting in 200'000 civilian casualties.

The US abandoned and downscaled the operation pretty much the moment it started.

How is that 100km of Russian territory suddenly a foreign powers? Russia would be firing at the forces approaching Moscow using artillery. The forces trying to advance 100km into Russian territory under heavy artillery fire would have a difficult time.

Oh, you meant in the event of invading Russia, I misunderstood. No one's invading Russia, it's Russia invading other countries. Repeatedly. Because it's an agressor, ruled by a megalomaniac dictator who thinks he's the reincarnation of Peter I.

As per David M. Glantz, "The Russian history of constant invasion from the west motivated any government in Moscow to seek buffer territories in central and eastern Europe."; a history that is confirmed when reading back. 50 foreign policy experts stated that NATO expansion into the Baltic's would undermine European stability (especially since the Baltic states have historically been considered a buffer themselves for the central NATO powers of Germany and France).

Constant invasion from the west lol. What counts as constant, once every few centuries?

To put it simply, the reasons Russia would want NATO to withdraw from Baltic states is similar to those same 50 western foreign policy experts.

Because it wants to invade them to use as puppet buffer states. Like I said, military expansion is the desired goal.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here but will add that I also found the invasion date interesting. Ukraine's Crimea region was from my understanding subtly invaded on February 27th, 2014 and the current invasion started on February 24th, 2022.

The date was meant to be earlier and was delayed to say that the Americans were wrong.

If you're referring to the Georgian civil war in South Ossetia, that's an internal dispute and doesn't really preclude a country from being in NATO (see Catalonia in Spain for an internal dispute example).

>"Civil war"
Bruh.

Russia occupying 20% of Georgian land is a different story, as this is an external dispute directly problematic to NATO accession as per the principles of enlargement under section 6. Furthermore, while this factor could be ignored the direct challenge by Russia to USA and other NATO powers would be an issue as well. We'd either have to go to war or look weak; which really is the reason why we haven't invited them in

But the territory is occupied by South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which you just told us makes it an internal dispute and a "civil war".

Are you actually trying to ask something here or agreeing that it wasn't clear other countries would block (as per the Turkey example in the link) a potential Ukrainian application to NATO? Perhaps my point was worded in a way that made it difficult for you to grasp.

It was very much clear Ukraine's ascencion would be blocked, certainly by 2022 when Russia went for an invasion. It already fabricated a territorial dispute via Crimea, as per your logic, so a further military invasion was already no longer neccesary.

[z3n]

As much of a coup as the German invasion of Norway was. The attempt to put a Quisling in power as part of the invasion doesn't mean that the whole invasion was done with the purpose of performing a coup.

The Russians did go for a coup, I am not sure why this basic fact is being so fiercely resisted, which practically everyone in the west accepts as one of Russia's primary goals.

You're once again comparing the sheer scale of the 1500 Cubans being landed by the USA in Cuba to the Russian army invading with some 200,000 soldiers, annexing territory and occupying large swaths of land. Had the bay of pigs been a success, the USA would not have annexed any Cuban territory.

In line with my comparison of strategy, USA had a direct national security interest in removing a threat from its sphere of influence; the invasion, despite its failure, was doubled down on by Operation Mongoose which also entailed multiple layers of US involvement from "Economic warfare", to "Military actions", and "Special sabotage support"; each of which you can read about.

The US abandoned and downscaled the operation pretty much the moment it started.

As per the above "Operation Mongoose" and the fact that US military directly participated in the invasion, we can see that they did not abandon or downscale the operation. This is because US interest in Cuba was that of "national security" and what they viewed as a fundamental threat to their most populated regions.

Oh, you meant in the event of invading Russia, I misunderstood. No one's invading Russia, it's Russia invading other countries. Repeatedly. Because it's an agressor, ruled by a megalomaniac dictator who thinks he's the reincarnation of Peter I.

