War in Ukraine — Megathread

[buttercake]

I thought to open a proper thread where to discuss this topic, since the other thread on the 2020 US Presidential Elections got derailed a bit. I leave here few resources you might find interesting / helpful:

• The Guardian Ukraine crisis live;
• Ukraine Reddit page;
• Illia Ponomarenko's (local defense reporter) Twitter page.

Feel free to add / contribute with whatever resource you might find relevant.

 

[Rockman]

Latest I saw was Poland wants to supply MIGs to Ukraine. But first wants to transfer them to the US air base in Germany, and then deliver to Ukraine? But the US, in return, has to give Poland F16s in return. Sounds like a clear cut easy deal to pull off. Haha.

 

[Luman]

Latest I saw was Poland wants to supply MIGs to Ukraine. But first wants to transfer them to the US air base in Germany, and then deliver to Ukraine? But the US, in return, has to give Poland F16s in return. Sounds like a clear cut easy deal to pull off. Haha.

Harris is going to Poland this week. If she is able to handle this well, I'd be very surprised. If this deal is to be done, the White House will probably have to send somebody who is competent enough to accomplish it.

 

[Johan001]

Beside my heartbreak for the people who are suffering in this awful onslaught, what particularly enrages me:

When it comes to finding cures for illnesses, there's always "not enough funding, not enough resources".

When it comes to starting wars and throwing bombs on people's heads, the resources and funding are unlimited.

 

[Exit]

Oil tanker Black Sea on full fire.

Chernobyl nuclear plant hit according to CNN...

 

[TheDanishGirl]

Beside my heartbreak for the people who are suffering in this awful onslaught, what particularly enrages me:

When it comes to finding cures for illnesses, there's always "not enough funding, not enough resources".

When it comes to starting wars and throwing bombs on people's heads, the resources and funding are unlimited.

Yep. Focus has never been to relieve suffering, but to create more. And people wonder why I have hatred for mankind in general...

 

[buttercake]

When it comes to starting wars and throwing bombs on people's heads, the resources and funding are unlimited.

This is a summary of the entire human history, which is a pathetic farce. Violence seems to be an intrinsic feature of the reality.

 

[Elmer B Fuddled]

Yep. Focus has never been to relieve suffering, but to create more. And people wonder why I have hatred for mankind in general...

If you were to go back say 10,000 years and had been able to be there, you would see the same thing then as now. Hatred amongst the clans and wars over territory. Not much difference. Only today we are blessed with a mad man.

 

[ZFire]

Great thread @buttercake, going to reply to Juan's post which was in the US President thread:

The US is benefiting from the Ukraine war. That's why the US met with Zelensky to talk about Ukraine's potential admission in NATO. This is what provoked the war. It was all encouraged by the US.

This is Russian propaganda and a convenient excuse for Russia to attack any of its neighboring countries that haven't installed a pro-Russian dictator to ensure their populations fall in line for the Kremlin. Ukraine should be allowed to determine their own future. Even if Ukraine joined NATO, no country would dare to attack Russia first. They have the largest stockpile of nuclear arsenal.

Also, have you seen any of Putin's recent addresses? He doesn't recognize Ukraine as a sovereign state and holds the belief that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people". Someone wants to bring back the Soviet Union.

 

[Rockman]

I really wish there was more being done to help Ukraine. I just don't know what's the threshold for not causing WW3?

 

[Uklawyer]

I agree @Rockman. I do not see why the fact that Ukraine has not added its name to a piece of paper (NATO charter) should have any bearing on the plight of a whole country invaded by a dictator. It is very sad and I am ashamed to be a Westerner living in a country that is supposed to uphold principles of freedom and humanity.

 

[Juan]

. Ukraine should be allowed to determine their own future.

I agree with you on that.

Even if Ukraine joined NATO, no country would dare to attack Russia first. They have the largest stockpile of nuclear arsenal.

In my opinion, the deep roots of the Ukraine war can be found if we look back in history. When the Soviet Union collapsed Ukraine found itself having the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. These were Soviet nuclear missiles but were in Ukraine's territory.

