WW3

Omega said:

Mind that Russia wanted to join NATO before and refusal to admit them was interpreted as a threat. Whether Russia interpreted our decision right or wrong - we will never know

Click to expand...

I've heard Putin suggesting (this was in the noughties) that Russia might join NATO (I think the context was the Baltic states joining). And there was some cooperation in the 90s. But I never heard of any actual overtures being made to actually join. Have you a reference?

I don't believe I used 'justice and what is right' btw. I was giving it the duck test.

Larse said:

This doesn't stack up chronologically. Russia annexed Crimea and invaded "Donbas" in March 2014. Poroshenko didn't become president of Ukraine until June 2014. The delay being the constitutional crisis caused by Yanukovich legging it overnight to Russia which (understandably) hadn't been anticipated by the drafters of the constitution.

Sounds like Russian apologia to me. There's lots of it about.

Click to expand...

Here is BBC's article with chart showing the trade volumes between Russia and Ukraine - it dips to the lowest in 2014-2015 before normalising https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-65113156
I would recommend checking against largest Russian companies - Gazprom, Lukoil etc. they started leaving after 2014. Wikipedia is quite good, here is an example about Lukoil:
"In 2014, the company faced a sharp decline in retail sales in Ukraine by 42%, caused by Russian intervention in Ukraine. As a result, the management of Lukoil agreed to sell 100% of its subsidiary Lukoil Ukraine to the Austrian company AMIC Energy Management, which was announced at the end of July 2014.[27][28]
In 2015, it sold its service stations in Estonia and Ukraine, and in 2016, it sold its service stations in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Cyprus.[30][31][32]"

Larse said:

I've heard Putin suggesting (this was in the noughties) that Russia might join NATO (I think the context was the Baltic states joining). And there was some cooperation in the 90s. But I never heard of any actual overtures being made to actually join. Have you a reference?

I don't believe I used 'justice and what is right' btw. I was giving it the duck test.

Click to expand...

In a March 2000 interview with the British television journalist David Frost, Putin was asked whether "it is possible Russia could join NATO." Putin, who at the time was serving as acting president and weeks later was elected to his first term, responded, "I don’t see why not."http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/st...eakfast_with_frost/transcripts/putin5.mar.txt
Another https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

Omega said:

Here is BBC's article with chart showing the trade volumes between Russia and Ukraine - it dips to the lowest in 2014-2015 before normalising https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-65113156
I would recommend checking against largest Russian companies - Gazprom, Lukoil etc

Click to expand...

You've failed to address the point I made about the chronology with Petro Poroschenko.

And a drop off in trade is hardly unusual when your trade 'partner' has invaded you. That it recovered at all after 2014 is a miracle. Most probably because of the intertwined nature of the two economies, especially with military hardware and oil. And again unsurprisingly it stopped dead in February 22.

Your position seems to be that this was the reason for the invasion. I'm saying quite categorically that they were the result of two invasions.

Omega said:

In a March 2000 interview with the British television journalist David Frost, Putin was asked whether "it is possible Russia could join NATO." Putin, who at the time was serving as acting president and weeks later was elected to his first term, responded, "I don’t see why not."http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/st...eakfast_with_frost/transcripts/putin5.mar.txt
Another https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

Click to expand...

Yes. That's the one I was referring to. Not exactly a filled out application for membership form is it?

And it was highly unlikely that Russia would join NATO after the spate of invasions and disputes with neighbouring territories that went on in the previous and subsequent years. Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia (twice) and Ukraine (twice).

What's your point here? That Russia was wronged by not being able to join NATO and had a hissy fit, so it's all NATO's fault? Forgetting all the invasions and disputes of course.

Larse said:

You've failed to address the point I made about the chronology with Petro Poroschenko.

And a drop off in trade is hardly unusual when your trade 'partner' has invaded you. That it recovered at all after 2014 is a miracle. Most probably because of the intertwined nature of the two economies, especially with military hardware and oil. And again unsurprisingly it stopped dead in February 22.

Your position seems to be that this was the reason for the invasion. I'm saying quite categorically that they were the result of two invasions.

Click to expand...

I think I misunderstood you. To me, the reason is always financial. 2014 war was merely to stop Ukraine joining NATO quickly. However, Ukraine started pushing Russian companies out because they were replacing them with Western companies. Then Russian oligarchs decided to compensate the losses and this triggered 2022. One led to the other, all sides could deescalate, but did not

I updated with an example from Lukoil. I add it here again, check their Wikipedia site:

"In 2014, the company faced a sharp decline in retail sales in Ukraine by 42%, caused by Russian intervention in Ukraine. As a result, the management of Lukoil agreed to sell 100% of its subsidiary Lukoil Ukraine to the Austrian company AMIC Energy Management, which was announced at the end of July 2014.[27][28]
In 2015, it sold its service stations in Estonia and Ukraine, and in 2016, it sold its service stations in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Cyprus.[30][31][32]"

Larse said:

Yes. That's the one I was referring to. Not exactly a filled out application for membership form is it?

And it was highly unlikely that Russia would join NATO after the spate of invasions and disputes with neighbouring territories that went on in the previous and subsequent years. Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia (twice) and Ukraine (twice).

