War threat in Ukraine

[Value Collector]

If NATO's goal was to unite small nations against Russia, then it is by definition an offensive organisation, and cannot claim that it's actions are defensive. Ergo, Russia's response is legitimate as an offensive force has progressively migrated towards it borders a reaction was inevitable.
My opinion is that NATO was never intended to be an offensive organisation. But it's use by Western powers to recruit smaller Eastern European nations for political purposes has transformed it into one, and that has certainly been the interpretation from Russia.
What was the US' reaction during the Cuban missile crisis when Russia wanted to shift defensive position's to America's backyard? The rhetoric at the time was that this was an offensive action - the same interpretation is applied here.

I agree, Ukraine does have a right to sovereignty, self-government and self-determination. But that also means that a nation must be ready to deal with the ramifications & repercussions of those decisions.
The decision to join NATO may have been made in the context of some implicit or explicit guarantee of Western military support, whilst Russia was bellowing threats about lines not being crossed. The Ukrainian government made a decision, and this is the consequence.
No country lives in a vacuum. There is no right or wrong here. Just actions & reactions.

Yes, the suffering of refugees cannot be ignored - it is what makes war so terrible when innocent people have their lives destroyed. But I think that they will fare better than their compatriots who were victims of NATO-assisted wars in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan & Iraq.

It could only be considered an offensive organisation if it’s goal was to united smaller nations to attack Russia, which in its 73 year existence it hasn’t done.

It’s goal is clearly to defend, the treaty isn’t activated until one of its member states is attacked.

And secondly, Russia helped create those Syrian Refugees, and NATO countries only fought in Afghanistan because New York was attacked.

 

[JohnDe]

A rose-tinted view of what NATO does, obviously published by NATO.

Of course NATO will argue for its existence - it'd be foolish to think that they wouldn't. But to then believe their arguments that operations in Afghanistan and Libya were successful and beneficial to the local population? Please...

More to the point, none of this addresses Putin's main issue - which is the persistent, east-ward expansion of NATO since 1999. Not 2008, or 2014.
In fact, Russia's security concerns have been communicated for much longer as described by NATO's own website:



These concerns have been present for much longer than what is currently being portrayed. And if it were mentioned in private discussions in 1997, then it would have been again both privately & publicly for many years after.

Framing the war as a recent escalation of events is disingenuous and frankly, propaganda.

If that's a rose tinted view, yours is a Putin tinted view. You have given no evidence to your theory, only Putin double speak.

NATO was formed after WWII to stop another war from aggression of a nation against others, designed as a treaty to combine the defences of all signatories so that if an aggressive nation attacks one country they attack all. It is a protection against bullying nations.

It is sad that this history has not been taught in all schools.

​

Only 14 articles long, the Treaty is one of the shortest documents of its kind. The carefully crafted articles were the subject of several months of discussion and negotiations before the Treaty was actually signed.​

​

However, once Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States had discussed these issues, they agreed on a document that would establish the North Atlantic Alliance.​

​

On 4 April 1949, the 12 countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty at the Departmental Auditorium in Washington D.C., the city which lends its name to the Treaty.​

​

The Treaty committed each member to share the risk, responsibilities and benefits of collective defence – a concept at the very heart of the Alliance. In 1949, the primary aim of the Treaty was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent. The Treaty also required members not to enter into any international commitments that conflicted with the Treaty and committed them to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations (UN). Moreover, it stated that NATO members formed a unique community of values committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.​

​

In addition to collective defence and key values, the principle of consensus decision-making and the importance of consultation define the spirit of the Organization, together with its defensive nature and its flexibility.​

​

The signing of the Treaty led to the creation of the Alliance and, only later, did a fully-fledged organisation develop. Strictly speaking, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) provides the structure which enables the goals of the Alliance to be implemented. To date, those goals have not fundamentally changed nor the Treaty been rewritten. The only so-called “amendments” made so far stem from the series of accession protocols which have been added as new members join, illustrating the foresight of its drafters and their ability to marry international concerns and objectives with national interests.​

North Atlantic Treaty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JohnDe]

You mentioned Russia has its right to sovereignty but what about Ukraines right to Sovereignty...

You might not want to believe that the Russian people’s standard of living will be affected, but what about the Ukrainian People? What crimes have they committed against Russia to justify the Invasion?

And the bombardment of their cities and essential infrastructure? The Russian army is destroying a whole nation, sending them back to the stone age.

Putin and the Russian military are committing war atrocities and crimes against humanity.

 

[JohnDe]

West’s sanctions over Ukraine mean war: Vladimir Putin​

Vladimir Putin has equated global sanctions imposed over his invasion of Ukraine with a “declaration of war”, and warned that any enforcement of a no-fly zone over his besieged neighbour would have “colossal and catastrophic consequences”.

The Russian President issued the double-pronged threat after Russian artillery pummelled the Ukrainian city of Mariupol in violation of a ceasefire to allow civilians to escape.

