Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[JohnHurt]

The fact of the matter is that not one NATO country has had its European territory attacked since NATO was formed in 1948. Not one. NATO countries have had their overseas colonies attacked such as Algeria and the Falklands Islands. But not their European territory. So it has probably been the longest and most successful alliance in history. Or at least European history.

The purpose of NATO is not that NATO members will not be attacked, the purpose of NATO is now to combine to attack other nations, outside of Europe:

Here is a list of nations, not in Europe, that have been attacked by NATO:

Major NATO Military Interventions
NATO Intervention, Location Year Initiated
Anchor Guard, Kuwait-Iraq 1990
Ace Guard, Kuwait-Iraq 1991
Operation Joint Guard, Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992
Operation Allied Force, Kosovo-Montenegro-Serbia 1999
Afghanistan War, Afghanistan 2003
NATO Training Mission-Iraq, Iraq 2004
Operation Ocean Shield, Somalia 2009
Military Intervention in Libya 2011

NATO is not for defense, it is designed for offensive operations.

It is no wonder other smaller countries want to join. And if you are a European country, it is a great club to be in and the surest way to bring peace to your people and avoid conflict on your territory.

I understand that Russia, as a European country, applied to join NATO, and they were turned down.

If Russia was allowed to join NATO, then I would agree, that would be the surest way to bring peace to the Russian people and avoid conflict on the Russian territory.

Had Ukraine been part of NATO in 2014, when the United States launched a coup to violently overthrow the democratically elected president of Ukraine, then under NATO rules, all of the other nations in NATO would be obliged to declare war on the United States.

If Russia had been in NATO when the United States blew up the Nordstream pipeline, which is an act of war, then under NATO rules, the other members of NATO would be bound to declare war on the United States.

If Russia had been in NATO when the United States and Ukraine sent terrorists to kill people in the stadium in Moscow, then under NATO rules, the other members of NATO would be obliged to declare war on the United States and the US puppet government of Ukraine.

So, yes, if Russia could join NATO, it would definitely prevent war in Europe.

But preventing war is not the purpose of NATO.

[Theophilos]

Another interesting topic is how historically peaceful churches loose non-resistant position during the armed conflict. As far as I know the marority of (ana)baptist and Mennonite Brethren churches in Russia are staying away from the conflict and their draftees are chosing alternative civilian service. But there is a definitive shift among the Ukrainian Baptists (official ones) who are more nationalistic and some of their young people join the fight. The unregistered Baptists in Ukraine are still upholding their non-resistant stance and their draftees had a lot of pressure to take arms and fight, but most of them refuse. There are some intercession letters circulating asking to write to the officials in support of the non-resistant position of these believers and asking to provide them an alternative civilian duty.

[Ken]

It is no wonder other smaller countries want to join. And if you are a European country, it is a great club to be in and the surest way to bring peace to your people and avoid conflict on your territory.

I understand that Russia, as a European country, applied to join NATO, and they were turned down.

If Russia was allowed to join NATO, then I would agree, that would be the surest way to bring peace to the Russian people and avoid conflict on the Russian territory.

Your understanding is wrong or your facts are wrong.

In 2001 Russia expressed interest in joining NATO but refused to go through the application process and, consequently, never applied. Here is a news article describing those events: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... n-his-rule

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

He told Frost it was hard for him to visualise Nato as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world.”

As for your list of conflicts in which NATO was involved. I believe most if not all of those were UN-initiated actions not NATO-initiated actions. With NATO engaged by the UN in a peacekeeping role or in support of peacekeeping activities. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm The exception being Afghanistan which was an Article 5 action in response to 9-11.

1992-1995, NATO conducted several military operations in Bosnia, including enforcing a no-fly-zone and providing air support for UN peacekeepers. These activities were mandated by the United Nations Security Council, of which Russia is a member. NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions in 1995 helped pave the way for the Dayton peace agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia that had killed over 100,000 people. From 1996, NATO led multinational peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, which included troops from Russia. The European Union took over that mission in 2004.

NATO's operation in Kosovo in 1999 followed a year of intense international diplomatic efforts, which included Russia, to end the conflict. The UN Security Council repeatedly branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the growing number of refugees as a threat to international peace and security. NATO's mission helped to end large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians. KFOR, NATO's ongoing peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, has a UNSC mandate (UNSCR 1244) and is supported by both Belgrade and Pristina.

The NATO-led operation in Libya in 2011 was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs 1970 and 1973), neither of which was opposed by Russia. UNSCR 1973 authorised the international community "to take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". This is what NATO did, with the political and military support of regional states and members of the Arab League.

[Soloist]

This is a prime example of the effectiveness of each country’s ability to produce propaganda to convince the citizens although their own country has serious problems, the other is more aggressive and evil.

[Ken]

This is a prime example of the effectiveness of each country’s ability to produce propaganda to convince the citizens although their own country has serious problems, the other is more aggressive and evil.

