Posted on 12/19/2022 6:35:41 AM PST by NorseViking
Greece has been refusing to provide these missiles to Ukraine, but ultimately was forced to kowtow to NATO demands because Erdogan is threatening to grab some of their islands. Russia and Greece have been mostly friendly in the past, so no doubt Russia isn’t happy they gave in to NATO demands. It was a simple rebuke to express their displeasure, nothing more than that.
Do you really think that Ukraine's army will roll across Russia and capture the propaganda posters who are working out of cubicles in Leningrad and Moscow?
You have managed to get yourself upset about nothing. I seems you really don't care about Girkin's punishment, whatever it might be, that was set by the international court in the Hague. I don't either. But if he faces the death penalty it is because of international law, not Ukrainian law.
The Guardian
Andrew Roth in Moscow
Fri 17 Dec 2021 09.16 EST
Russia has put forward a highly contentious list of security guarantees it says it wants the west to agree to in order to lower tensions in Europe and defuse the crisis over Ukraine, including many elements that have already been ruled out.
The demands include a ban on Ukraine entering Nato and a limit to the deployment of troops and weapons to Nato’s eastern flank, in effect returning Nato forces to where they were stationed in 1997, before an eastward expansion.
The eight-point draft treaty was released by Russia’s foreign ministry as its forces massed within striking distance of Ukraine’s borders. Moscow said ignoring its interests would lead to a “military response” similar to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
* * * * Russia-Ukraine crisis: where are Putin’s troops and what are his options?
Vladimir Putin has demanded that the west provide Russia “legal guarantees” of its security. But the Kremlin’s aggressive proposals are likely to be rejected in western capitals as an attempt to formalise a new Russian sphere of influence over eastern Europe.
The demands, spelled out by Moscow in full for the first time, were handed over to the US this week. They include a demand that Nato remove any troops or weapons deployed to countries that entered the alliance after 1997, which would include much of eastern Europe, including Poland, the former Soviet countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the Balkan countries.
Russia has also demanded that Nato rule out further expansion, including the accession of Ukraine into the alliance, and that it does not hold drills without previous agreement from Russia in Ukraine, eastern Europe, in Caucasus countries such as Georgia or in Central Asia.
Those proposals are likely to be viewed extremely negatively by Nato countries, in particular Poland and the Baltic states. They have warned that Russia is attempting to re-establish a sphere of influence in the region and view the document as proof Moscow is seeking to limit their sovereignty.
Western propaganda? Not in the least. The official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation still has the far-reaching demands that the UK Guardian and other outlets reported on.
In pertinent part, the proposed agreement with the US provided:
The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
Article 5
The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.
The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.
The Parties shall maintain dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms to prevent dangerous military activities on and over the high seas, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance between warships and aircraft.
Article 6
The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party.
Article 7
The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories.
The Parties shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons. The Parties shall not conduct exercises or training for general-purpose forces, that include scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons.
The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.
Article 5
The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.
Article 6
All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.
Article 7
The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.
In order to exclude incidents the Russian Federation and the Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct military exercises or other military activities above the brigade level in a zone of agreed width and configuration on each side of the border line of the Russian Federation and the states in a military alliance with it, as well as Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Since Russia and Putin had violated previous agreements to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, even if NATO and the US agreed to these terms -- or any terms -- how could they trust that promises in return would be honored? Moreover, Putin's massive corruption, suppression of opposition, and murders of journalists and political opponents in Russia and even in Western Europe had made him and his regime odious in the US and Europe.
As it was, the US and NATO were drawn into supporting NATO in its conflict with Russia because of strategic interests and in fidelity to the promises made by the West when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees. Putin knew all this, but, surrounded by toadies and yes men, he lacked a realistic assessment of Russia's military power and of Ukraine and Western capabilities and intentions.
As between Russia and Ukraine, who will win? My guess is that Putin will not be in power in the spring and that his successor will be forced to sue for peace as the Russian economy craters and the Russian Federation begins to dissolve. In the rough justice that war sometimes delivers, the suffering that has been inflicted on Ukraine will then be paid back in multiples for years to come.
My post was about Russia’s position BEFORE the war started, it’s not surprising that their demands increased after they realized the true intentions of the US. Obviously all of those later demands were unlikely to have been met, these things would have to be ironed out in negotiations.
