Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[Roar87]

Yeah well sorry but I don't believe you.
Because you know what, the NATO agreement says all must treat an attack on one as an attack on all and must come to their aid.

What we would see then is some types saying "well yeah we should go to their aid" lets send them some blankets and some almost out of date RPGs we have.
There would be a vast difference between what we are obliged to do and what we could do.

Also plenty say how part of the provocation (of Russia) is NATO expansion and if NATO hadn't of expanded then Putin wouldn't have done what what did.

Personally I don't see NATO as the limit on doing the right thing.
Do we just hand over any country who isn't a member of NATO?
How do you think thats helping to promote the nuclear non-proliferation.

Non NATO and Non nuclear? Yeah sorry your fair game.

"I don't believe you" So you're picking and choosing which statements of mine you believe now, based on how well you know me based on some forum posts you read. ******* hell.

Of course NATO expansion is the reason why we're in this mess, who would even disagree with that? The Russians naturally aren't happy the US is basically supporting a pro-Western government in Ukraine that is right on their border, they aren't happy that the US has nuclear weapons in about a dozen countries surrounding them. The argument against that position is that countries are allowed to join NATO because they are sovereign democratically elected governments. I accept the fact that Russia wants to maintain it's sphere of influence because that preserves peace in Europe, but I also support the idea that countries should be allowed to join NATO if they choose. These notions conflict with each other, and it's not an easy situation to resolve.

Not sure why you're making statements like us "handing over" countries that don't belong to us in the first place. There's a lot of conflicts around the world that we don't get involved in.

List of ongoing armed conflicts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

"I don't believe you" So you're picking and choosing which statements of mine you believe now, based on how well you know me based on some forum posts you read. ******* hell.

Of course NATO expansion is the reason why we're in this mess, who would even disagree with that? The Russians naturally aren't happy the US is basically supporting a pro-Western government in Ukraine that is right on their border, they aren't happy that the US has nuclear weapons in about a dozen countries surrounding them. The argument against that position is that countries are allowed to join NATO because they are sovereign democratically elected governments. I accept the fact that Russia wants to maintain it's sphere of influence because that preserves peace in Europe, but I also support the idea that countries should be allowed to join NATO if they choose. These notions conflict with each other, and it's not an easy situation to resolve.

Not sure why you're making statements like us "handing over" countries that don't belong to us in the first place. There's a lot of conflicts around the world that we don't get involved in.

List of ongoing armed conflicts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Its easy to put a hypothetical position of reasonableness you don't expect to be tested.

Well I for starters don't agree that NATO expansion is why we are in this mess. I believe its 100% on Putin/Russia.
I mean evidence that the direct Putin actions have pushed Sweden and Finland to seek membership, there is nothing like invading your non NATO neighbour and seeing some people saying "thats ok they aren't NATO members" to green light invading any others to trigger the reation, oh we better join NATO then.

I mean NATO, a defensive alliance, has literally never gone to war. Individual members of NATO sure, but they do not get the support of NATO if they go to war.
NATO has literally zero aggressive action throughout its history. You cannot say that for Russia.

Putin wants to bring back the USSR. He saw Ukraine as another block in that conquest.

There are not nukes in about a dozen countries surrounding them at all. There are 5 west countries currently storing US nukes, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey thats hardly surrounded.
Your just trotting out Kremlin based misinformation after Kremlin based misinformation and you wonder why I don't trust your takes?

As I said your position seems to be quite extreme for leaving the Ukrainians to their fate, is that better than saying giving up their lands? As such I would not expect you to support an all in NATO response and to fall in line with one of the limp wristed weak responses some would argue for should a NATO country be attacked.

Ukraine were not seeking NATO membership nor EU membership pre invasion.

 

[plasmahal]

Ukraine were not seeking NATO membership nor EU membership pre invasion.

Not true....

Relations between Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) started in 1991.[1] Ukraine applied to integrate with a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008.[2][3] Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych, who preferred to keep the country non-aligned, was elected President.[4][5] Amid the unrest caused by the Euromaidan protests, Yanukovych fled Ukraine in February 2014.[6] The interim Yatseniuk Government which came to power initially said, with reference to the country's non-aligned status, that it had no plans to join NATO.[7] However, following the Russian military invasion in Ukraine and parliamentary elections in October 2014, the new government made joining NATO a priority.[8] On 21 February 2019, the Constitution of Ukraine was amended, the norms on the strategic course of Ukraine for membership in the European Union and NATO are enshrined in the preamble of the Basic Law, three articles and transitional provisions.[9][10]

At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the MAP as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference.[11] NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also stressed that Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession to NATO "as we will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when large countries decide what smaller ones should do."[12] Before further actions on NATO membership were taken, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrai...embership were,fled Ukraine in February 2014.

 

[Rroff]

Not true....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrai...embership were,fled Ukraine in February 2014.

