Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[mike]

No progress in talks today.

[Ernie]

In any event, I would suggest the whole NATO thing is a charade. There haven’t been any serious negotiations about the expansion/non-expansion of NATO. If that was a diplomatic priority for Russia they would need to come to the negotiating table and come up with some sort of neutrality guarantees and disarmament proposals that would be acceptable to all parties involved. I see no sign that Russia ever proposed such talks or was interested in them. Their demands have all been one-sided and understandably ignored.

This is correct from what I can understand from this article.
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion- ... 63602.html

[Szdfan]

Obviously there is no way to know, but certainly political "self-determination". IF the reports coming out of Russia are true, then we can know that the freedom to protest any governmental action would be eliminated, because the suppression of anti-war parades all over Russia shows that Russia's own citizens do not have that privilege. If Russian citizens do not feel it is safe for them to remain in their own country, that is another sign that non-citizens would also not have personal freedoms.

As has been reported, a number of independent media sources in Russia have shut down because of a new law that would imprison and fine journalists for reporting things that the Kremlin disagreed with.

But would that have happened in Ukraine, if Ukraine had remained neutral and ceded some territory Russia - territory in which the majority of the population wanted to be part of Russia? At one time Ukraine decided to separate from Russia. Shouldn't certain portions of Ukraine be able to return to Russia if they wanted to? Just like Texas and California becoming part of the USA if they wanted to?

Ukraine didn't secede from Russia, it seceded from the Soviet Union (which in the mind of Putin might be the same thing).

Which country is going to willingly allow parts of it to secede and join other countries? In your example, you leave out the part where Texas became independent in 1848 because of the Mexican-American War. California broke off from Mexico due to a violent rebellion and an American invasion in 1846. These two states became part of the US after violently gaining their independence. Also neither area was historically American, it was land settled by Americans and then stolen from Mexico.

And let's say Ukraine allowed Russia to take the Donbas and Crimea. What happens the next time Russia demands territory from one of its neighbors?

[Szdfan]

"Freedom Poutine" anyone?

From the NYT live blog:

A Quebec restaurant credited with inventing poutine, the beloved trouser-busting dish of French fries, cheese curds and gravy, has decided to rebrand because of what it calls an unfortunate coincidence: President Vladimir V. Putin’s name in French is spelled and pronounced “Poutine.”

Laurent Proulx, co-owner of Le Roy Jucep, the diner in central Quebec that claims to have served the world’s first poutine after it opened in 1964, said he had decided to temporarily remove the word “poutine” from its trademark and Facebook page. As a symbolic stand against “Monsieur Poutine’s” aggression, the restaurant announced this month that it was rebranding itself as “the inventor of the fries-cheese-gravy.”

[Bootstrap]

But would that have happened in Ukraine, if Ukraine had remained neutral and ceded some territory Russia - territory in which the majority of the population wanted to be part of Russia? At one time Ukraine decided to separate from Russia. Shouldn't certain portions of Ukraine be able to return to Russia if they wanted to? Just like Texas and California becoming part of the USA if they wanted to?

Ukraine didn't secede from Russia, it seceded from the Soviet Union (which in the mind of Putin might be the same thing).

Which country is going to willingly allow parts of it to secede and join other countries?

And do you really believe that referendum? Most other polling gave very different results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donb ... eferendums

Russia started this war in 2014, it's not new. Back then, Russia took over Crimea quickly with very little resistance. They also sent "little green men" into the region around Luhansk and Donbass - I believe more than 14,000 people have been killed in fighting between Ukraine’s army and the Moscow-supported separatists there. This war did not start in 2022.

I don't know what Ukraine should do here, but I don't think we should believe the Russians and the separatists are the voice of most people in these regions. And even if they were ... would that justify Russia's actions?

