Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[gosub]

They expanded NATO up to Russian borders. They wanted a fight.

NATO border is Romania. Russia moved theres

 

[Pickman's model]

What calandrr are you using . Gregorian has the invason iat 20 Feb 2014

I can always tell when someone thinks they're being really smart but they haven't read the thread title

 

[Pickman's model]

NATO border is Romania. Russia moved theres

You've not heard of eg Estonia or Poland I take it

 

[two sheds]

What calandrr are you using . Gregorian has the invason iat 20 Feb 2014

Modern rubbish

 

[krink]

Can we have a new thread that's for up to date news about the invasion that's happening in Ukraine?

 

[The39thStep]

Can we have a new thread that's for up to date news about the invasion that's happening in Ukraine?

Start one up , it will be the 71st thread on Ukraine

 

[existentialist]

Can we have a new thread that's for up to date news about the invasion that's happening in Ukraine?

I'm sure there used to be one . As I recall, it was a thread where it was possible to show an interest in what was going on without having all kinds of aspersions cast about one's motivations for being interested.

 

[Yossarian]

Can we have a new thread that's for up to date news about the invasion that's happening in Ukraine?

You could start one but it'd probably be all "It's NATO's fault, why do you love the US and NATO so much?" by the end of the first page

 

[LDC]

Can we have a new thread that's for up to date news about the invasion that's happening in Ukraine?

If/when the Ukraine counter-offensive starts that'd be a good time. Also be good if Twitter, video and news links posted without comment could be avoided imo.

 

[Pickman's model]

i thought this royal historical society event - online on 16 may, 6.30pm - The Russo-Ukrainian War: with Professor Serhii Plokhy and Sir Richard Evans would interest some of you

 

[TopCat]

Can we have a new thread that's for up to date news about the invasion that's happening in Ukraine?

Sifted to remove propaganda?

 

[Pickman's model]

Sifted to remove propaganda?

sprinkled on top like chocolate powder on a tiramisu

 

[existentialist]

Sifted to remove propaganda?

I think all it would need would be a degree of respect.

 

[two sheds]

And anyone who's made any non-serious posts should be banned from it.

Oh

 

[xenon]

Sorry if you find me tedious. I'm not justifying anything that the Russian state in its varying forms has done. All imperialisms are crap. All i'm saying is that post WW2 Russia's sphere of influence on European territory did not expand and there was no serious attempt to make it do so. If anything it began to contract. But they wanted the new status quo (I was never a fan myself) and Putin wants it back.

not you personally tedious. Just this whataboutery. I like that though, the USSR didn't have an expansionist policy... Once and after it had expanded... But anyways I'm just catching up with thread.

 

[SpookyFrank]

They expanded NATO up to Russian borders. They wanted a fight.

This is getting a bit silly now isn't it?

 

[Spymaster]

This is getting a bit silly now isn't it?

We've pretty much crossed into conspiracy stuff now.

 

[maomao]

There were clearly elements in the US who wanted a fight. And there was clearly a failure by western politicians to pursue genuine peace in favour of cashing in on arms sales. None of those things 'made' Russia invade Ukraine but it suited western leaders to have a threat that they could sell weapons to defend against.

 

[two sheds]

Isn't there an element of truth in NATO expanding up to Russia's borders, though? Certainly from Russia's point of view. I saw a map one time showing the American nuclear weapons in countries surrounding Russia and there were quite a few of them. Something Chomsky's remarked upon, too as I recall.

 

[xenon]

Nato boarders eh.

if Ukraine had have been in Nato or had their own nuclear deterrant, I wonder if Putin would have launched his special children murdering operation.

 

[strung out]

Isn't there an element of truth in NATO expanding up to Russia's borders, though? Certainly from Russia's point of view. I saw a map one time showing the American nuclear weapons in countries surrounding Russia and there were quite a few of them. Something Chomsky's remarked upon, too as I recall.

There are no US nuclear weapons in any country bordering Russia.

Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Mapping U.S. and Russian Deployments

Russia’s threat to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus has raised the specter of a new nuclear standoff with the United States and its allies in Europe. It also draws new attention to how such…

www.cfr.org

 

[Elpenor]

Does the world really need the nuclear missiles of Russia and NATO pointing directly at each other across the border fence.

Guess we will find out

 

[cupid_stunt]

Isn't there an element of truth in NATO expanding up to Russia's borders, though? Certainly from Russia's point of view. I saw a map one time showing the American nuclear weapons in countries surrounding Russia and there were quite a few of them. Something Chomsky's remarked upon, too as I recall.