Russia has a similar view to you, in the sense that Russia believes they will be invaded from the west; whereas you think the Baltic states will be invaded by from the east by 5 million troops miraculously mobilized and thousands of tanks, artillery, aircraft and ships are pumped out in unprecedented numbers all to lead up to an invasion.

Constant invasion from the west lol. What counts as constant, once every few centuries?

Disputing a military historians statement without any supporting counter argument seems rather strange to me, and it's not just him either, other respected military historians and foreign policy experts state the same thing for example the Carnegie study on NATO and Russia.

The perception of Russian weakness, however, proved to be misguided. It fed the erroneous view among U.S. policymakers that Russia’s power was not a force to be reckoned with and that the long-standing security concerns of generations of its leaders and drivers of its security policy— including those that shaped its posture in the Cuban missile crisis and the Euromissile crisis—would no longer apply. This in turn led to a fundamentally different discussion about the requirements for admitting new members into NATO and the implications of security commitments to them than if greater attention had been paid to those enduring factors shaping Russian national security policy and threat perceptions—strategic depth, a history of invasions from the west, and inherently difficult relations with other major European powers. Had these factors been taken into account, the discussion would have considered the much greater hard-security requirements associated with the commitment to defend the new members from external threats, including from Russia. Taking Russia’s weakness as the “new normal” would prove to have far-reaching consequences for European security.

__________________

Because it wants to invade them to use as puppet buffer states. Like I said, military expansion is the desired goal.

I don't really see how this refutes what the 50 western experts said, and it also assumes that military invasion is required for a buffer state to exist.

The date was meant to be earlier and was delayed to say that the Americans were wrong.

When making claims it's customary to include a hyperlink which can simply be pasted underneath the text or included as a link within the words. Personally I don't mind reading a quote either, it makes things easier than clicking sometimes.

>"Civil war"
Bruh.

Every western source I've read describes it as civil war, civil unrest and separatism, from Britannica to a common paper or Wikipedia.

a civil war in western Georgia

The 1990s were a period of instability and civil unrest in Georgia

________

But the territory is occupied by South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which you just told us makes it an internal dispute and a "civil war".

The UN recognizes both as a de jure part of Georgia (de facto is different) and NATO does not recognize either as independent states; this means it was an internal dispute from our western viewpoint, unless you accede to the Russian viewpoint.

It was very much clear Ukraine's ascencion would be blocked, certainly by 2022 when Russia went for an invasion. It already fabricated a territorial dispute via Crimea, as per your logic, so a further military invasion was already no longer neccesary.

The external occupation is simply a major factor considered, it does not guarantee a block would occur. What Russia sought was a guarantee that NATO would block any Ukraine or Georgia membership action plan, the western viewpoint is that this is unreasonable but from a foreign policy perspective Ukraine and Georgia not being in NATO is a driving strategic factor which every member of the Russian elite has.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The Russians did go for a coup, I am not sure why this basic fact is being so fiercely resisted, which practically everyone in the west accepts as one of Russia's primary goals.

I'm not saying a coup wasn't part of the plan, but that's something you'd have known if you bothered to comprehend what you're reading.
I'll explain what I'm saying this way: I went to the supermarket and bought every single item there. You describe my actions as "Oh, you went to buy milk." I'm saying "No, I didn't go to buy milk, I went to buy every item. Milk was just part of that."

In line with my comparison of strategy, USA had a direct national security interest in removing a threat from its sphere of influence; the invasion, despite its failure, was doubled down on by Operation Mongoose which also entailed multiple layers of US involvement from "Economic warfare", to "Military actions", and "Special sabotage support"; each of which you can read about.

None of which even approaches in scale the unjustified Russian invasion of Ukraine. You're comparing punching one person to a mass shooting.

As per the above "Operation Mongoose" and the fact that US military directly participated in the invasion, we can see that they did not abandon or downscale the operation. This is because US interest in Cuba was that of "national security" and what they viewed as a fundamental threat to their most populated regions.

What are you on about? Kennedy literally withheld air support to the operation soon after it started.

