Back to Ukraine. A talking head on CNN brought up potential use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. Would that finally be the straw to force NATO to intercedes?

bt

NIKV69 wrote:

Uh oh.

https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/33 ... g-get-home

This is a very delicate situation and Putin just got a bargaining chip. Very curious to see how this plays out.

What? How is the a bargaining chip for PUTIN

bikerthai wrote:

Back to Ukraine. A talking head on CNN brought up potential use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. Would that finally be the straw to force NATO to intercedes?

bt

NATO should not wait for another day before sending their forces to fight Russia against their illegal invasion of Ukraine.

It is clear that Russia is attacking the civilians in Ukraine. So, the world should not see if Russia is going to use chemical weapons or otherwise.

bikerthai wrote:

Back to Ukraine. A talking head on CNN brought up potential use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. Would that finally be the straw to force NATO to intercedes?

bt

I doubt it, as was seen in Iraq and later in Syria, chemical weapons are not truly regarded as a WMD.

bikerthai wrote:

Back to Ukraine. A talking head on CNN brought up potential use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. Would that finally be the straw to force NATO to intercedes?

bt

At this point, I'm almost willing to bet Putin could use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine and NATO will not intervene.

A coalition of aligned countries might intervene in SOMETHING, but I personally doubt NATO will.

marcelh wrote:

Putin called the sanctions almost an act of war, so it must hurt somehow….

I don't get what he intended by saying that. Saying it before the war, OK, it might make some countries hesitant. But saying it now that sanctions are already in place, and he hasn't started a nuclear holocaust in response, is useless.

Pellegrine wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Back to Ukraine. A talking head on CNN brought up potential use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. Would that finally be the straw to force NATO to intercedes?

bt

At this point, I'm almost willing to bet Putin could use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine and NATO will not intervene.

A coalition of aligned countries might intervene in SOMETHING, but I personally doubt NATO will.

Even a small tactical nuke would have effects and ramifications beyond ground zero in Ukraine, it would cross a line that would likely result in two outcomes, one is that finally those in Putin’s circle see this as an existential threat to Russia given that it might make NATO involvement politically impossible to resist, meaning a full scale war, Putin has already made reckless nuclear threats now he does this? They would remove him to prevent that.
No other coalition of countries beyond NATO have the reason or capability to ‘do something’, whatever that means? Any suggestions? The Vatican Guards?

The other is, bearing in mind this is really for Putin about a proxy war with NATO and democratic European nations, the latter embarrassing for his kleptocracy and for all the veneer of military power, an internally decaying Russia. Ironically much like the USSR when Putin was a young KGB zealot. Of course there he is a tin foil hat wearer in his delusion that the west somehow done the USSR /Warsaw Pact in.

Those gagging for ‘action’ would do well to watch this interview with a former head of UK Defence Intelligence and a RAF Air Marshall, who at least has a background in understanding these issues;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5gvnN9PplY&t=336s

And from a Royal Navy Admiral;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tPNoVH3u8U

I would favour, maybe it is happening the UK is supplying more but as the Admiral says, not going into details, the UK providing these in their MANPAD configuration, though across the border training would likely be needed;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8iYrszTgtk

Aesma wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Putin called the sanctions almost an act of war, so it must hurt somehow….

I don't get what he intended by saying that. Saying it before the war, OK, it might make some countries hesitant. But saying it now that sanctions are already in place, and he hasn't started a nuclear holocaust in response, is useless.

Well if the response is that some sanctions will fall away in 6 months, will it have been useless?
Unless you assume that Ukraine will not only win the war but advance into Russia proper?
Note also that he has not turned off his oil / gas exports and countries are still buying.

par13del wrote:

I doubt it, as was seen in Iraq and later in Syria, chemical weapons are not truly regarded as a WMD.

We are ignoring the inherent emotional baggage of the European populace. They have already shown that they do care more on their next door neighbor than some one farther away.

Maybe a coalition of France, the US and the UK could possibly coalesce (and maybe Poland). After all, gas was used on French soil during WWI and many European citizens were gassed in concentration camp by the Nazi.

Of course the irony would pile on if Russia decide to use chemical weapons as they are in Ukraine to "de-Nazify" it.

bt

GDB wrote:

Even a small tactical nuke would have effects and ramifications beyond ground zero in Ukraine, it would cross a line that would likely result in two outcomes, one is that finally those in Putin’s circle see this as an existential threat to Russia . . . They would remove him to prevent that.

It would also make Tom Clancy the Nostradamus of our times.

And for some levity, I recommend the movie Death of Stalin.

bt

GDB wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Back to Ukraine. A talking head on CNN brought up potential use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. Would that finally be the straw to force NATO to intercedes?

bt

At this point, I'm almost willing to bet Putin could use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine and NATO will not intervene.

A coalition of aligned countries might intervene in SOMETHING, but I personally doubt NATO will.

Even a small tactical nuke would have effects and ramifications beyond ground zero in Ukraine, it would cross a line that would likely result in two outcomes, one is that finally those in Putin’s circle see this as an existential threat to Russia given that it might make NATO involvement politically impossible to resist, meaning a full scale war, Putin has already made reckless nuclear threats now he does this? They would remove him to prevent that.
No other coalition of countries beyond NATO have the reason or capability to ‘do something’, whatever that means? Any suggestions? The Vatican Guards?