The US did not want nuclear weapons spreading uncontrolled after the Soviet Union break-up. That's why Clinton sat with Russian politicians and Ukraine's leaders and they all explicitly or tacitly agreed that:

1 - Ukraine would destroy the nuclear weapons within its borders.
2 - NATO would not be extended to the east. This implies Ukraine would never join NATO.
3 - Russia would be the only US counterpart in nuclear matters, specifically on nuclear weapons.

As you can see, point 2 was broken when the US received Zelensky in Washington last year (2021) and encouraged him to join NATO.

Actually if you compare the NATO area in 1990 and the NATO area today, you will see NATO is already at the Russian border.

So I can despise the war as much as everyone else, but cannot ignore history, and the commitments that were made... and later broken, which have triggered the Ukraine war.

And now we can look at money. Who is benefiting from the Ukraine war?

- Russia? NO.
- Europe? NO.
- The United States? YES. They will sell petrol and gas to Europe. The US does not depend on Russian energy imports either.. so the US is behind the war, hidden as always.

And if we look at the past behaviour of the United States, related to oil matters etc., what do we find? The invasion of Irak, where NO weapons of mass destruction were found (that was the excuse! Something so ridiculous!).

What was the consequence for Europe of going to war in Irak hand in hand with the US? Terrorist attacks. We suffered a terrorist attack right here in Madrid, the train bombings of 2004, where 200 people died and many more were injured. This is Islamic terrorism, again a response to absurd US wars (Irak).

 

[KotaDomowa]

@Juan, I wrote my thesis about the war in Iraq, I know this topic in detail. It was a really terrible war: /

On the subject of the war in Ukraine: Putin committed terrible crimes already decades ago in Chechnya (I recommend Politkovskaya's reports). I am surprised that so many people only now consider him a monster.

 

[Lane]

I can despise the war as much as everyone else, but cannot ignore history, and the commitments that were made... and later broken, which have triggered the Ukraine war.

Hi @Juan,

My understanding is the U.S. (and I imagine other European countries) first assured Mikhail Gorbachev, Russia (and I believe the old Soviet Union) in 1990 under the George Bush Sr. administration that NATO would not expand eastward if the Soviet Union would not stand in the way of West and East Germany unification. Other assurances were given at various times after that as well, with some I assume coming from the Clinton administration, and others coming from various West European powers.

So is the invasion of Ukraine solely the result of the U.S. and/or NATO reneging on their assurances that NATO would not expand eastward? Hardly, in my opinion. The real reason for the war in Ukraine is because of the delusional ambitions of one man by the name of Vladamir Putin, who fancies himself to be among the great Russian leaders of all time.

And what did all these leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Peter the great, Catherine the great, Ivan the terrible, etc., all have in common that he has tried to emulate? They were all expansionist powers who worked diligently and ruthlessly on expanding the Russian empire beyond its own borders. This meant the brutal subjugation of its neighbors such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, Finland, Hungary, and on and on.

When these countries found themselves free after the breakup of the Soviet Union, they very actively pursued membership into NATO with a zeal that could only be understood by someone who'd been under the yoke of Russia for centuries. So yeah, the U.S. and Europe in allowing these countries to join NATO did break their assurances to Russia that NATO would not expand eastward. But I think it's important to understand the context of how this happened. These countries wanted protection from almost inevitable future Russian aggression! And the best assurance of that was through membership in NATO.

I don't think it can be repeated often enough that Russia has for many centuries been an expansionist power intent on expanding its borders and its empire. Vladamir Putin realized that Russia without Ukraine could never be an empire again. His proposition that Ukraine being part of NATO was somehow a future threat to Russia and needed to be neutralized is pure propaganda, and a total red herring. From just about any objective viewpoint, NATO was ALWAYS a DEFENSIVE organization, and never once posed a threat to the Soviet Union or Russia. Unless you consider it a threat to not allowing Russia to once again dominate its neighbors, just as it had done for centuries.