I might be wrong but I think that Wiki has been edited to infer something different to Ukraine's position over the years though I don't know all the details - there were overtures from NATO in 2008 but Ukraine was not in a hurry to join preferring enhanced cooperation rather than membership. Much of their interest in 2008 period was a reaction to the Russia-Georgia situation anyhow, same as post 2014 their NATO position changed as a reaction to Russian actions.

 

[potatolord]

I might be wrong but I think that Wiki has been edited to infer something different to Ukraine's position over the years though I don't know all the details - there were overtures from NATO in 2008 but Ukraine was not in a hurry to join preferring enhanced cooperation rather than membership. Much of their interest in 2008 period was a reaction to the Russia-Georgia situation anyhow, same as post 2014 their NATO position changed as a reaction to Russian actions.

From wiki article on the constitution of Ukraine:

"On 7 February 2019, the Verkhovna Rada voted 334 to 17 to amend the constitution to state Ukraine's strategic objectives as joining the European Union and NATO"

That's pretty clear policy. You can argue about timeliness, but both intention and direction is clear.

 

[Rroff]

From wiki article on the constitution of Ukraine:

"On 7 February 2019, the Verkhovna Rada voted 334 to 17 to amend the constitution to state Ukraine's strategic objectives as joining the European Union and NATO"

That's pretty clear policy. You can argue about timeliness, but both intention and direction is clear.

My comments are on the expansion of NATO aspect - Ukraine has, possibly some exceptions aside, only ever made substantial moves towards NATO in response to Russian actions. For a large part of their history post the USSR there was legislation in effect prohibiting integration, rather than cooperation, with external military pacts not just NATO.

 

[Rroff]

End of the day though Russia getting funny about NATO having bases near their borders is a bit silly - the last couple of decades or so the US reach logistics, aided by our own military logistics, has the capability to move a force equivalent to what Russia used in the initial invasion of Ukraine half-way around the globe in probably as little as 72 hours. Bases are convenient but a long time since the were necessary should the West want to invade a country in a traditional sense for Western military operating at NATO strength.

One of the few things which concerned Russia, more so even than our nuclear capability, about the UK's military was/is the ability to rapidly logistic half-way around the globe - sadly something we've allowed to decline in recent years.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Sorry by pre invasion I mean't Crimea not the current one.

After Crimea they did move that way then seem to back off again somewhat.

Its difficult since as we know there have been a couple of violent swings in their leadership.

With a Pro Russian installed or a pro western installed depending on your takes.

Post crimea and with in effect long standing Russian supported coup/ Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine (again depending on your particular persuasions) its hardly surprising the leadership went that way.

Anyway semantics aside if Ukraine chose to join another grouping or pact or whatever that should be completely within their choice.
No one, should have a veto over that other than the direct members of the group/pact.

Every nation is sovereign right. Or is it only the UK that should be able to make their own choices and others should be forced to do whats best in order to preserve Russias shoulder chips

 

[potatolord]

My comments are on the expansion of NATO aspect - Ukraine has, possibly some exceptions aside, only ever made substantial moves towards NATO in response to Russian actions. For a large part of their history post the USSR there was legislation in effect prohibiting integration, rather than cooperation, with external military pacts not just NATO.

Ukraine might have moved towards NATO/EU membership as a result of Russia's actions. That's a fair guess on your part.

I showed policy and direction of travel regarding NATO/EU membership intent is established- it is in Ukraine's constitution.

@plasmahal pointed our the other poster's claim was "not true", and that was correct.

 

[Jono8]

End of the day though Russia getting funny about NATO having bases near their borders is a bit silly - the last couple of decades or so the US reach logistics, aided by our own military logistics, has the capability to move a force equivalent to what Russia used in the initial invasion of Ukraine half-way around the globe in probably as little as 72 hours. Bases are convenient but a long time since the were necessary should the West want to invade a country in a traditional sense for Western military operating at NATO strength.

One of the few things which concerned Russia, more so even than our nuclear capability, about the UK's military was/is the ability to rapidly logistic half-way around the globe - sadly something we've allowed to decline in recent years.

Its a complete red herring. It is also highly nonsensical.

Russia doesn't give a **** about NATO bases on their borders and knows it is irrelevant.

It is just a good talking point for the broke brains that support them to latch onto, and they know it.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Ukraine might have moved towards NATO/EU membership as a result of Russia's actions. That's a fair guess on your part.

I showed policy and direction of travel regarding NATO/EU membership intent is established- it is in Ukraine's constitution.

@plasmahal pointed our the other poster's claim was "not true", and that was correct.

To be fair I did mean actively. They have been a bit toe in ever since they gained independence, but I think they always saw the risks as higher than the benefits. One does not simply walk into Mordor join NATO.
They were not actively engaged in joining NATO when Crimea happened, and indeed not really up until last year. Constitutionally they unlocked the option.
When in effect they could NOT join anyway since they were involved in a dispute that prevented membership.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Its a complete red herring. It is also highly non nonsensical.

Russia doesn't give a **** about NATO bases on their borders and knows it is irrelevant.

It is just a good talking point for the broke brains that support them to latch onto, and they know it.