The other is, bearing in mind this is really for Putin about a proxy war with NATO and democratic European nations, the latter embarrassing for his kleptocracy and for all the veneer of military power, an internally decaying Russia. Ironically much like the USSR when Putin was a young KGB zealot. Of course there he is a tin foil hat wearer in his delusion that the west somehow done the USSR /Warsaw Pact in.

Those gagging for ‘action’ would do well to watch this interview with a former head of UK Defence Intelligence and a RAF Air Marshall, who at least has a background in understanding these issues;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5gvnN9PplY&t=336s

That's why I said almost. With the nuclear question, I'm still willing to bet there are Russians in the military who would not let this happen even if Putin orders it. He can't launch one alone, he knows it and the west does too.

Right now I don't think anyone is going to do a damned thing. Not a damned thing. As messed up as that is, it may be for the best. He has to wreck the country to achieve his stated goals.

Russia and Putin have no 'out'. There's no way for Russia to get off this ride, and there's no way for them to 'win'. That makes the situation more dangerous.

Pellegrine wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Back to Ukraine. A talking head on CNN brought up potential use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. Would that finally be the straw to force NATO to intercedes?

bt

At this point, I'm almost willing to bet Putin could use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine and NATO will not intervene.

A coalition of aligned countries might intervene in SOMETHING, but I personally doubt NATO will.

The threat of nukes is the only thing preventing NATO from jumping in.

Pellegrine wrote:

Right now I don't think anyone is going to do a damned thing. Not a damned thing.

In the West, it will take large pro-war demonstration by citizens to give the politicians the back bone to act.

bt

Interesting video from vice
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fk5DgCwdTCw

You don't need to agree with there general political views (left, woke?), but the video shows among other stuff civilian preparation in Kyiv and Odesa (unfortunately next hotspot?)

Since we have no such videos of Ukrainian people helping the Russian invador (I'm sure if such video existed, the Russian coulndn't stop showing them to the world), this should make clear the will of a overwellming part of the Ukrainian population to all the Putin apologist.

I'm also wondering what is actually happening in the Dombass region since we don't here much in the media anymore.
While the western media presence there must be low to nonexistence, Russian state media still should have ample access.
All the maps showing Russian advance I have seen, seem to suggest that there isn't much expansion over the line of control. An article I can't find anymore (so no link) suggest that there were some attempts to gain terrain by separatists but that they have retreated back over the line of control.
If true would this mean that they simply don't have the power, or could it be that the separatist still see the rest of Ukraine as at least brothers and don't agree with what Putin is doing...

Best regards, and strength to the Ukrainian people,
Jonas

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

All the maps showing Russian advance I have seen, seem to suggest that there isn't much expansion over the line of control. An article I can't find anymore (so no link) suggest that there were some attempts to gain terrain by separatists but that they have retreated back over the line of control.

That area would have been the most heavily fortified prior to the War. So advancing there would be much more difficult.

If other area collapse quickly, then Ukraine would be forced to consolidate their lines and abandon that area.

bt

From my understanding more than 1 million people had fled the separatist regions before this invasion. Since 2014 I mean. Some of them just over the line of control, and some have joined the fight. It's doubtful the separatists had ever a majority on their side, however once many ethnic ukrainians had fled, they probably did. BTW Russia complaining about the "Ukrainization" of people there is ironic considering the Soviets did exactly that, in reverse, all over Ukraine, and in particular Crimea and the Donbas : settling ethnic Russian there, some ethnic cleansing (Tatars), and ban of the Ukrainian language, with Russification of children etc.

flipdewaf wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Also, you are forgetting WHY many ex-Warsaw Pact countries sought to join NATO; they've experienced what was life under Russian control, and they didn't like it.

In the 90' Russia was trying hard to become democracy and integrate with west. In my opinion that was an honest attempt by them to stop being USSR. But we treated them as USSR still. NATO took in everyone scared of Russia, but at no point it was thinking seriously about what Russia is scared of. IMHO missed chance. Big on. I recommend to read articles that I linked. One of them is based on the USA archives from that time.

Remember, that you are talking about country that was attacked by their western neighbors for centuries. Lost 20% of population in ww2. They also have a big paranoia. We managed to fast forgive Germany and Japan. Heck, Czechs and Slovak forgave Hungary and Poland for taking part in Munich. And fast. What a contrast to how we were treating Russia. in my opinion, this is one of the contributing factors to where we are. We failed to make a security organization for all with same protection.

Uh huh.

It doesn’t matter what the excuse is, it doesn’t justify putins actions. There’s only a few reasons why someone would side with a murderous dictator on a public forum and if I was you I would check how soft and absorbent roubles are…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fred, I'm not justifying it. I'm trying to make us all think more about our actions and how to improve for the future. We are still in tactical mode that we have been last 30 years. IMHO we did not do well before and we are not perfect now either. Complaining about what we did/do wrong is in no way condoning Putin. Please, do not mix those 2 things.

Mortyman wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

cpd wrote:

Bring on a nuclear exchange then. Putin has to understand that the world will not put up with his bullying. He just makes veiled threats and we all run away scared.