BTW, just for context. Russia has lied and broken its own assurances about many, many things over a long period of time. It's how they operate. Putin has assured the West and the Russian people that he would uphold the traditions of democracy in Russia, and allow basic civil liberties and freedoms for all. That's hardly the case, and Ukraine has felt the threat of his autocracy becoming ever more and more dangerous. It's why they sought NATO membership, and entry into the EU. Ukraine becoming free from his grasp was something Putin just could not fathom or countenance. Ukranians wanted to assure their freedom, Putin wanted their subjugation.

 

[ZFire]

n my opinion, the deep roots of the Ukraine war can be found if we look back in history. When the Soviet Union collapsed Ukraine found itself having the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. These were Soviet nuclear missiles but were in Ukraine's territory.

The US did not want nuclear weapons spreading uncontrolled after the Soviet Union break-up. That's why Clinton sat with Russian politicians and Ukraine's leaders and they all explicitly or tacitly agreed that:

1 - Ukraine would destroy the nuclear weapons within its borders.
2 - NATO would not be extended to the east. This implies Ukraine would never join NATO.
3 - Russia would be the only US counterpart in nuclear matters, specifically on nuclear weapons.

As you can see, point 2 was broken when the US received Zelensky in Washington last year (2021) and encouraged him to join NATO. Actually if you compare the NATO area in 1990 and the NATO area today, you will see NATO is already at the Russian border. So I can despise the war as much as everyone else, but cannot ignore history, and the commitments that were made... and later broken, which have triggered the Ukraine war.

This is what Russia agreed upon at the Budapest Memorandum:

The only one I'm seeing breaking agreements here is Russia. The 2014 annexation of Crimea, the Donetsk and Luhansk situation, and now this full scale invasion on Ukraine.

Seems like Ukraine is trying to join NATO because Putin keeps taking territory away from them despite previous agreements.

Putin's justification for invasion is all over the place as well. Seriously, watch his recent speeches... He rants about NATO East expansion, then moves on to his long held belief that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people". Then states he wants to demilitarize and "de-nazify" Ukraine. Special military operation Such nonsense, a population of 40 million people are now neo-nazis.

So I can despise the war as much as everyone else, but cannot ignore history, and the commitments that were made... and later broken, which have triggered the Ukraine war.

And now we can look at money. Who is benefiting from the Ukraine war?

- Russia? NO.
- Europe? NO.
- The United States? YES. They will sell petrol and gas to Europe. The US does not depend on Russian energy imports either.. so the US is behind the war, hidden as always.

And if we look at the past behaviour of the United States, related to oil matters etc., what do we find? The invasion of Irak, where NO weapons of mass destruction were found (that was the excuse! Something so ridiculous!).

What was the consequence for Europe of going to war in Irak hand in hand with the US? Terrorist attacks. We suffered a terrorist attack right here in Madrid, the train bombings of 2004, where 200 people died and many more were injured. This is Islamic terrorism, again a response to absurd US wars (Irak

Putin has only himself to blame and is now facing the consequences of his actions. He overplayed his hand here and largely miscalculated the Ukrainian resistance. He certainly wasn't expecting outside response via crippling sanctions from western nations and companies. Russia's economy depends largely on fossil fuel exports and now that's in jeopardy. How a single invasion like this can change everything... NATO now is arguably stronger than ever, and it looks geared to spread its influence even further... I think Kosovo wants NATO membership now.

The USA has a good history of invading foreign countries to install puppet regimes, from South America to Iraq. They've have made huge blunders post 9/11 and rightfully deserve criticism, how does it relate to what's happening now?

 

[ZFire]

@Lane, masterclass post and a great breakdown on Vladimir Putin.