[Soloist]

In any event, I would suggest the whole NATO thing is a charade. There haven’t been any serious negotiations about the expansion/non-expansion of NATO. If that was a diplomatic priority for Russia they would need to come to the negotiating table and come up with some sort of neutrality guarantees and disarmament proposals that would be acceptable to all parties involved. I see no sign that Russia ever proposed such talks or was interested in them. Their demands have all been one-sided and understandably ignored.

This is correct from what I can understand from this article.
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion- ... 63602.html

The article seems mostly factual but they specifically left out some comments from the actual interview with Gorbachev.
When you read this article you get the impression that while no specific agreement was made during the
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014 ... 40673.html

M.G: Today we need to admit that there is a crisis in European (and global) politics. One of the reasons, albeit not the only reason, is a lack of desire on the part of our Western partners to take Russia’s point of view and legal interests in security into consideration. They paid lip service to applauding Russia, especially during the Yeltsin years, but in deeds they didn’t consider it. I am referring primarily to NATO expansion, missile defense plans, the West’s actions in regions of importance to Russia (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine). They literally said “This is none of your business.” As a result, an abscess formed and it burst.

I would advise Western leaders to thoroughly analyze all of this, instead of accusing Russia of everything. They should remember the Europe we managed to create at the beginning of the 1990s and what it has unfortunately turned into in recent years.

RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.
The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

I suspect that some nuances in the Russian language is poorly translated in this, but it seems pretty obvious that Gorbachev though there was assurances made about NATO expansion.

[Ken]

In any event, I would suggest the whole NATO thing is a charade. There haven’t been any serious negotiations about the expansion/non-expansion of NATO. If that was a diplomatic priority for Russia they would need to come to the negotiating table and come up with some sort of neutrality guarantees and disarmament proposals that would be acceptable to all parties involved. I see no sign that Russia ever proposed such talks or was interested in them. Their demands have all been one-sided and understandably ignored.

This is correct from what I can understand from this article.
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion- ... 63602.html

The article seems mostly factual but they specifically left out some comments from the actual interview with Gorbachev.
When you read this article you get the impression that while no specific agreement was made during the
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014 ... 40673.html

M.G: Today we need to admit that there is a crisis in European (and global) politics. One of the reasons, albeit not the only reason, is a lack of desire on the part of our Western partners to take Russia’s point of view and legal interests in security into consideration. They paid lip service to applauding Russia, especially during the Yeltsin years, but in deeds they didn’t consider it. I am referring primarily to NATO expansion, missile defense plans, the West’s actions in regions of importance to Russia (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine). They literally said “This is none of your business.” As a result, an abscess formed and it burst.

I would advise Western leaders to thoroughly analyze all of this, instead of accusing Russia of everything. They should remember the Europe we managed to create at the beginning of the 1990s and what it has unfortunately turned into in recent years.

RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.
The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.

I suspect that some nuances in the Russian language is poorly translated in this, but it seems pretty obvious that Gorbachev though there was assurances made about NATO expansion.

The point is that there was never any formal treaty or accord or agreement on that topic. This really isn’t so much about NATO as it is about the specific Central European countries involved. The Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic, etc. All of those states took a good look at the world and neighborhood that they lived in and decided that it was to THEIR benefit to cast their fate with the west by first joining the EU for economic reasons, and then joining NATO for mutual defense.

If Russia is going to ask all of those countries to remain neutral and NOT join NATO, then Russia needs to enter into negotiations with NATO and the Central European states involved and come to a security treaty that provides assurances to Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, etc. that their borders and neutrality will be respected. And it would probably require some sort of demilitarization of Central Europe. That doesn’t require a one-sided agreement in which Poland agrees to remain neutral and have no NATO bases or cooperation while Russia (and Belarus) on its border retain their Warsaw Pact level troops and armaments on their side of the border. Such an agreement would require equal levels of de-escalation and de-militarization on BOTH sides of the border. Right now the Russians have massive military installations all along their western border from Finland all the way to Georgia. They haven’t deescalated even a tiny bit. In fact they have spent a lot of time and effort modernizing an increasing their military deployments along their western border.