Maybe he needs to understand that without a secure, independent Ukraine there can be no world.

Russia is now preparing to bombard Ukrainian cities into submission:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/mar ... 5a22q.html

So we just go ahead and let them do it without any consequences? We must not allow that. They must face real and serious consequences, not just economic ones.

I hate wars. I'm all for democracy and freedom. But nuclear WW3 is no solution. Take a deep breath, calm outrage and start thinking with brain is what we all need. Russia (in case of Putin I'm not really optimistic), Ukraine, USA, NATO, EU.. all. I know we are emotional etc because war hit something in Europe. Well, try to talk about this war with someone outside our "western bubble". In most cases you will get 2 things at once in that talk from them. War is horrible and why are you so much outraged now here and not when this is happening outside Europe? They have perspective, that we are lacking. Maybe something to learn from too.

Is not that long ago since there was a war in Europe, or have you forgotten about Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia already ?

I did not. I remember too well about it. Had 2 classmates at high school who were refugees from that war. It tends to stuck in your brain. I have friends who were in peacekeeping forces. Still, I'm wondering why you think that I have forgotten about it?

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Putin called the sanctions almost an act of war, so it must hurt somehow….

I don't get what he intended by saying that. Saying it before the war, OK, it might make some countries hesitant. But saying it now that sanctions are already in place, and he hasn't started a nuclear holocaust in response, is useless.

Well if the response is that some sanctions will fall away in 6 months, will it have been useless?
Unless you assume that Ukraine will not only win the war but advance into Russia proper?
Note also that he has not turned off his oil / gas exports and countries are still buying.

I don't follow your reasoning. Putin says that sanctions = war so that countries fear retaliation if they impose sanctions. Sanctions are already imposed, so now he seems to be all talk. It has nothing to do with the situation in Ukraine.

It's true that he hasn't turned off the hydrocarbons, and I hope all affected countries (including mine, even if not critically) are still doing absolutely everything to be ready in case that happens, so that at some point hopefully this year, this threat is gone, or even reversed : we stop buying, and Russia is instantly ruined.

That's why that threat, that hasn't been made as far as I know, doesn't really work : the economic loss for Russia would be unbearable, it would mean instant famine.

Already with the current sanctions it is assumed that the Russian state won't be able to pay salaries, including to soldiers, in a few weeks.

dc855 wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Also, you are forgetting WHY many ex-Warsaw Pact countries sought to join NATO; they've experienced what was life under Russian control, and they didn't like it.

In the 90' Russia was trying hard to become democracy and integrate with west. In my opinion that was an honest attempt by them to stop being USSR. But we treated them as USSR still. NATO took in everyone scared of Russia, but at no point it was thinking seriously about what Russia is scared of. IMHO missed chance. Big on. I recommend to read articles that I linked. One of them is based on the USA archives from that time.

The main reason for invading Ukraine was not NATO or it's enlargement. This basically comes down to the fact that Putin and the corrupt mafia around him cannot accept Ukraine being a successful democratic country with strong western ties. That in itself is too big a threat to their own position. Remember the reason that all the mess started in 2014 was not NATO but rather Ukraine possibly signing a trade deal with the EU. Putin saw the direction that Ukraine has been on since 2014 (for which he is actually mostly to blame) and decided it had to stop. It is therefore always annoying to see these people who want to blame the West and deny that Ukraine should have been allowed any agency. The fact is that the blame lies almost exclusively with Putin and Russia as he himself created the the conditions that led to Ukraine's westward drift since 2014 and it is ultimately he who decided to start a war that is amost exclusively based on lies.

It all depends where you start to follow the story. If 2014, than you see what you see. It is all Putin and how he was against NATO. But original argument was about NATO enlargement in 1997. Way before Putin. In the time, when they were trying to be friends and integrate. They did not want to be USSR. So you jumped some 17 years ahead for your response reasoning.
There were a lot of things happening since that time. But Russia complaining about enlarging NATO was all the time there.

2014 Ukraine Crimea/Donbas were IMHO same playbook as 2008 Georgia. Target was not to take whole country but to make their ascension to NATO nearly impossible.

NATO was created against the USSR, that's true. At the end of the Berlin blockade to be precise. The issue is that at the end of the cold war, the Russian Federation was weakened, but it kept a large military, and of course thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads. Difficult in these conditions to dismantle NATO.

Virtual737 wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

What a contrast to how we were treating Russia. in my opinion, this is one of the contributing factors to where we are. We failed to make a security organization for all with same protection.

A contrast to how we were treating Russia? How far back in history do we need to go to take into account of any modern paranoia? Should the UK be insisting that all of Scandinavia be barred from NATO because of the history of the Vikings?

In the last 100 years,Germany has invaded Russia. Most of the current NATO members fought with Russia to win that war. Germany was punished severely. Germany changed. Since then, how many times has Russia been invaded? How many times has ANY nuclear power EVER been invaded?

The threat exists only in Putin's head. His first strike habit shows that other nations would be rational to have a fear of Russia, not the other way around. He is threatening the use of nuclear weapons against the very nation that was forced to surrender ALL their nuclear weapons so that Russia did not feel threatened.

Enough of pandering to this paranoid, stuck in the past, arrogant asshole of a dictator.