I don't think it can be repeated often enough that Russia has for many centuries been an expansionist power intent on expanding its borders and its empire. Vladamir Putin realized that Russia without Ukraine could never be an empire again. His proposition that Ukraine being part of NATO was somehow a future threat to Russia and needed to be neutralized is pure propaganda, and a total red herring. From just about any objective viewpoint, NATO was ALWAYS a DEFENSIVE organization, and never once posed a threat to the Soviet Union or Russia. Unless you consider it a threat to not allowing Russia to once again dominate its neighbors, just as it had done for centuries.

Exactly. NATO's mandate isn't the safe keeping of the world or playing world police, but rather a defensive agreement amongst its members to ensure the security and stability of its territories. They won't be starting land wars with those that oppose them unless physically provoked.

 

[Lane]

Putin's justification for invasion is all over the place as well. Seriously, watch his recent speeches…He rants about NATO east expansion, then moves on to his long held belief that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people". Then states he wants to demilitarize and "de-nazify" Ukraine. Special military operation Such nonsense, a population of 40 million people are now neo-nazis.

Precisely! -- The following article describes pretty succinctly how the Russians have dishonestly portrayed what was agreed to during the 1990's after the Soviet Union collapsed. -- I think it's important to remember that the Russians lie all the time!

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

Key snippets from the article:

...Thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is still peddling the old myth of Western betrayal of Russia by expanding NATO eastward after the end of the Cold War. Both Vladimir Putin and his Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov have used this myth to demand formal Western security guarantees and that NATO rules out future membership for Ukraine and other ex-Soviet republics. Kristina Spohr explains why this narrative is based on not only a misinterpretation of the treaty that reunified Germany, but also a misunderstanding of the diplomatic process that led to it...

...Putin's reasoning is straightforward enough: he has long viewed NATO enlargement as a threat. To bolster his case, he argues that the Alliance's 'open door' policy is in direct contradiction to 'Western assurances' given to the Soviet leadership in 1990 and to Russia after 1991. He is wrong. No such assurances were ever made...

...Russia's tragedy after the end of the Cold War had less to do with American triumphalism or the survival of NATO and more to do with Yeltsin's failure to democratise Russia, create a stable market economy, establish law and order, and build a partnership with the US and NATO. In fact, the West extended him a 'hand of friendship' via the new North Atlantic Cooperation Council, a process of rapprochement that continued even after the sudden Soviet disintegration in December 1991...

...It is crucial to remember, however, that the push for NATO's opening eastward above all came from the Eastern Europeans and Balts. Contrary to the claims of current Russian propagandists, NATO had no institutionally driven expansion plans aimed at 'encircling' Russia...​

 

[Lane]

When one considers who has not lived up to their "assurances", it's always good to keep in mind that Russia assured Ukraine they would respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. They've now started a barbaric war against that country. What more is there really to be said?

Has NATO and EU Expansion Provoked the Conflict in Ukraine?

...EU and NATO enlargement should be seen in the context of the Helsinki Final Act (1975) to which the USSR was a signatory, and the Charter of Paris (1990), signed by Gorbachev. These texts underline the right of sovereign states to self-determination in their choice of partnerships. In the Budapest memorandum (1994) Russia agreed to respect the territorial integrity and the existing borders of Ukraine in exchange for Ukrainian denuclearisation.

What was agreed or not agreed regarding NATO expansion after the end of the Cold War is highly contested. Putin is aggrieved that the West broke commitments made in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. -- But it is an odd logic that supposes that Russia, a successor state to the former oppressor of nine NATO members, should have a veto over who joins the Alliance, a demand rejected by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg...​

 

[Juan]

Hi @Juan,

My understanding is the U.S. (and I imagine other European countries) first assured Mikhail Gorbachev, Russia (and I believe the old Soviet Union) in 1990 under the George Bush Sr. administration that NATO would not expand eastward if the Soviet Union would not stand in the way of West and East Germany unification. Other assurances were given at various times after that as well, with some I assume coming from the Clinton administration, and others coming from various West European powers.

So is the invasion of Ukraine solely the result of the U.S. and/or NATO reneging on their assurances that NATO would not expand eastward? Hardly, in my opinion. The real reason for the war in Ukraine is because of the delusional ambitions of one man by the name of Vladamir Putin, who fancies himself to be among the great Russian leaders of all time.

