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

[Sythe79]

Pedantically speaking, @Roar87 is correct here: there is no formal treaty obligation on the UK (or US, etc.) to defend Ukraine. The "guarantees" given were more guidelines than rules; they provide a solid justification for the UK getting involved (if we needed another one) but they do not, in the strictest sense, oblige our response.

It's not pedantry, it's wilfully not understanding how international agreements work. Taking slices of text in isolation without the entire framework of how and why they were put in place.

Take NATO article 5 that everyone talks about, if you want to be pedantic even if it is invoked no country has to do anything to aid a member that is attacked because it doesn't explicitly state it.

It's not a computer game where if a friendly nation is attacked, swords are automatically placed on enemy icons because you clicked OK to an alliance, nor are they heavily detailed 10000-page contracts spelling out every detail.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

We've raked over this dribble about a promise of no Eastwood expansion enough times in this thread already.

Even if we did (I find truth supporting the claims very hard to find unsurprisingly). The verbal agreements would have been with the USSR anyway. Which ceased to exist.
Russia does not get to pick and choose which bits of USSR agreements they may want to be party to.
Russia is not the USSR.

If there had of been any serious significant attempts to hold any weight to it then there would have been a treaty. Just like the Budapest memorandum.
The lack of any such agreement tells you all you need to know.

 

[Roar87]

It's not pedantry, it's wilfully not understanding how international agreements work. Taking slices of text in isolation without the entire framework of how and why they were put in place.

Take NATO article 5 that everyone talks about, if you want to be pedantic even if it is invoked no country has to do anything to aid a member that is attacked because it doesn't explicitly state it.

It's not a computer game where if a friendly nation is attacked, swords are automatically placed on enemy icons because you clicked OK to an alliance, nor are they heavily detailed 10000-page contracts spelling out every detail.

NATO article 5 explicitly mentions "collective defense" and that an attack against one member should be considered as an attack against them all. You are right in that it doesn't obligate all member states to immediately send troops. However nothing like that is in place for Ukraine, otherwise logically they wouldn't need to apply to join NATO, would they?

 

[RatmanGB]

It's really fortunate that we have all these declassified documents showing that we did in fact promise the Russians not to expand Eastwards when they handed over East Germany.

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

It seems that we didn't actually adhere to what we promised them, and even when they didn't kick up too much of a fuss about all the Baltic states, the US insisted on interfering in Ukraine - which they explicitly made clear was a red line, so here we are.

Separating how we got here from where we are, do you believe that no one should support Ukraine in defending themselves from Russia's illegal and immoral invasion, and therefore Russia's illegal and immoral invasion should succeed?

 

[Scougar]

Pedantically speaking, @Roar87 is correct here: there is no formal treaty obligation on the UK (or US, etc.) to defend Ukraine. The "guarantees" given were more guidelines than rules; they provide a solid justification for the UK getting involved (if we needed another one) but they do not, in the strictest sense, oblige our response.

Yup. It is more of an honor contract. No comeback if we don't, but it's morally correct to do so.

 

[Roar87]

Separating how we got here from where we are, do you believe that no one should support Ukraine in defending themselves from Russia's illegal and immoral invasion, and therefore Russia's illegal and immoral invasion should succeed?

I think we can and should provide aid to Ukraine, however I think the current levels are provocative enough to risk a wider war between Russia and NATO, but also not at a level sufficient enough to allow Ukraine to win the war. It's like, what's the point? We're just dragging out a war that will probably end with Russia holding onto the territory it currently holds, or in some freak worst case scenario nuclear war erupts. Ukraine can never join NATO because Russia only has to make sure there's a constant state of conflict and they won't be allowed to join. If I'm in charge of Russia then I'll just drag this war out because they have the man power and resources, eventually the Western public will vote in someone who says they'll end the war, and Ukraine will be forced to negotiate.

 

[jigger]

Cornel West with Anderson Cooper on CNN.

youtu.be

I agree with what Dr Cornell West says in this interview

I can agree with the point that at the time of the collapse of the USSR the world could have found a route leading to NATO being disbanded. However, the good Dr fails to acknowledge that Russia failed to meet any of the conditions required make the possibility of NATO disbandment a reality. Under Putin Russia become a corrupt dictatorship with hostile intentions. When Putin took power his first act was to turned Russia away from the Gorbachev path of peace and cooperation.