I don't think that is correct, I can't find any maps or websites on google showing that to be the case, indeed the opposite.

Here's a list of countries hosting US nukes.



WIKI

 

[Yossarian]

Nato boarders eh.

if Ukraine had have been in Nato or had their own nuclear deterrant, I wonder if Putin would have launched his special children murdering operation.

Russia's probably ensured that no other country will give up its nuclear weapons - Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world but it agreed to give them up in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine

 

[gosub]

Nato boarders eh.

if Ukraine had have been in Nato or had their own nuclear deterrant, I wonder if Putin would have launched his special children murdering operation.

Child murdering if honest think that's the usual horrendous collatoral damage you get in war. It the stories of child resettlement I'm finding more alarming

 

[belboid]

Isn't there an element of truth in NATO expanding up to Russia's borders, though? Certainly from Russia's point of view. I saw a map one time showing the American nuclear weapons in countries surrounding Russia and there were quite a few of them. Something Chomsky's remarked upon, too as I recall.

Of course there's an element of truth to it. The refusal to accept this fact is just bizarre. It doesn't excuse in any way the Russian invasion, but we shouldn't pretend it never happened or that it wasn't one (of many) factors in causing the invasion. It's generally accepted that WW2 was caused, partly, by excessive war reparations from WW1, but acknowledging that fact doesn't mean anyone thinks it was okay Hitler annexed Austria (or anywhere else). It's grossly simplistic politics to just go 'Russia bad' and stop there.

 

[LDC]

Of course there's an element of truth to it. The refusal to accept this fact is just bizarre. It doesn't excuse in any way the Russian invasion, but we shouldn't pretend it never happened or that it wasn't one (of many) factors in causing the invasion. It's generally accepted that WW2 was caused, partly, by excessive war reparations from WW1, but acknowledging that fact doesn't mean anyone thinks it was okay Hitler annexed Austria (or anywhere else). It's grossly simplistic politics to just go 'Russia bad' and stop there.

One problem that I see is the blurring and mixing up of what is being talked about.

Simplistically I mean are we talking about the context and history of what lead up to the war, and if so then discussing anything like that (as fact or theory or speculation) is of course fair enough. What often happens in discussions about what is actually happening now, the war as it is and what might unfold on the ground is that there's a tendency for some people to bring issues like the one you mention above in, often repeatedly, which really does come across as borderline excusing the invasion sometimes. And of course that's on the background of the Russian State and its fellow travellers doing exactly the same.

Fair enough...

1) "Why did this war happen?" "NATO expansion...".

But often...

2) "Horrendous Russian war crimes." "NATO expansion".

 

[Pickman's model]

Isn't there an element of truth in NATO expanding up to Russia's borders, though? Certainly from Russia's point of view. I saw a map one time showing the American nuclear weapons in countries surrounding Russia and there were quite a few of them. Something Chomsky's remarked upon, too as I recall.

I don't think that is correct, I can't find any maps or websites on google showing that to be the case, indeed the opposite.

Here's a list of countries hosting US nukes.

View attachment 371419

WIKI

yeh that's where they are (although various wiki articles differ on the number of warheads) but not where they have been.

2 things:
1) history of the custody and deployment of nuclear weapons july 1945 through september 1977 (345 page pdf) declassified and redacted history, which is drawn on for
2) where were they (bulletin of the atomic scientists article, 10 page pdf)

the bas article names britain, west germany, greece, italy, turkey, holland and belgium while an appendix from 1) lists deployments by country / state:

 

[The39thStep]

The problem that I see is the blurring and mixing up of what is being talked about.

Simplistically I mean are we talking about the context and history of what lead up to the war, and if so then discussing anything like that (as fact or theory or speculation) is of course fair enough. What often happens in discussions about what is actually happening now, the war as it is and what might unfold on the ground is that there's a tendency for some people to bring issues like the one you mention above in, often repeatedly, which really does come across as borderline excusing the invasion sometimes. And of course that's on the background of the Russian State and it's fellow travellers doing exactly the same.

Fair enough...

1) "Why did this war happen?" "NATO expansion...".

But often...

2) "Horrendous Russian war crimes." "NATO expansion".

So ok to mention it but not often ?

 

[LDC]

So ok to mention it but not often ?

That's not at all what I said though is it? Was I that unclear, are you trying to be funny or make a point, or something else?

Although tbh, yes, if you keep going on about it at every opportunity and whenever any aspect of the war is being discussed then I'd question why.