How far back we should go? That is a good question. In my opinion we should go as far as collective memory is still having influence on the politics.
There was a good argument in this forum from other, that Baltics, Poland and other ex warszaw pack countries joined NATO because they were scared of USSR/Russia. Heck, Baltics did not consider any Russian living there a native even they were born there during USSR times. That is how far back their collective paranoia goes. That would put that memory range to at least 80 years back. If that is valid for them, than it is only fair and square to apply same time period to everyone.


Talking about ww2 result. Germany was part of the Marshal plan. We made sure to rebuild them. Was made part of NATO in 1955. 10 years after ww2. Some 6 years after NATO was founded. There was not a big discussion whether it should happen or not afaik. If we go by the same logic, Russia could be in the NATO by 2001. Especially considering that we were allies in ww2 and not really fighting each other when USSR dissolved. And yet, most of the people rejected the idea ...

PS: As a study material I would recommend reading about ‘Operation Unthinkable’. We were close to conflict between allies right after ww2. That is for other discussion elsewhere.

My wife grandfather is still alive. He fought in ww2. If people like him are still around, ww2 and things around it will influence politics. People from cold war are all around. They form our politics. We failed to do a line behind that like Spain after Franco. Instead we let that paranoias spoil our future. My opinion. And I would love to see, that we learned and have better plan for time after this war.

As for nuclear power and invasion. Well, there was a reason why there were treaties like ABM and INF. They were part of MAD that made it quite impossible to even think, that nuclear attack is possible. In 2002 USA withdrew from it. With a relatively good ABM, some crazy guys might think that it is possible to fight the nuclear war with acceptable result. IMHO that was first time when Russia really started to be paranoid. It was USA who undermined the stability that was there till that time.

Aesma wrote:

That's why that threat, that hasn't been made as far as I know, doesn't really work : the economic loss for Russia would be unbearable, it would mean instant famine.

Something to watch will be if this war drag on past the spring planting season. If all the men are fighting, Ukrainian wheat production will drop significantly. That would surely impact everyone, including Russia.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

GDB wrote:

Even a small tactical nuke would have effects and ramifications beyond ground zero in Ukraine, it would cross a line that would likely result in two outcomes, one is that finally those in Putin’s circle see this as an existential threat to Russia . . . They would remove him to prevent that.

It would also make Tom Clancy the Nostradamus of our times.

And for some levity, I recommend the movie Death of Stalin.

bt

A personal favourite of mine, then I am biased long being a fan of the writers behind it in UK comedy shows and political satire, the latter which they subsequently went on to do for HBO with another favourite, 'Veep'.

This channel had been covering the Cold War, as someone who has a particular interest in that, I think it's pretty good with often some surprising stories unearthed. This though is addressing what is really Cold War 2.0 but with a post 1953 less rational Russian leader, just a Q and A but sets out the issues and really, the mess Putin has got himself in;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egV9u9XBjDA

Aesma wrote:

From my understanding more than 1 million people had fled the separatist regions before this invasion. Since 2014 I mean. Some of them just over the line of control, and some have joined the fight. It's doubtful the separatists had ever a majority on their side, however once many ethnic ukrainians had fled, they probably did. BTW Russia complaining about the "Ukrainization" of people there is ironic considering the Soviets did exactly that, in reverse, all over Ukraine, and in particular Crimea and the Donbas : settling ethnic Russian there, some ethnic cleansing (Tatars), and ban of the Ukrainian language, with Russification of children etc.

I think even more refugees (with internally displaced). What the majority of the Donbas and Luhansk oblast really wanted, we will never know. But there were some people genuinely wanting to be with Russia. But it is beside the point I was wondering about: how do the people in the separatist region feel about Putin's war in Ukraine. Some message from the Donbas separatist condemning Putin's war would be a really strong message to the Russian people and the world (I know probably unlikely to happen)

By the way in the Vice video from my previous post is a woman that lived in Chechnya, fled to Donbas, fled again to Odessa, and now at 40 is tired to start over for the 3rd time because of Putin and ready to fight (to your point about people fleeing Donbas)

Sorry, the link is to a French (also availble in German) Arte Doc from a journalist being in Donbas in 2014 and 2015, giving an interesting inside. The part from 2014 shows that the people supporting the sparatist had at least some genuine grievances and hope for a democratic future. The second part in 2015 shows the result: A dictatorship and police state.
Interestingly in 2015 the journalist follows an Ukrainian Officer responsible for prisoner exchanges. The journalist follows him on a trip where he has to release the man that held him captif and humiliated him. They shake hand and are greatfull that they are both still alive (and make a few good jokes). Hence my tiny hope that a message from Donbas could happen.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_bQ7LOiDsw0

Best regards and strength to the Ukrainian people,
Jonas

maverick4002 wrote:

What? How is the a bargaining chip for PUTIN

It was for NK

https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/05/nkore ... ackground/

Alfons wrote:

So much strange things you are writing here. But it's ok, luckily we all have different opinions, like

jaro76 wrote:

In the 90' Russia was trying hard to become democracy and integrate with west. In my opinion that was an honest attempt by them to stop being USSR. But we treated them as USSR still. NATO took in everyone scared of Russia, but at no point it was thinking seriously about what Russia is scared of.