True, yet again sidetracked by a broke brain.

I apologise.

 

[Turn]

*US Official: China’s Blacklisted Spacety Was Providing Satellite Images to Wagner Group
*Top U.S. Diplomat for East Asia Daniel Kritenbrink: Many U.S. Partners Share U.S. Concerns About China Considering Providing Lethal Assistance to Russia’s War In Ukraine
*Senior U.S. Defense Official Kahl: Ukraine Front Line ‘a Grinding Slog,' Expects Only Incremental Gains by Both Sides in Coming Months

 

[potatolord]

To be fair I did mean actively. They have been a bit toe in ever since they gained independence, but I think they always saw the risks as higher than the benefits. One does not simply walk into Mordor join NATO.
They were not actively engaged in joining NATO when Crimea happened, and indeed not really up until last year. Constitutionally they unlocked the option.
When in effect they could NOT join anyway since they were involved in a dispute that prevented membership.

Fair enough. I didn't know myself until plasmahal posted.

It's just that, after showing it's in the constitution, it's a bit much when some people still tried to argue the point!

 

[Scougar]

I always like to try and put myself in the shoes of "what if say France were to join Russia alliance" (or similar). We aren't going to start suggesting invasion (or actually do it), because democracy. That's the difference between them and us. Even America wouldn't invade Canada if they went communist (IMO). If they were aggressive to us, then yes.

Russia has decided that they don't like their destuctive capabilities (like missiles) to be hindered, so don't want NATO there. They want the land and resources of Ukraine, so.. based on 'it used to be ours', they decided to go in. That's it.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Fair enough. I didn't know myself until plasmahal posted.

It's just that, after showing it's in the constitution, it's a bit much when some people still tried to argue the point!

TBH constitutions saying x or y are pretty irrelevant when you can just amend them if you dont like them. In most democracies its impossible for an earlier parliament to bind a later one.
The most extreme resistance to change is probably the US with their fixation on the constitution. They are nutjobs on stuff surrounding that generally.

Eg we enacted a fixed term parliament act, then scrapped it when it became inconvenient.

As ever, "actions speak louder than words". They were not actively seeking membership.
Having it allowed (rather than having it disallowed), isnt the same as actively seeking to do something.

 

[Mr Jack]

Of course NATO expansion is the reason why we're in this mess, who would even disagree with that?[/URL]

The idea that NATO expansion is the reason this happened is utterly unsupported. In reality, NATO expansion has helped prevent the same situation occurring in multiple other post-Soviet countries. While we're apparently fine throwing Ukraine under the bus when we should have defended them in 2014, no-one seriously thinks Poland or Latvia is at risk of a Russian invasion.

Without the dire leadership of Putin, Russia could be a rich, prosperous European country thriving in co-operation with the EU. He chose to enrich himself and his kleptocrat friends instead. His jealous and petty fascism is the only reason that we're in this mess.

TBH constitutions saying x or y are pretty irrelevant when you can just amend them if you dont like them. In most democracies its impossible for an earlier parliament to bind a later one.

Not really. In most democracies it is much more difficult to amend the constitution than to simply pass a law and few governments have the seats required to do so. Constitutional amendments usually, therefore, require agreement across the political spectrum. Obviously this varies a lot by country.

 

[dowie]

TBH constitutions saying x or y are pretty irrelevant when you can just amend them if you dont like them.

Hmm tell that to Americans worried about school shootings or pro-implementing some sensible gun laws at a federal level.

They were not actively engaged in joining NATO when Crimea happened, and indeed not really up until last year. Constitutionally they unlocked the option.
When in effect they could NOT join anyway since they were involved in a dispute that prevented membership.

FYI they were not engaged at the time because of who the President was just before then... they'd previously applied to join in 2008 and were rejected, largely thanks to France and Germany.

 

[potatolord]

TBH constitutions saying x or y are pretty irrelevant when you can just amend them if you dont like them...

Yeah, OK. I'm out.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Not really. In most democracies it is much more difficult to amend the constitution than to simply pass a law and few governments have the seats required to do so. Constitutional amendments usually, therefore, require agreement across the political spectrum. Obviously this varies a lot by country.

Yes really.
If it can be amended by the will of parliament then the only barrier to change is whatever test is required in order to make the change.
If however thats not the case, and say it for example needs a monarchs approval who may be against it then thats a different thing.

Its different to conflate a political stalemate on something with the ability to do something.
IMO constitution reform should really be more about the populace directly than the politicians and whilst I am no major fan of referenda that is probably the best way round it.
Especially with FPTP in operation.

Your far more likely to see consensus in regards major change when its a major issue. When its a more minor issue then (eg the gun laws in the US) will make that very difficult.
By the ability remains. Should the democrats and the republicans sudden jointly decide there had to be significant changes then change would be highly likely.
Typically the reason you will struggle to achieve political consensus is that someone will have already politicised the item for gain as a vote winner.
You can set the bar where you want, make it much higher, but if you can change, you can change.