With fears growing of direct conflict between Western forces and Russia – both nuclear-armed – the US and Moscow set up a new direct phone line to reduce the risks of “miscalculation”. Russian forces attacked and seized Europe’s largest nuclear plant at Zaporizhzhia on Friday, pushing Kyiv to accuse Moscow of “nuclear terror”.....

....The evacuation from the southern port city of Mariupol was suspended minutes after it began on Saturday morning, forcing civilians back into hiding as Russia disregarded the agreement and continued its bombardment

Further north, Russia continued its three-pronged advance on Kyiv, shelling residential areas south of the capital for the first time late on Saturday

 

[waterbottle]

If that's a rose tinted view, yours is a Putin tinted view. You have given no evidence to your theory, only Putin double speak.

NATO was formed after WWII to stop another war from aggression of a nation against others, designed as a treaty to combine the defences of all signatories so that if an aggressive nation attacks one country they attack all. It is a protection against bullying nations.

It is sad that this history has not been taught in all schools.

​

Only 14 articles long, the Treaty is one of the shortest documents of its kind. The carefully crafted articles were the subject of several months of discussion and negotiations before the Treaty was actually signed.​

​

However, once Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States had discussed these issues, they agreed on a document that would establish the North Atlantic Alliance.​

​

On 4 April 1949, the 12 countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty at the Departmental Auditorium in Washington D.C., the city which lends its name to the Treaty.​

​

The Treaty committed each member to share the risk, responsibilities and benefits of collective defence – a concept at the very heart of the Alliance. In 1949, the primary aim of the Treaty was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent. The Treaty also required members not to enter into any international commitments that conflicted with the Treaty and committed them to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations (UN). Moreover, it stated that NATO members formed a unique community of values committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.​

​

In addition to collective defence and key values, the principle of consensus decision-making and the importance of consultation define the spirit of the Organization, together with its defensive nature and its flexibility.​

​

The signing of the Treaty led to the creation of the Alliance and, only later, did a fully-fledged organisation develop. Strictly speaking, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) provides the structure which enables the goals of the Alliance to be implemented. To date, those goals have not fundamentally changed nor the Treaty been rewritten. The only so-called “amendments” made so far stem from the series of accession protocols which have been added as new members join, illustrating the foresight of its drafters and their ability to marry international concerns and objectives with national interests.​

North Atlantic Treaty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

John, you've outlined in your post that NATO existed to combat the USSR. The USSR collapsed in 1991. So what exactly was NATO defending against after 1991?

 

[Smurf1976]

The reality is there are several countries who will want what Russia are selling and will align themselves to hey access to them. Trade will continue, as it has always.

I can see that being an initial response but perhaps not the long term one.

China for example is going to have to choose Russia or the West, supporting the former will cost them business with the latter slowly but surely I expect.

 

[JohnDe]

John, you've outlined in your post that NATO existed to combat the USSR. The USSR collapsed in 1991. So what exactly was NATO defending against after 1991?

You obviously did not read what I posted, because the answer to that specific question is there.

 

[JohnDe]

 

[waterbottle]

Long but interesting if you have time

 

[moXJO]

Diplomacy first gentlemen. It is never a good time to send young men to go and die in war. And as much as I advocated for war in the past. I was wrong.

Think about it this way. The west went into Iraq and absolutely levelled the place.
Israel is in Palestine. Hell, the US is the only country to nuke civilians (or anyone for that matter).
The west is also arming the Ukraine massively to cause a huge number of deaths.
We have had high ranking US members calling for Putin to be assassinated.

Are we that righteous, that we are really pushing for this without exhausting every option?

There seems to be a massive disconnect with a huge amount of men, of all ages. There are a lot that are not just hoping but actively going to Ukraine to fight. Can't but help to think that many want this to happen.

 

[noirua]

Ukraine war: Russia's corruption is 'no doubt' affecting its military's combat performance

Russia has suffered significant logistical and strategic issues, but videos and photos on social media of captured equipment show poor maintenance and quality.

www.foxnews.com

 

[The Triangle]

Ukraine war: Russia's corruption is 'no doubt' affecting its military's combat performance

Russia has suffered significant logistical and strategic issues, but videos and photos on social media of captured equipment show poor maintenance and quality.

www.foxnews.com

Hard to know what's propaganda vs fact with these articles. But we know Russia spends around 1/10 what the US does on it's military. So that lack of spending must also show up somewhere other than old rations. Missiles aren't cheap. Firing a few dozen a day for 10 days or so would eat up a lot of $. A few downed helicopters and jets at $50 million a pop maybe?

Wonder when both sides will just simply run out of heavy weapons.

 

[Smurf1976]

Are we that righteous, that we are really pushing for this without exhausting every option?

As a concept I'm quite strongly against war.

But what other options exist right now if Putin carries on?

It would mean some pain for the rest of the world but if we got serious with the sanctions, rather than continuing to send Russia ~1 billion USD per day for oil and gas, then that might eventually work?