What's your point here? That Russia was wronged by not being able to join NATO and had a hissy fit, so it's all NATO's fault? Forgetting all the invasions and disputes of course.

Click to expand...

My point is that a powerful country can do whatever they please, no justice, just greed. And this applies to us too.
My other point is that politicians are fooling us presenting situation as if there are only two ways forward - give in to Putin or escalate further, - but there are other options too. They are playing not only with our lives, but the lives of our families, they distract us from the catastrophic consequences of the risk escalating the situation further

He warned us not to allow Ukraine to use our missiles on his soil we have and now he says he has every right to defend Russia against us, Biden has dropped us in deep **** to screw Trump this is not where we wanted to be when this kicked off, as I said he doesn't play by the rules of war this could easily end badly for us all.

Omega said:

I think I misunderstood you. To me, the reason is always financial. 2014 war was merely to stop Ukraine joining NATO quickly. However, Ukraine started pushing Russian companies out because they were replacing them with Western companies. Then Russian oligarchs decided to compensate the losses and this triggered 2022. One led to the other, all sides could deescalate, but did not

Click to expand...

I agree that it's always financial, but not with the trigger point. The economic elephant in the room was the renewal of EU accession talks that had been reversed by Yanukovych and his consequent self-removal. Joining NATO would not have been as economically significant as joining a large trading bloc, the existence of which on Russia's doorstep would form a sharp contrast with Russian living conditions and economic inequality.

Joining NATO would however have made invasion very risky if not impossible, so two birds, one stone. Not forgetting that this strategy had worked with Georgia and Moldova.

But at the heart of this is the fact that Russia is a kleptocracy and Ukraine under Yanukovych was supposed to be another client kleptocracy like Belarus. So yes, successive Ukrainian governments have sought to (a) remove Russian influence from its economy and (b) crack down on corruption. Both being interchangeable. This being the inevitable reaction to Yanukovych and his cronies' corruption (Yanukovych alone is believed to have embezzled $37 billion from Ukraine's economy).

But all of this came after the 2014 invasions, not before. So perhaps they could be motivations for the subsequent 2022 invasion. Certainly the almost complete blind eye turned to those initial 2014 invasions would have emboldened Putin to make a grab for the rest of Ukraine, which was undoubtedly the aim of the Feb 22 invasion. The problem now is that if he is allowed free rein to annexe the entirety of Ukraine, he will not stop there. He has openly stated that he would like to 'return' the Baltic states to Russia.

Chippy_Tea said:

He warned us not to allow Ukraine to use our missiles on his soil we have and now he says he has every right to defend Russia against us, Biden has dropped us in deep **** to screw Trump this is not where we wanted to be when this kicked off, as I said he doesn't play by the rules of war this could easily end badly for us all.

Click to expand...

There have been so many red lines set by Putin, there's a Wikipedia page devoted to them. All kinds of 'escalations' have been mentioned as being red lines likely to lead to action against the west. The supply of F16s, tanks, Germany supplying weapons, Patriot missile systems etc. The reactions to these red lines being crossed have variously been either more civilian targets in Ukraine being hit or the equivalent of a sharply worded letter.

This one seems to be a combination of both with the addition of using a woowoo scary ICBM. Maybe he's serious, but there have been so many red lines crossed with virtually no real escalation, you'd have to wonder should these be taken seriously at all. And does a kleptocrat burn down the world when the alternative is to keep his wealth and keep making threats to scare the world so he can continue his imperial ambitions?

Also Biden didn't do it to screw Trump. Unless by screwing Trump, you mean making sure that Trump has one less way to screw Ukraine.

Chippy_Tea said:

He warned us not to allow Ukraine to use our missiles on his soil we have and now he says he has every right to defend Russia against us, Biden has dropped us in deep **** to screw Trump this is not where we wanted to be when this kicked off, as I said he doesn't play by the rules of war this could easily end badly for us all.

Click to expand...

Sorry can't agree with this the UK made the decision on Storm Shadow, UK made the decision on Challenger II, Europe as whole have made a massive contribution not just the UK that Trump fake news the numbers tell a different story.

Biden just did what should have been done from the start, Russia deploys Iranian made drones and missiles, Chinese technology and weapons into Ukraine, it actively using North Korean troops in Ukraine, but suddenly it is wrong if Ukraine use its equipment to full potential?

I would actually say we should go further after the decision to scarp 6 of our military capabilities, why do we not offer them to Ukraine as the Russians have shown old kit is better than no kit. Yes watch keeper is now old but rather than scrap it let them see action or be adapted by Ukraine, the Puma's and Chinook yes they are old and past service life but in the front line this changes the safety threshold disappears, to be brutal they will probably become cannon fodder but why not get the use out of them in the meantime?

Wont happen but the A10 Tank buster would be interesting to see how it matched up flies so low and slow that avoids most air defences and eats tanks and light infantry for breakfastm the US keep threatening to ditch it gift some see how they do as the US troops love them for close support. Not sure how they will match up against the current drone technology tho.

Well if we re now be classed actively being part of the war then remove all restrictions and actively support and allow kit to be used to its full potential.

Putin keeps ranting about his red lines whilst he breaks every international law and tramples over human rights, if its gloves off them actually make it gloves off.