Read that many times in this thread, never someone explained. What is Russia scared about? That out of the blue, Ukraine invades Russia? That NATO attacks Russia? NATO is defense, and why should any country in the world, attack or invade Russia unprovoked? I think in the last 40 years, I never read about any country mentioning this need.

They lost the buffer zone. Look at the map. There are no natural obstacles between NATO borders all the way to Ural.

USA withdrawal from ABM treaty in 2002 was something that they considered as being against them and altering the stability. Putting ABM next to their border, best in Ukraine and combine it with other offensive systems would mean they are very exposed.

I would say problem with Russia is that they remember past longer than most. Current politics in the west is defined by people looking at cold war and maximum ww2 (Poland, Baltics...) Russian memory goes back a bit longer. Their paranoia is built on burning of Moscow by Napoleon and to a large degree ww2. Buffer that they had around was their ring to protect Russian heartland. It is not rational, but paranoia seldom is.

As for NATO being pure defense. I would really love to believe that. But NATO members did attack other countries even without USNC approval. We can argue the reasons why, but they did violate the international law in doing so. Also NATO is protecting you from consequences of your stupid behavior to a large degree. Illustration is Turkey shooting down Su24 in Syria.

Alfons wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

They also have a big paranoia.

Please explain, really interested.

I wrote part above. A better read about it is here:
https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2022/0226 ... y-history/

Alfons wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

We managed to fast forgive Germany and Japan. Heck, Czechs and Slovak forgave Hungary and Poland for taking part in Munich. And fast. What a contrast to how we were treating Russia.

Never ever, ever, I heard in my last 50 years someone telling me that he forgives Nazi Germany what they did. Neither did a country forgive them what they did. Will not happen in a million years. Same for Japan. And no one will ever forgive Putin, what he's doing today. So, same measurement for everyone.

Well, yet we managed to offer them marshal plan after ww2. Operation Unthinkable by Churchill was planning to actually join allied forces with defeated German army and attack USSR in July 1945. That did not happen, but most of the army was rehabilitated and served in western german army.
By 1955 Germany became part of NATO. So yes, we might not forget, but our behavior indicated that we forgave and integrated them. There is a quite big contrast to the first 10 years of our politics towards Russia after USSR dissolution. Western politicians calling Russian membership in NATO a farcical idea...

Alfons wrote:

My opinion is that it's simply about gas and oil in Ukraine, and about a human being having been too long a dictator and losing reality traction.

[/quote]
About oil I'm not sure. Part 2 I pretty much agree that it is contributing factor.

Aesma wrote:

NATO was created against the USSR, that's true. At the end of the Berlin blockade to be precise. The issue is that at the end of the cold war, the Russian Federation was weakened, but it kept a large military, and of course thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads. Difficult in these conditions to dismantle NATO.

If not dismantling NATO, than how you want them not to feel threatened when you expand NATO to their borders?

par13del wrote:

emperortk wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

We managed to fast forgive Germany and Japan.

Both countries were demilitarized, and their societies became extremely pacifist. Neither of those things happened in 90s Russia, so it's not really a valid comparison.

Also, I'm not sure how much the Chinese and Koreans have forgiven Japan (plenty of older Americans too for that matter).

Germany is one of the pillars of the EU, European industry, does massive trade with among other countries Russia and the USA.
Japan does massive trade and investment with the USA and is a major player in the world in trade and financial investments.
Irrespective of how individuals feel about Germans or Japanese, world governments have assisted in moving those nations forward from WWII.
Perhaps as this is an internet forum, the poster needs to be more specific in his comments so that the discussion can be more focused. Is it that world governments have forgiven, ceased punishing or just moved on or that they are not following their citizens wishes and keeping those nations as pariahs, we know that they are no longer controlling them.
Whatever the reasons are, the reality of Japan and German after WWI is clear for all to see.

Sorry for not being clear from the start. I was talking about Marshal plan and Germany in NATO by 1955. Compared to Russia never even being seriously considered for integration as equal member.

marcelh wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Also, you are forgetting WHY many ex-Warsaw Pact countries sought to join NATO; they've experienced what was life under Russian control, and they didn't like it.

In the 90' Russia was trying hard to become democracy and integrate with west. In my opinion that was an honest attempt by them to stop being USSR. But we treated them as USSR still. NATO took in everyone scared of Russia, but at no point it was thinking seriously about what Russia is scared of. IMHO missed chance. Big on. I recommend to read articles that I linked. One of them is based on the USA archives from that time.

Remember, that you are talking about country that was attacked by their western neighbors for centuries. Lost 20% of population in ww2. They also have a big paranoia. We managed to fast forgive Germany and Japan. Heck, Czechs and Slovak forgave Hungary and Poland for taking part in Munich. And fast. What a contrast to how we were treating Russia. in my opinion, this is one of the contributing factors to where we are. We failed to make a security organization for all with same protection.

The Russians could also become a NATO member, but did not apply.
And to be honest: a security organization with Russia (and/or US), without being dictated by Russia (and/or US) wouldn’t happen.

We never tried when we had a chance. So we do not know. They did ask to join, but were refused in informal settings. I already sent you links about that.