And what did all these leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Peter the great, Catherine the great, Ivan the terrible, etc., all have in common that he has tried to emulate? They were all expansionist powers who worked diligently and ruthlessly on expanding the Russian empire beyond its own borders. This meant the brutal subjugation of its neighbors such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, Finland, Hungary, and on and on.

When these countries found themselves free after the breakup of the Soviet Union, they very actively pursued membership into NATO with a zeal that could only be understood by someone who'd been under the yoke of Russia for centuries. So yeah, the U.S. and Europe in allowing these countries to join NATO did break their assurances to Russia that NATO would not expand eastward. But I think it's important to understand the context of how this happened. These countries wanted protection from almost inevitable future Russian aggression! And the best assurance of that was through membership in NATO.

I don't think it can be repeated often enough that Russia has for many centuries been an expansionist power intent on expanding its borders and its empire. Vladamir Putin realized that Russia without Ukraine could never be an empire again. His proposition that Ukraine being part of NATO was somehow a future threat to Russia and needed to be neutralized is pure propaganda, and a total red herring. From just about any objective viewpoint, NATO was ALWAYS a DEFENSIVE organization, and never once posed a threat to the Soviet Union or Russia. Unless you consider it a threat to not allowing Russia to once again dominate its neighbors, just as it had done for centuries.

BTW, just for context. Russia has lied and broken its own assurances about many, many things over a long period of time. It's how they operate. Putin has assured the West and the Russian people that he would uphold the traditions of democracy in Russia, and allow basic civil liberties and freedoms for all. That's hardly the case, and Ukraine has felt the threat of his autocracy becoming ever more and more dangerous. It's why they sought NATO membership, and entry into the EU. Ukraine becoming free from his grasp was something Putin just could not fathom or countenance. Ukranians wanted to assure their freedom, Putin wanted their subjugation.

So Europe is surrounded by liars: the Americans and the Russians.

European politicians should be more intelligent and start trading more with Asian countries. At least Asians only care about making money and being happy, and they do not pretend to be the world police like the US (the US has embarked Europe in several wars that we should not have fought, like the Irak war) or invade countries like the Russians.

 

[Juan]

This is what Russia agreed upon at the Budapest Memorandum:

View attachment 49396

The only one I'm seeing breaking agreements here is Russia. The 2014 annexation of Crimea, the Donetsk and Luhansk situation, and now this full scale invasion on Ukraine.

Seems like Ukraine is trying to join NATO because Putin keeps taking territory away from them despite previous agreements.

Putin's justification for invasion is all over the place as well. Seriously, watch his recent speeches... He rants about NATO East expansion, then moves on to his long held belief that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people". Then states he wants to demilitarize and "de-nazify" Ukraine. Special military operation Such nonsense, a population of 40 million people are now neo-nazis.

Putin has only himself to blame and is now facing the consequences of his actions. He overplayed his hand here and largely miscalculated the Ukrainian resistance. He certainly wasn't expecting outside response via crippling sanctions from western nations and companies. Russia's economy depends largely on fossil fuel exports and now that's in jeopardy. How a single invasion like this can change everything... NATO now is arguably stronger than ever, and it looks geared to spread its influence even further... I think Kosovo wants NATO membership now.

The USA has a good history of invading foreign countries to install puppet regimes, from South America to Iraq. They've have made huge blunders post 9/11 and rightfully deserve criticism, how does it relate to what's happening now?

I think you are forgetting to paste what other countries assured Russia. I do not think that, at international agreements, Russians make assurances and the Americans, Europe, and the former Soviet countries do not make any. It is all a multilateral agreement, clear in some parts and subject to interpretation in others.

And it seems Putin's interpretation of the whole thing is the US and Ukraine broke the agreement, and this triggered a response.

The US thought Irak broke a series of agreements about weapons etc and started a long lasting war in Irak. The Americans stole their oil and... on top of it all, the US never found any weapons of mass destruction in Irak.