Russia has a similar view to you, in the sense that Russia believes they will be invaded from the west; whereas you think the Baltic states will be invaded by from the east by 5 million troops miraculously mobilized and thousands of tanks, artillery, aircraft and ships are pumped out in unprecedented numbers all to lead up to an invasion.

You don't need 5 million soldiers to overwhelm the Baltic states. As for the rest of your hyperbole, many people said the same about a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine. Heck, I myself didn't think it would happen up until 2 or so weeks before it actually did. I didn't think Putin would be that stupid.

Disputing a military historians statement without any supporting counter argument seems rather strange to me, and it's not just him either, other respected military historians and foreign policy experts state the same thing for example the Carnegie study on NATO and Russia.

Sigh. Let's see, invasions of Russia from the west: ww2, maybe ww1 but I wouldn't call that an invasion of Russia, what's next.. Napoleon? And then the time of troubles in the early 17th century? And that's.. literally it. That's all of the "constant invasions of Russia from the west". All other times Russia was fighting in the west were either the result of Russian agression, or involvement in conflicts not in Russian territory.
So yes, I disagree with those particular historians, in that I don't think 4 times in roughly 500 years constitutes a constant.

I don't really see how this refutes what the 50 western experts said, and it also assumes that military invasion is required for a buffer state to exist.

It is required when said countries vehemently do not want to be buffer states bordering one of the most aggressive countries in our day and age.

When making claims it's customary to include a hyperlink which can simply be pasted underneath the text or included as a link within the words. Personally I don't mind reading a quote either, it makes things easier than clicking sometimes.

Obviously the Russians haven't admitted it. What do you want me to quote, american intel? The Americans named February 16th as the date the invasion would start.

Every western source I've read describes it as civil war, civil unrest and separatism, from Britannica to a common paper or Wikipedia.

Because they're separatists, but they've been backed by Russia the whole time. They're Russian puppet states, like the DNR and LNR.
Also, civil unrest is not civil war.

The UN recognizes both as a de jure part of Georgia (de facto is different) and NATO does not recognize either as independent states; this means it was an internal dispute from our western viewpoint, unless you accede to the Russian viewpoint.

But you've described territory controlled by South Ossetia and Abkhazia as part of a civil war, and then mentioned 20% controlled by Russia. Where is that 20%? You're speaking of territory controlled by the aformentioned 2 puppet states. This means that the Russian invasion in 2008 changed nothing in regards to this being a "civil war".

The external occupation is simply a major factor considered, it does not guarantee a block would occur. What Russia sought was a guarantee that NATO would block any Ukraine or Georgia membership action plan, the western viewpoint is that this is unreasonable but from a foreign policy perspective Ukraine and Georgia not being in NATO is a driving strategic factor which every member of the Russian elite has.

Russia has no right to decide who Ukraine can and can't ally.

[Laser101]

You don't need 5 million soldiers to overwhelm the Baltic states. As for the rest of your hyperbole, many people said the same about a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine. Heck, I myself didn't think it would happen up until 2 or so weeks before it actually did. I didn't think Putin would be that stupid.

There was plenty of indication of preparations for the invasion of Ukraine months ahead of time though. The question was whether or not they would go through with it. At present, there isn't any such indication regarding the Baltics. If anything it's the opposite; Russian forces have been transporting munitions out of Belarus on a large scale (presumably to replenish supplies in Ukraine).

Sigh. Let's see, invasions of Russia from the west: ww2, maybe ww1 but I wouldn't call that an invasion of Russia, what's next.. Napoleon? And then the time of troubles in the early 17th century? And that's.. literally it. That's all of the "constant invasions of Russia from the west". All other times Russia was fighting in the west were either the result of Russian agression, or involvement in conflicts not in Russian territory.
So yes, I disagree with those particular historians, in that I don't think 4 times in roughly 500 years constitutes a constant.