 

[againsthegrain]

Hard to know what's propaganda vs fact with these articles. But we know Russia spends around 1/10 what the US does on it's military. So that lack of spending must also show up somewhere other than old rations. Missiles aren't cheap. Firing a few dozen a day for 10 days or so would eat up a lot of $. A few downed helicopters and jets at $50 million a pop maybe?

Wonder when both sides will just simply run out of heavy weapons.

I read some statistics in a article somewhere I forget now. For example firing big mounted machine guns which spit out thousands of bullets per minute or more adds up to a few trucks worth of ammo in not a very long time at all.

 

[moXJO]

It would mean some pain for the rest of the world but if we got serious with the sanctions, rather than continuing to send Russia ~1 billion USD per day for oil and gas, then that might eventually work?

That's just it. What's the west willing to suffer to avoid deaths?
Not much I'm guessing.

It all seems very manufactured. No problem with Putin getting taken out internally.
But something feels very off with this all.

The other thing is the question of why the US and Europe are really involved and how this thing really started. This goes a lot deeper than dropping "freedom bombs". Because it seems like a great way to grind down the Russian economy and deplete the military by proxy.

I've got no love for the Russian government. But I'm not blind to the fact we have sneaky arse western governments that are totally devoid of honesty.

 

[moXJO]

Also floods should bring a bumper crop next year for Australia. Just in time to feed the world. Invest accordingly.

 

[JohnDe]

That's just it. What's the west willing to suffer to avoid deaths?
Not much I'm guessing.

It all seems very manufactured. No problem with Putin getting taken out internally.
But something feels very off with this all.

The other thing is the question of why the US and Europe are really involved and how this thing really started. This goes a lot deeper than dropping "freedom bombs". Because it seems like a great way to grind down the Russian economy and deplete the military by proxy.

I've got no love for the Russian government. But I'm not blind to the fact we have sneaky arse western governments that are totally devoid of honesty.

Sounds like a lot of conspiracy theories in that statement

The situation is very dangerous and delicate, it could escalate to a multi-nation war with extreme and severe consequences which include nuclear retaliation from Russia.

The US and NATO can't offer air defense or boots on the ground to help the Ukrainian people, because Putin has warned every nation that he is ready to use his nuclear arsenal.

Some people are trying connect dots that aren't there, and find similarities with US incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan to the current Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The USA never claimed that Iraq and Afghanistan was the territory of the USA, unlike Putin's Russia which has claimed that the Ukraine is Russian territory and its democratically elected government are Nazis waging genocide on its people, with no evidence other than all the Ukrainian people willing to fight for their neighbours and land.

Two world wars began in Europe, the people of the world do not want another. After the cold war ended Western governments opened their business doors to Russia, creating immense wealth for Russia and its people. Instead of using most of the new found wealth to improve the the lives of Russian citizens and modernise the country, the powerful have instead made a few super wealthy and the armed forces expand.

Countries like Germany may now be heading towards a recession because they put all their eggs in the Russian energy basket. Other countries are also in the same boat and on top of an energy crises is the added stress of food shortage from the loss of Russian and Ukraine crops, transport logistics, commercial flights being re-routed, the possibility of 10 million Ukrainian refugees, toxic pollution from war on their borders, death and destruction and fear of a world war.

Only conspiracy theorists and movies see western governments being "sneaky" and pushing countries to world wars.

Claim: NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia​

Fact: For more than three decades, NATO has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia.​

NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, at the London NATO Summit of July 1990 (declaration here). In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia.​

In 1997, NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002, this was upgraded, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) (The Founding Act can be read here)​

We set out to build a good relationship with Russia. We worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning.​

However, in March 2014, in response to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia. At the same time, NATO has kept channels for communication with Russia open. The NATO-Russia Council remains an important platform for dialogue. That is why NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has invited all members of the NATO-Russia Council to a series of meetings to improve security in Europe.​

 

[noirua]

Putin Lost the Digital War Abroad. Will He Lose at Home?

Its diplomatic efforts in tatters, its agencies beset by cyber vigilantes, the Russian government is still choking off the information that fuels its homegrown protest movement.

www.defenseone.com

 

[noirua]

LIVE UPDATES: Biden admin supports NATO sending jets to Ukraine while calls intensify for the US to do more​

NATO countries have 'green light' to send fighter jets to Ukraine, Blinken says

NATO members have a "green light" to send fighter jets as part of their military aid to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[againsthegrain]

LIVE UPDATES: Biden admin supports NATO sending jets to Ukraine while calls intensify for the US to do more​

NATO countries have 'green light' to send fighter jets to Ukraine, Blinken says

NATO members have a "green light" to send fighter jets as part of their military aid to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

I read headings that Russians are sending in Syrian soldiers into Ukraine. This is escalating even more as we were hoping it will run out of steam. So does this mean Syria officialy is declaring war on Ukraine?