Pellegrine wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Back to Ukraine. A talking head on CNN brought up potential use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. Would that finally be the straw to force NATO to intercedes?

bt

At this point, I'm almost willing to bet Putin could use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine and NATO will not intervene.

A coalition of aligned countries might intervene in SOMETHING, but I personally doubt NATO will.

So right here, right now, in this 10 day old conflict you would advise NATO to declare war on Russia and start WWIII? That's what you and others on this forum are advocating for, going beyond the crystal clear boundaries of NATO's founding principles and obligations to engage with Russia in Ukraine, and likely within days in the Baltics, Poland, Germany and beyond. You think this is the correct move at this juncture? I want you to write down in this thread so we can all see it - "I, Pellegrine, believe that WWIII is the only intelligent move we can make right now." I'm not insulting you, I'm challenging you to type that out so you can, hopefully, appreciate the undeniable madness of it.

bikerthai wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

The build up has been going on for a long time and if the US and European NATO members new, why did they not urge Ukraine to join NATO ?

NATO membership must be requested by Ukraine. It would have been difficult because there was already an active war in Eastern Ukraine.

But good question.

Sweden and Finland would be easier to admit because economic and military ties are already established.

dc855 wrote:

Heck, Czechs and Slovak forgave Hungary and Poland for taking part in Munich. And fast. What a contrast to how we were treating Russia.

Excuses. People uses history to buffer their own fear and belief. Sometimes it is justified and sometimes it is paranoia.

You can find examples around the word when chances for democracy is derailed by greed and power lust (among other human failings) by various groups. Afghanistan is the latest example among many stretching to Africa, the Americas and Asia.

Democratization like NATO memberhsip require certain factors to come together. Some are lucky to attain it but require the cooperation of the populace.

bt

Paranoia is not rational. But people in general are not. If you want to be on a good terms, triggering paranoia is not good.
Also, if one side can argument with paranoia, than it is also OK for others (Baltics/Poland vs Russia paranoia).

As for democracy being needed for membership in NATO .. well, Turkey is prime example that we do not mind that much.
So having Russia on path to democracy (90' ) in a full ascension process would IMHO help a lot and prevent current situation.

jaro76 wrote:

We never tried when we had a chance. So we do not know. They did ask to join, but were refused in informal settings. I already sent you links about that.

That's because the West was still hoping to retain its imperial influences and Russia was busy expanding its own aspiration by supporting revolutions around the word. Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and so on.

To say that NATO could have offered Russia membership would be like offering a man a Toyota while he's driving a Ferrari.

bt

jaro76 wrote:

As for democracy being needed for membership in NATO .. w

I am well aware that did not preclude NATO membership. Spain is another example. But those were different times (again because of the perceived Russian theat).

Even so, there is still today a semblance of democracy in Turkey. Not so much in Russia except maybe during the brief time under Borris Yeltsin.

bt

jaro76 wrote:

They lost the buffer zone. Look at the map. There are no natural obstacles between NATO borders all the way to Ural.

So what!? If your previous acquaintances decide they’d like to be friends with someone else and not you then it’s on YOU to change your behaviour NOT on others to appease you lest you have a violent outburst. Maybe they don’t like you because of your tendency towards violent outbursts. One might imagine that directing a violent outburst toward a previous acquaintance won’t help in that regard and unsurprisingly their new friends might actually help them not be a victim to those violent outbursts.

Russia is currently the equivalent of the angry ex-boyfriend walking around with a gun threatening new partners in the hope that that will bring her back. You seem to be suggesting that just a little bit of non consensual sex is acceptable to appease and him and then maybe he’ll be nicer to everyone else…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Russia is currently the equivalent of the angry ex-boyfriend walking around with a gun threatening new partners in the hope that that will bring her back. You seem to be suggesting that just a little bit of non consensual sex is acceptable to appease and him and then maybe he’ll be nicer to everyone else…

A very astute analogy for our times. Does not work as well back in the middle ages.

bt

I quote from jaro76, post 2271 in this thread:

Heck, Baltics did not consider any Russian living there a native even they were born there during USSR times.

My background:
I am Lithuanian, and, apart from travelling, I have been living in Lithuania all of my life.
I live in Kaunas, the city which has always been the symbol of nationalism in Lithuania.
I was born in 1975 and lived 15 years in the Soviet Union. Genetically, I am Jewish, but my first language is Lithuanian. I am perfectly fluent in Russian.
I represented an Anti-Soviet family, and I was prosecuted for my political views from the age of 7 (seven) when I refused to wear the Lenin's badge and I wore instead the badge featuring Trakai Castle, one of the symbols of our statehood. In my pre-teen years, I already knew in person many leaders of political resistance, such as Nijolė Sadūnaitė.
As early as in the primary school, I had talks with 'men in grey' about my political views.
Therefore, I believe that if anyone in Lithuania can have the worst grudge against the USSR, i am in a tiny group of several hundred or only several dozen people.