You’re having a completely different argument with yourself because you’re not addressing what I wrote. Try again or not, I don’t care. The post I was disgusted by has been removed by a moderator so clearly I was on the right track.
“All the facts are at hand for those wishing to honestly face the topic of Russian irredentism.”
Thank you for your comment.
The unreality of Russian diplomacy and national in the Putin era is said in part to be due to the much-reduced quality of Russia's diplomatic corps and national security community due to the concentration of power in Putin and a small group of yes men. The last thing that such people want is sharp-minded aides and subordinates cataloging errors and looking for an opportunity to act against them.
As it is, the attack on Ukraine has had effects dramatically different from those anticipated by Putin and his circle: Ukraine resisting heroically; the Russian military battered and struggling; NATO strengthened and expanding its membership; and the Russian economy starting to buckle under sanctions.
Putin may look to be solidly in power, but that is how it is with autocrats. They look permanent until one day they are gone due to death, a coup, mass demonstrations, or a flight into exile after a national catastrophe. Which will it be for Mad Vlad?
Leonidas, while brave died as did all his men in the end.
My mistake on the dates, but that still doesn’t change my position that the US intentionally fomented this war to shut down Nordstream 2 and to thwart any further European economic integration with Russia and Asia. And we played Ukraine in order to do this, leaving their country in tatters.
Russia basically wanted to annex Ukraine and have already annexed bunch of it according to themselves.
If Canada would invade and try to annex North Quarter of the USA, would you sit still and talk about the problems of killing people and loosing electrical plants?
That is like blaming self defense classes for injuries suffered by a rape victim, and the rape itself on a women's clothing store for selling too revealing an outfit, and the rapist as prompted by the promiscuity of hip hop songs. Of course, that overlooks the point that the proximate cause of a rape is a rapist. And the sole proximate cause of Ukraine's suffering is the invasion by Russia.
This has been in the works since 20014 when we fomented the coup against a democratically elected government and essentially installed a bunch of puppet politicians there to do our bidding. These puppet politicians began harassing ethnic Russian speakers and their culture eventually causing the majority in the Donbas to seek separation. You know the rest. Ukraine bombed the civilian population in the Donbas killing 14,000, eventually causing Russia to intercede and protect them. This was a carefully orchestrated plan that had been in the works for some time. Hillary was supposed to lead it when she was expected to win in 2016, but Trump’s win delayed matters until they could steal the next election and put their boy Biden in there.
The accord would have more closely integrated political and economic ties between the EU and Ukraine. As popular protests mounted at Yanukovych's betrayal, he cracked down by attempting to ban demonstrations and to arrest the leaders. The result was that Yanukovych was forced out of office and fled to Russia when the Ukrainian military and police refused to obey his orders.
How is the West to blame for the thuggish stupidity of Russia and their Ukrainian puppet, Yanukovych, that led to his ouster from office? Or for his massive corruption? Or for conflicts between pro-Russian and pro-Western Ukrainians, with Russia fomenting clashes and using them as an excuse to carve off slices of Ukraine? Or for the Russian invasion and Putin's plan to install Yanukovych as their puppet Ukrainian president?
Logic and facts rarely enter into Russian propaganda claims. Notably, when Russia invaded, even ethnic Russian speakers in Ukraine shunned them. There is a vast difference between wanting better treatment from your government and wanting to experience an invasion and overthrow of that government by a brutal neighbor. When Ukraine wins and Russia is forced out, my surmise is that Ukrainians will celebrate, even Russian speaking Ukrainians.
You are pretending it was a popular uprising that disposed of Yanukovych, but it wasn’t, special ops were trained (presumedly by the US/NATO) in Poland for that purpose (the sharp shooters, ect). This was confirmed to me by a member of the Polish military at the time it was happening. This was no organic spontaneous uprising of the people to get rid of him.
Did US/NATO trained "special ops" also construct Yanukovych's sprawling luxury estate Mezhyhirya with its private zoo, underground shooting range, 18-hole golf course, and facilities for tennis and bowling? Did they also contrive to put 12 billion dollars or so into accounts and properties owned by Yanukovych and his son? And what about the vote rigging by the Berkut in favor of Yanukovych's Party of Regions? And the network of corrupt allies who looted the Ukrainian economy?
Really, with such an abundance of grievances against Yanukovych, why would special operatives be needed to provide a spark -- especially because he provided it himself by rejected the association agreement with the EU.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.