It is a simple fact that the UN (of which both China and Russia are members and hold veto power) has engaged in a wide variety of peacekeeping and quasi-military actions over the years. You can quibble with individual actions such as the series of actions in Yugoslavia during the 90s. But they were authorized by UN vote. And in many parts of the world, NATO is the only entity with the capability to engage in long-distance military actions. In the case of Yugoslavia, Russia was also involved in the UN peacekeeping operation.

One can also compare and contrast the objectives and outcomes of a NATO action such as Yugoslavia with that of Russia in Ukraine. They are not the same thing. And that isn't just propaganda. Russia did not go to the UN and make a case for international action in Ukraine. They simply launched an unprovoked massive ground invasion.

[RZehr]

Hundreds of Ukrainian businesses making weapons and military equipment have sprung up since Russia's full-scale invasion, but some are struggling to fund production and all are afraid of being targeted in intensifying Russian missile strikes.

Owners say they have pumped in their own cash to survive and moved locations at their own expense to stay ahead of Russian intelligence. They are now urging the government to cut what they describe as excessive red tape around its arms purchases.

Several also want to be allowed to export, arguing that the government is unable to buy all of their output.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-gro ... 21971.html

Running out of arms, losing the war because of it, need more, but “let us export some!”. What? Maybe Russia would be an interested buyer.

[Soloist]

It is a simple fact that the UN (of which both China and Russia are members and hold veto power) has engaged in a wide variety of peacekeeping and quasi-military actions over the years. You can quibble with individual actions such as the series of actions in Yugoslavia during the 90s. But they were authorized by UN vote. And in many parts of the world, NATO is the only entity with the capability to engage in long-distance military actions. In the case of Yugoslavia, Russia was also involved in the UN peacekeeping operation.

One can also compare and contrast the objectives and outcomes of a NATO action such as Yugoslavia with that of Russia in Ukraine. They are not the same thing. And that isn't just propaganda. Russia did not go to the UN and make a case for international action in Ukraine. They simply launched an unprovoked massive ground invasion.

Ken, I was speaking about your post and his.

All of the data used to support either argument comes basically from sides.

[Ken]

Hundreds of Ukrainian businesses making weapons and military equipment have sprung up since Russia's full-scale invasion, but some are struggling to fund production and all are afraid of being targeted in intensifying Russian missile strikes.

Owners say they have pumped in their own cash to survive and moved locations at their own expense to stay ahead of Russian intelligence. They are now urging the government to cut what they describe as excessive red tape around its arms purchases.

Several also want to be allowed to export, arguing that the government is unable to buy all of their output.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-gro ... 21971.html

Running out of arms, losing the war because of it, need more, but “let us export some!”. What? Maybe Russia would be an interested buyer.

I think there is probably a wide range of products that can be considered arms. And small scale cottage manufacturers are probably make the most low-tech stuff. Like rifle ammunition, land mines, grenades, ballistic vests, helmets, fatigues, etc.\

What Ukraine seems to be running out of the most is guided air defense missiles, long range artillery, and the like. Which are extremely high tech and sophisticated weapons and not the sort of thing that cottage industries are going to be making in old warehouse spaces.

[Ken]

All of the data used to support either argument comes basically from sides.

What do you mean by "sides" I provide actual news articles quoting principal diplomats explaining that Russia was disinterested in going through the actual process of applying to and joining NATO. Probably because it would have required a vastly greater degree of military transparency than Russia was willing to engage in. Even though Putin said some words at least pretending to be interested in joining NATO at some point in the late 1990s.

Whereas John Hurt simply asserted without any evidence that Russia applied to join NATO and was turned down.

Not every question is a both sides question. This is a question about facts. One is true and one is false.

[RZehr]

Hundreds of Ukrainian businesses making weapons and military equipment have sprung up since Russia's full-scale invasion, but some are struggling to fund production and all are afraid of being targeted in intensifying Russian missile strikes.

Owners say they have pumped in their own cash to survive and moved locations at their own expense to stay ahead of Russian intelligence. They are now urging the government to cut what they describe as excessive red tape around its arms purchases.

Several also want to be allowed to export, arguing that the government is unable to buy all of their output.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-gro ... 21971.html

Running out of arms, losing the war because of it, need more, but “let us export some!”. What? Maybe Russia would be an interested buyer.

I think there is probably a wide range of products that can be considered arms. And small scale cottage manufacturers are probably make the most low-tech stuff. Like rifle ammunition, land mines, grenades, ballistic vests, helmets, fatigues, etc.\

What Ukraine seems to be running out of the most is guided air defense missiles, long range artillery, and the like. Which are extremely high tech and sophisticated weapons and not the sort of thing that cottage industries are going to be making in old warehouse spaces.

Well that sort of sounds like a Ukrainian national problem to me. Have they not sense to determine and prioritize their needs in wartime? I can imagine in WW2, the nations dictated their needs to industry.