Therefore, I believe that I am qualified to know what it feels to be a Lithuanian in Lithuania and a Russian in Lithuania.
In Lithuania, there is no discrimination of the people of the Russian origin. Russian people are as respected as anyone else here.
We can even come back to the years of the 16th century religious fights in Europe and remember the only country where all religions and nationalities were actually and really tolerated and respected. Correct, that was Lithuania (and that continued after the full union with Poland, after 1569).
I have a Russian colleague. EVERYBODY considers her native.
In my previous job (before 2021; for 23 years in total), I had two Russian colleagues. Both were not singled out any time. They are native.
My PhD supervisor was Russian. She would be shocked if she found out that she is worse in our society.
My MA supervisor was Russian. And he was native.
These people do not want war.
And these people have always been an equal and valuable part of our society.
And these people are donating heavily (except for one putinist; yet even she has never been ostracized)
they speak fluent Lithuanian, even though it is probably the third most difficult language in Europe
I have taught more than 50 Russian students in my life. no segregation among children. same parties, same beer and cigarettes, same sex. no one cares if you are Lithuanian or Russian
Come to Lithuania anytime and see what's the situation of Russians here.
In Vilnius Airport, many important messages are in 3 languages, including Russian. Same goes at Vilnius railway station.

rant over
this was not a personal attack, but rather information that some people on this forum base their claims on explicit lies in order to disrupt the constructive conversation

bikerthai wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

Right now I don't think anyone is going to do a damned thing. Not a damned thing.

In the West, it will take large pro-war demonstration by citizens to give the politicians the back bone to act.

bt

And do what?

https://mobile.twitter.com/olga_chyzh/s ... 1770550273

This twitter thread explains why sanctions will never trigger any internal regime change in Russia.

johns624 wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

They lost the buffer zone. Look at the map. There are no natural obstacles between NATO borders all the way to Ural.

Why does Russia need a "buffer zone"? Their old buffer zone was smaller, poorer countries who they subjugated and oppressed, who finally got their independence. NATO has not desire to go to the Urals.

As far as I can tell the “buffer zone” really means a way to keep a sphere of influence whilst not having to modify abhorrent behaviour.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

jaro76 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

The build up has been going on for a long time and if the US and European NATO members new, why did they not urge Ukraine to join NATO ?

NATO membership must be requested by Ukraine. It would have been difficult because there was already an active war in Eastern Ukraine.

But good question.

Sweden and Finland would be easier to admit because economic and military ties are already established.

dc855 wrote:

Heck, Czechs and Slovak forgave Hungary and Poland for taking part in Munich. And fast. What a contrast to how we were treating Russia.

Excuses. People uses history to buffer their own fear and belief. Sometimes it is justified and sometimes it is paranoia.

You can find examples around the word when chances for democracy is derailed by greed and power lust (among other human failings) by various groups. Afghanistan is the latest example among many stretching to Africa, the Americas and Asia.

Democratization like NATO memberhsip require certain factors to come together. Some are lucky to attain it but require the cooperation of the populace.

bt

Paranoia is not rational. But people in general are not. If you want to be on a good terms, triggering paranoia is not good.
Also, if one side can argument with paranoia, than it is also OK for others (Baltics/Poland vs Russia paranoia).

As for democracy being needed for membership in NATO .. well, Turkey is prime example that we do not mind that much.
So having Russia on path to democracy (90' ) in a full ascension process would IMHO help a lot and prevent current situation.

So are you essentially saying that if we’re nice to Russia, they’ll be nice back? Are there are historical precedents set that show they can behave like big boys are girls?

alberchico wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/olga_chyzh/status/1500257111770550273

This twitter thread explains why sanctions will never trigger any internal regime change in Russia.

It’s just one opinion. Absolutely no guarantee she’s right.

SL1200MK2 wrote:

So are you essentially saying that if we’re nice to Russia, they’ll be nice back? Are there are historical precedents set that show they can behave like big boys are girls?

Yeah. Offer Putin a big, fat carrot and everything will be OK. What’s a few thousand dead Ukrainians between friends?

flipdewaf wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Uh huh.

It doesn’t matter what the excuse is, it doesn’t justify putins actions. There’s only a few reasons why someone would side with a murderous dictator on a public forum and if I was you I would check how soft and absorbent roubles are…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fred, I'm not justifying it. I'm trying to make us all think more about our actions and how to improve for the future. We are still in tactical mode that we have been last 30 years. IMHO we did not do well before and we are not perfect now either. Complaining about what we did/do wrong is in no way condoning Putin. Please, do not mix those 2 things.

Well you are absolutely wrong. It is abundantly clear that given an inch putin tries to take a foot, he has crept his way in to this awful position and likely the previous lack of action has emboldened him rather than trying to be friendly and capitulating further than has already been done is not sensible. When a child has a tantrum over wanting something the easy thing to do is to give them that thing, the right thing to do is something different, not because it is better for the immediate but because it is better for the long term.

You know how utterly useless what you are suggesting is right? It’s like when someone asks “what’s the best way to get to X?” And then responding with “starting from somewhere else”

You have continually advocated rolling over and letting the Russians have Ukraine and likely lead to removed freedoms for the Ukrainian people under the guise of ‘less deaths now’. You have also suggested that the freedom of nations to join NATO should have been removed to appease a dictator who claimed it posed a threat when self evidently the threat is FROM that dictator, even to his own people, although that’s hardly surprising.

Putin saying “I don’t want them joining NATO in case they are a threat to me” is really “I don’t want them joining NATO so I remain a threat to them”

You say you aren’t a putin apologist but everything else you have stated sings a different tune.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not his apologist. If something, I'm Russia 1991-2001 apologist. But that is for other discussion.