The fact that Russia neither proposed nor entered into any serious negotiations to create a demilitarized buffer zone in Central Europe in lieu of NATO expansion tells us that they weren’t really serious about it. In diplomacy you give something to get something. They might demand no NATO expansion, but without providing any alternative security arrangements for Central Europe it is just hot air. The US might DEMAND that China reduce its troop buildups and military installations along the border with Korea. Or that the North Koreans reduce their militarization of the Korean DMZ. But that is just hot air and not serious unless the US is willing to sit down and negotiate security agreements and a MUTUAL demilitarization of that part of Asia. Which would mean comparable and equivalent demilitarization of the US side as well.

In any event, going to war in Ukraine was absolutely the most counterproductive thing Russia could ever have done to reduce NATO’s reach in Central Europe. They are getting the exact opposite response as NATO is now expanding its forces in all the NATO countries in Eastern Europe and contemplating expanding to include Finland and Sweden. The Russians are not fools and they had to know this would be the response. Which tells us this really isn’t about NATO expansion at all, but really about other things. Most likely the territorial expansion of the Russian Empire westward.

[Soloist]

The point is that there was never any formal treaty or accord or agreement on that topic. This really isn’t so much about NATO as it is about the specific Central European countries involved. The Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic, etc. All of those states took a good look at the world and neighborhood that they lived in and decided that it was to THEIR benefit to cast their fate with the west by first joining the EU for economic reasons, and then joining NATO for mutual defense.

If Russia is going to ask all of those countries to remain neutral and NOT join NATO, then Russia needs to enter into negotiations with NATO and the Central European states involved and come to a security treaty that provides assurances to Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, etc. that their borders and neutrality will be respected. And it would probably require some sort of demilitarization of Central Europe. That doesn’t require a one-sided agreement in which Poland agrees to remain neutral and have no NATO bases or cooperation while Russia (and Belarus) on its border retain their Warsaw Pact level troops and armaments on their side of the border. Such an agreement would require equal levels of de-escalation and de-militarization on BOTH sides of the border. Right now the Russians have massive military installations all along their western border from Finland all the way to Georgia. They haven’t deescalated even a tiny bit. In fact they have spent a lot of time and effort modernizing an increasing their military deployments along their western border.

No one is arguing that this was the best option for Russia, I'm certainly not endorsing their actions, but saying that it was never about NATO is missing the point entirely. If you approach an enemy by saying "you are wrong about your reasons for doing war" you likely wouldn't get very far at all in negotiations. You arguing against what Russia believes is entirely pointless and will not change anything about what Russia believes. Is NATO an excuse? maybe but that is their argument to justify their actions. This whole discussion of who is at fault and insisting NATO/USA has no blame for what happened is stupid.
This doesn't justify it, but if I go into a gang area wearing opposing gang symbols and get killed... I did something stupid but the gang is still wrong for killing. So if I say the gang killed me because I wore the enemy symbols, you are arguing that they just were being aggressive for no reason.

Now, just because someone believes something does not make it true, but refusing to accept that they have a different view and address the concerns will just see it repeat again and again.

[Jazman]

Russia's demands

Does anyone know how long or to what's lengths Russia or Ukraine has gone to negotiate over these things? As someone from the west, I assume I've probably missed anything in the past that would indicate an answer... If I was multi-lingual and could read European/East European news, maybe I would have an answer?

[Jazman]

Russia basically is trying to make itself great again

I call it nostalgism... or maybe extreme nostalgism. A force that animates many in the US as well...btw. I love history and think we need to study it more so we can learn from it (including in our churches - I would go so far as to say that Bible Schools, Sunday Schools, etc should include some post- Bible times history on a fairly regular basis)
But in my view, the nostalgism I speak of doesn't use history in that good way. Instead it mythologizes history and tries to force that mythology into the present, by force/coercion. Much woe comes from this effort and I don't see a time in history that it's ever worked? (I'm open to correction on that point) Most times it backfires and people rise up to reject the nostalgists program even more than if they had done nothing...