So yeah, Putin is the devil, but the US is not better than him.

 

[Uklawyer]

The US did not want nuclear weapons spreading uncontrolled after the Soviet Union break-up. That's why Clinton sat with Russian politicians and Ukraine's leaders and they all explicitly or tacitly agreed that:

1 - Ukraine would destroy the nuclear weapons within its borders.
2 - NATO would not be extended to the east. This implies Ukraine would never join NATO.
3 - Russia would be the only US counterpart in nuclear matters, specifically on nuclear weapons.

How could Clinton and Russian politicians agree that NATO would not be extended to the East? It's impossible for them to make a side agreement on accession of any third country to NATO.

What does point 3. mean?

Why does it matter if Ukraine is a member of NATO? It obviously has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. And there is no legitimate reason for invading a sovereign state that has not imminently threatened the security of the invading state. Plus, it's Putin. Doesn't take a genius to see he is a corrupt, murderous dictator.

 

[Lane]

So Europe is surrounded by liars: the Americans and the Russians.

So yeah, Putin is the devil, but the US is not better than him.

Russia and America are not in the same category. Putin has a long history of indiscriminately bombing civilian populations and medical facilities of all kinds, in Chechnya, Syria, Georgia, etc., and now Ukraine. He's primarily responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people in these regions.

He also has a penchant for jailing or assassinating his political opponents. His current primary political opponent had--of all things--his underwear poisoned by his thugs. As Alexei Navalny said at his sentencing for trumped up charges: "There was Alexander the Liberator and Yaroslav the Wise. Now we'll have Vladimir the Underwear Poisoner".

He's also primarily responsible for the arrest of thousands of Russians who are demonstrating against the war in Ukraine. These people will likely suffer lifelong consequences for their acts of courage, as Putin does not like any kind of questioning of his authoritarian rule.

The U.S. has many faults, and has had its fair share of stupid, incompetent leaders who've done extraordinarily immoral and unethical things. But to equate the history of Putin and/or Russia and the U.S. as somehow being equal shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of the totality of their histories over the past several decades.

In short, the former Soviet Union and now Russia have continuously put forward an offensive posture, meant to intimidate and subjugate their (perceived) opponents (neighboring countries), and brutally punished those who opposed them. The U.S., and especially along with its NATO partners have always maintained a primarily defensive posture in Europe, and advocated for civil liberties and democratic values. There's simply no moral equivalency between the two.

 

[Juan]

Russia and America are not in the same category. Putin has a long history of indiscriminately bombing civilian populations and medical facilities of all kinds, in Chechnya, Syria, Georgia, etc., and now Ukraine. He's primarily responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people in these regions.

Yes, they are. The US is the only country that has dropped atomic bombs over the civil population.

The US has also killed civilians in all the wars it has fought, like any other nation that goes to war. The mess the US has created in Irak and Afghanistan will be remembered in history. The US spent 20 years in Afghanistan and the Taliban controlled the country in two weeks after foreign soldiers left.

The U.S., and especially along with its NATO partners have always maintained a primarily defensive posture in Europe, and advocated for civil liberties and democratic values.

How could the Irak war, started by the US, be considered "defensive"?

 

[Juan]

What does point 3. mean?

Point 3 means that the US wanted to keep the nuclear balance after the Cold War, and preferred to have to talk exclusively to Russia rather than to a bunch of nuclear formerly Soviet Republics. They did not want nuclear weapons spreading without controls. The US preferred that only Russia had the weapons; this way they only had to talk to one country.

How could Clinton and Russian politicians agree that NATO would not be extended to the East? It's impossible for them to make a side agreement on accession of any third country to NATO.

It is not impossible because they can object to other countries joining NATO.

The EU for instance could commit not to include any new members. That is a commitment that affects other countries. Those other countries are applicants but they do not decide whether they get into the EU or into NATO.

 

[Luman]

Kamala Harris, with her speech and answers to reporters questions in Poland, is a national embarrassment.