 

[Stretch]

I think we can and should provide aid to Ukraine, however I think the current levels are provocative enough to risk a wider war between Russia and NATO, but also not at a level sufficient enough to allow Ukraine to win the war. It's like, what's the point? We're just dragging out a war that will probably end with Russia holding onto the territory it currently holds, or in some freak worst case scenario nuclear war erupts. Ukraine can never join NATO because Russia only has to make sure there's a constant state of conflict and they won't be allowed to join. If I'm in charge of Russia then I'll just drag this war out because they have the man power and resources, eventually the Western public will vote in someone who says they'll end the war, and Ukraine will be forced to negotiate.

Russia has a choice. Either it carries on a perpetual war it can never benefit from at huge economic and pollical cost. Or it can accept Ukraine doesn't belong to them and they are free to make their own choices.

 

[Sythe79]

NATO article 5 explicitly mentions "collective defense" and that an attack against one member should be considered as an attack against them all. You are right in that it doesn't obligate all member states to immediately send troops. However nothing like that is in place for Ukraine, otherwise logically they wouldn't need to apply to join NATO, would they?

except it does

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

Russian is the aggressor and has Veto on the UNSC, but that doesn't stop the other two parties living up to their agreement.

 

[rumple9]

I've just watched that and he doesn't have an answer. He throws around a lot of blame for why we got to this point - which I'm not at all sure I agree with, but that's another issue - but what he basically doesn't want to say seems to be "yes, Russia should win".

I have a lot of respect for professor West but he is so wrong on this

 

[Roar87]

except it does

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

Russian is the aggressor and has Veto on the UNSC, but that doesn't stop the other two parties living up to their agreement.

Nuclear weapons haven't been used, and "assistance" is unfortunately, yet very deliberately, vague enough that it can amount to, for example, simply providing humanitarian assistance.

 

[RatmanGB]

I think we can and should provide aid to Ukraine, however I think the current levels are provocative enough to risk a wider war between Russia and NATO, but also not at a level sufficient enough to allow Ukraine to win the war. It's like, what's the point? We're just dragging out a war that will probably end with Russia holding onto the territory it currently holds, or in some freak worst case scenario nuclear war erupts. Ukraine can never join NATO because Russia only has to make sure there's a constant state of conflict and they won't be allowed to join. If I'm in charge of Russia then I'll just drag this war out because they have the man power and resources, eventually the Western public will vote in someone who says they'll end the war, and Ukraine will be forced to negotiate.

What level of aid should be provided in your view?

 

[Sythe79]

Nuclear weapons haven't been used, and "assistance" is unfortunately, yet very deliberately, vague enough that it can amount to, for example, simply providing humanitarian assistance.

if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used

About as vague as article 5

At least we've moved on from there being no agreement.

 

[jigger]

Nuclear weapons haven't been used, and "assistance" is unfortunately, yet very deliberately, vague enough that it can amount to, for example, simply providing humanitarian assistance.

Russia deployed nuclear weapons into Belarus and is at war with Ukraine. Either of those acts satisfy the requirement.

 

[Roar87]

What level of aid should be provided in your view?

I was happy with small arms, anti-tank, man pads, and providing training for their soldiers which the UK is very good at. Apart from anything else I don't think the UK has much in the way of equipment that we can afford to give away. Who knows what wars we'll be asked to fight in 10 years?

 

[jigger]

I was happy with small arms, anti-tank, man pads, and providing training for their soldiers which the UK is very good at. Apart from anything else I don't think the UK has much in the way of equipment that we can afford to give away. Who knows what wars we'll be asked to fight in 10 years?

At best that likely results in a perpetual state of war or steady Russian expansion into Ukraine.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I was happy with small arms, anti-tank, man pads, and providing training for their soldiers which the UK is very good at. Apart from anything else I don't think the UK has much in the way of equipment that we can afford to give away. Who knows what wars we'll be asked to fight in 10 years?

So weapons that guarantee they lose, Russia wins and Ukraine ceases to exist as a free democratic nation. Well I'd never want you watching my back, you'd likely stab me in it and try and use me as a bargaining chip to help yourself.

 

[Rroff]

Yup. It is more of an honor contract. No comeback if we don't, but it's morally correct to do so.

If we don't honour the spirit of it, it makes it harder for us to negotiate future pacts, whether anyone cares about that or not is another matter but I'd rather be seen standing up to our obligations, even something with a lot of vagueness like this, than walking away.

It is quite clear what the intention was of the Budapest and Helsinki agreements.

 

[Harlequin]

Looks like Wagnar is heading to Africa:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686739082452340736

 

[Sankari]

What economy doing?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686713490549932032