The issue is more that Russia's geography has traditionally been bad from a security standpoint. Pretty much every border is wide open. Compare China, which is bounded by the Himalayas and the Gobi desert in the west, mountains and jungles in the south and the Pacific in the east.

Because they're separatists, but they've been backed by Russia the whole time. They're Russian puppet states, like the DNR and LNR.
Also, civil unrest is not civil war.



But you've described territory controlled by South Ossetia and Abkhazia as part of a civil war, and then mentioned 20% controlled by Russia. Where is that 20%? You're speaking of territory controlled by the aformentioned 2 puppet states. This means that the Russian invasion in 2008 changed nothing in regards to this being a "civil war".

To be fair, for a separatist movement "foreign backing" =/= "puppet state". Most successful separatists require foreign support of some kind.

A more pertinent question is whether or not a genuine interest in independence actually exists independently of foreign involvement. For Abkhazia and (to a lesser extent) South Ossetia it clearly does (for ethnic reasons) but not DPR/LPR.

[Coughdrop addict]

The issue is more that Russia's geography has traditionally been bad from a security standpoint. Pretty much every border is wide open. Compare China, which is bounded by the Himalayas and the Gobi desert in the west, mountains and jungles in the south and the Pacific in the east.

It says something about the Russian mindset that their sole solution to that problem has always been to invade or ferment civil war in every nation they border to make them into a vassal ruled by a Quisling. Throughout Russian history the idea that security could be achieved in an easier and cheaper way by forming friendly relations with border nations has apparently never so much as crossed any Russian mind. Probably because that would require Russia to see those nations as equals, a view it's massive national ego and victim complex will not allow it to have.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

There was plenty of indication of preparations for the invasion of Ukraine months ahead of time though. The question was whether or not they would go through with it. At present, there isn't any such indication regarding the Baltics. If anything it's the opposite; Russian forces have been transporting munitions out of Belarus on a large scale (presumably to replenish supplies in Ukraine).

Where did I say that Russia would launch such an invasion tomorrow? I've said it multiple times on this thread, Russia goes to war every 6-8 years. There's no threat to the Baltics today, there might in 6-8 years.

The issue is more that Russia's geography has traditionally been bad from a security standpoint. Pretty much every border is wide open. Compare China, which is bounded by the Himalayas and the Gobi desert in the west, mountains and jungles in the south and the Pacific in the east.

Ukraine has the same problem, you don't see it invading neighbouring states. The USA's borders with its neighbours are also big wide and open, yet you don't see the US army marching into Ottawa.

To be fair, for a separatist movement "foreign backing" =/= "puppet state". Most successful separatists require foreign support of some kind

A more pertinent question is whether or not a genuine interest in independence actually exists independently of foreign involvement. For Abkhazia and (to a lesser extent) South Ossetia it clearly does (for ethnic reasons) but not DPR/LPR.

South Ossetia intends to hold a referendum on joining Russia. There's no desire for independence, there's desire to please big daddy.
Abkhazia is the only one that doesn't openly seek to unite with Russia.

[Cyclops]

Bay of Pigs was not a US invasion and IMV its poor faith argumenation to call 4 airmen such.

Bay of Pigs was an attempt to reassert US citizens' property rights, and conflating Castros succesful revolution, subsequent nationalisations, US missile placement in Turkey and the Soviet response in Cuba is muddy at best.

My comments about financial calculus are in response to several posters moaning about yhe irresponsibility of Ukraine in not surrendering immediately because of the increasing damage bill. Its garbage. US and Ukrainian goals cohere atm, and sad head shaking "wont somebody think of the children?" seems to display an irritating sophistry to me.

[Roma_Victrix]

Turkey has finally relented and dropped its opposition to the NATO membership candidacies of Finland and Sweden.

Turkey agrees to back Finland, Sweden NATO bid: Finnish president: Finnish and Swedish leaders met Turkey’s Erdogan ahead of the NATO summit to try to get him to drop objections to them joining the military alliance.