What I'm trying to say here, that beside:
- give Ukraine more weapons
- punish Putin
I do not see any long term plan. That is exactly the problem that get us into current situation. Well, at least in my opinion.
What is our long term plan? More sanctions? Sanctions forever?
Well, considering how great they worked on Cuba, we are in for a loooooong wait. Which is IMHO not good. And they will not solve how we are going to integrate Russia? Before ww2 end, there was already a plan how to rebuild and integrate Germany. I really hope this war will not be as long as ww2. So I would expect already someone planning how to avoid same mistake as we did with ww1 Germany and Russia after 1991.

william wrote:

In the West, it will take large pro-war demonstration by citizens to give the politicians the back bone to act.

bt


And do what?

To approve the use of force to "liberate" Ukraine.

Similar to how they "liberated" Kuwait in 1993.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

We never tried when we had a chance. So we do not know. They did ask to join, but were refused in informal settings. I already sent you links about that.

That's because the West was still hoping to retain its imperial influences and Russia was busy expanding its own aspiration by supporting revolutions around the word. Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and so on.

To say that NATO could have offered Russia membership would be like offering a man a Toyota while he's driving a Ferrari.

bt

Care to explain what revolutions in Korea, COba, Vietnam.. was Russia supporting in in the 1991-2010 period?

It seems that Russia was asking to drive that Toyota .. multiple times. I linked articles explaining when and by whom.

jaro76 wrote:

1991-2010

Ah, I thought you were talking about the time from the establishment of NATO.

Seems to me, from 1991-2010, portion of Russian society was too busy getting rich by selling petroleum to the West to worry about NATO.

bt

The German embassy in South Africa responded sharply when their Russian colleagues talked about their "fight against the Nazis" in Ukraine.

On Saturday, the Russian embassy in the capital Pretoria posted a tweet thanking them for all the messages of support from people and organizations in South Africa.

- We appreciate that you have chosen to stand with us today, when Russia, just like 80 years ago, is fighting Nazism in Ukraine, the embassy tweeted.

It was too much for the German embassy in Africa's southernmost country.

jaro76 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

jaro76 wrote:

Fred, I'm not justifying it. I'm trying to make us all think more about our actions and how to improve for the future. We are still in tactical mode that we have been last 30 years. IMHO we did not do well before and we are not perfect now either. Complaining about what we did/do wrong is in no way condoning Putin. Please, do not mix those 2 things.

Well you are absolutely wrong. It is abundantly clear that given an inch putin tries to take a foot, he has crept his way in to this awful position and likely the previous lack of action has emboldened him rather than trying to be friendly and capitulating further than has already been done is not sensible. When a child has a tantrum over wanting something the easy thing to do is to give them that thing, the right thing to do is something different, not because it is better for the immediate but because it is better for the long term.

You know how utterly useless what you are suggesting is right? It’s like when someone asks “what’s the best way to get to X?” And then responding with “starting from somewhere else”

You have continually advocated rolling over and letting the Russians have Ukraine and likely lead to removed freedoms for the Ukrainian people under the guise of ‘less deaths now’. You have also suggested that the freedom of nations to join NATO should have been removed to appease a dictator who claimed it posed a threat when self evidently the threat is FROM that dictator, even to his own people, although that’s hardly surprising.

Putin saying “I don’t want them joining NATO in case they are a threat to me” is really “I don’t want them joining NATO so I remain a threat to them”

You say you aren’t a putin apologist but everything else you have stated sings a different tune.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not his apologist. If something, I'm Russia 1991-2001 apologist. But that is for other discussion.

What I'm trying to say here, that beside:
- give Ukraine more weapons
- punish Putin
I do not see any long term plan. That is exactly the problem that get us into current situation. Well, at least in my opinion.
What is our long term plan? More sanctions? Sanctions forever?
Well, considering how great they worked on Cuba, we are in for a loooooong wait. Which is IMHO not good. And they will not solve how we are going to integrate Russia? Before ww2 end, there was already a plan how to rebuild and integrate Germany. I really hope this war will not be as long as ww2. So I would expect already someone planning how to avoid same mistake as we did with ww1 Germany and Russia after 1991.

The long term plan is integrate Ukraine into the EU economy.

To avoid this is for Russia to withdrawal from Ukraine, including the Crimea.

You are comparing the wrong wars, this is Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Put a large number of rifles into civilian hands so only a just government can rule, I suggest 20 million plus 20 billion rounds of ammo. At least 20,000 javalins and 5,000 stingers. Of course smuggle into the Crimea weapons

This will be a long partisan fight as the people of Ukraine do not want to be under a Tsar again.

The other long term plan is to make such an unjust war too costly to consider ever again. Have you read Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat?" One must read that book to understand the sanctions have so far been light.

Soon people will realize tougher sanctions are needed to disuade such behavior. This is to prevent future unjust wars. I'm curious what other sanctions must be implimented. I personally feel strong enough about this I am diverting money away from business supporting Russia and thus the invasion.

Sanctions haven't mattered yet. Time to get real with them and punish companies and countries bypassing them.

I've never before seen the world so united on an issue.

Lightsaber