She speaks to everybody like they are in kindergarten. She cackles and laughs at totally inappropriate times. People are being killed, displaced and threatened, and she laughs.

This was her chance to change her image as a incompetent buffoon, and she completely negated it.

Europe overwhelmingly supported Biden and Harris for the White House in 2020, now they're facing the bitter reality of what they wished for.

 

[Juan]

She speaks to everybody like they are in kindergarten. She cackles and laughs at totally inappropriate times. People are being killed, displaced and threatened, and she laughs.

She must have copied her speaking style from Donald Trump.

 

[Uklawyer]

It is not impossible because they can object to other countries joining NATO.

The US, as a NATO member can. Russia cannot. There was no formal agreement on this because it cannot be enforced. No third country can veto the accession of another state to NATO. Also, see Article 10, open door policy.

Point 3 means that the US wanted to keep the nuclear balance after the Cold War, and preferred to have to talk exclusively to Russia rather than to a bunch of nuclear formerly Soviet Republics. They did not want nuclear weapons spreading without controls. The US preferred that only Russia had the weapons; this way they only had to talk to one country.

There was no specific agreement on this. I think it was more to do with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991 ("START") between the US and the Soviet Union, in which nuclear weapons were limited on each side. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine joined the Lisbon protocol to START as successor states. under which they committed to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and give up nuclear arms. Could that have been pushed by Russia as signatory to START? Probably. Apparently, Ukraine, like Kazakhstan, wanted to give up weapons before acceding to this treaty. Belarus gave up its weapons as an ally of Russia.

 

[KotaDomowa]

Why do some people have to be so nasty? :/

This is not a big politics topic, but a micro issue. A photo of a Ukrainian refugee carrying his sick dog appeared on one of my country's local portals.

How can anyone say that the refugee should have abandoned the dog "because these are times of war, because in crisis only people count, because somewhere, on a train full of refugees, there were also dogs and cats", that kind of shit...?

This deepens my tendency towards misanthropy :/

By the way, three refugees have recently moved to my workplace: grandmother, mother and two-year-old Aleksandrov. I fed our office fish together with Aleksandrov.

 

[Juan]

The US, as a NATO member can. Russia cannot. There was no formal agreement on this because it cannot be enforced. No third country can veto the accession of another state to NATO. Also, see Article 10, open door policy.

It was possible for Russia to obtain a commitment from members of NATO, pledging not to extend NATO to the east, towards the Russian border. It depends on the good faith of members of NATO to enforce what was probably agreed.

That's why there's this theory that NATO and the US did not honor what was agreed with Russia.

 

[ZFire]

Yes, they are. The US is the only country that has dropped atomic bombs over the civil population.

The US has also killed civilians in all the wars it has fought, like any other nation that goes to war. The mess the US has created in Irak and Afghanistan will be remembered in history. The US spent 20 years in Afghanistan and the Taliban controlled the country in two weeks after foreign soldiers left.

False equivalency again. You're equalizing Putin with US presidents, European etc. on Iraq/Afghanistan which has its own merit, but at the present time serves no purpose other than to shift blame and distract from the seriousness of what's currently happening now.

But to play along... this is in no way an endorsement of the US invasions but wasn't Saddam Hussein a legitimate bad guy? Was Osama bin Laden actually a good guy? I don't think Ukrainian president, Zelensky gassed his own people or carried out multiple terrorist attacks. Our misadventures after 9/11 were futile, but the bad guys were real. You can't say the same with this Russian invasion. Russian military are resorting to dirty tactics at the moment. Intentionally bombing civilian buildings, shelling nuclear power plants, and deliberating targeting non combatants.

As @Lane already discussed, Russia is a completely different culture, one where people are killed, imprisoned, and intimidated for telling the truth on any level. A dictator who controls his population by a massive degree. In the US, we at least have terms limits for leaders and they answer to their citizens. Can't say the same for Russia whose "president" has been in office for decades now. In the case of Saddam and now Putin, they answer to no one but themselves.