Russia rejects idea of NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine, warning of "uncontrollable escalation"
Russia rejects idea of NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine, warning of "uncontrollable escalation"
You're viewing a single thread.
Ukraine is not Russia. Eat shit.
Cuba was not the USA, but the USSR installing missiles in Cuba made the US go fucking berserk. Eat shit, idealist.
I'm curious. What do you mean by "idealist"?
Explaining events and analyzing things through abstract concepts instead of causal relationships. Russia does not want NATO forces in Ukraine for very pragmatic cause-effect reasons. Arguing that Russia does not get a say because Ukraine is not Russia is using the abstract concept of national borders to explain why Russia gets no say and and ignoring the very real causal framework of lethal force and national security and how that very real causal framework inherently makes Russia an involved party.
The reason Australia couldn't say they don't want NATO forces in Ukraine is because Australia has no causal relationships to nuclear combat-ready forces trained against Russia in Ukraine. But Russia clearly is casually linked to the existence of such forces on its border. Equivalently, Saudi Arabia has no say in whether Russia puts a nuclear combat-ready forces in New Zealand, but Australia would certainly be casually implicated.
Whether you build an international set of norms that defines who has a day based on abstract concepts is irrelevant when it comes to certain material conditions, like national security. No military is going to allow you to build up a material threat just because you drew a border and made some arbitrary rules amongst yourselves. That military must and will act in its own defense - a quintessential example of materialism. Saying "No, you can't do that because that's against the rules" is a quintessential example of idealism.
Sweet, so we should go park a bunch of nukes in Ukraine is what I hear since that apparently justifies intervening in the affairs of a foreign nation. Invasion of sovereign territory some might say is another but I guess that passes when it's Russia right?
You've got it backwards. Russia literally invaded Ukraine because of the US/NATO threat of deploying nuclear capabilities and developing combat readiness in Ukraine which has historically been the vector for Western powers to invade Russia three times causing the death of millions of Russians. That's why everyone was talking about Russia likely invading, because they were doing things that Russian intelligence flagged as the precursors of deploying natsec threats.
That's why the USA has legislators and state department officials in Ukraine during the Euromaidan event. That's why both Republicans (Trump and his 2016 advisors) and Democrats (like Hunter Biden) had deep ties to Ukraine prior to the SMO - because the USA has been preparing for Ukraine to be a forward operating base against Russia since Clinton.
And no, invasion of sovereign territory is not justification for open involvement. Mutual defense treaties are. But again, Ukraine's alliance with the West was exactly what was under contention here. Because Ukraine is the passageway that both Hitler and Napoleon used to invade Russia, the natsec situation for Russia since the dissolution of the USSR is that Ukraine must remain unallied with the West (they called it neutral, but that's because the West didn't want Ukraine allied with Russia). As soon as Ukraine were to formalize mutual defense treaties with the West, that would pose a real strategic threat to Russian natsec. All sensible people who understood this analysis stated that since security is mutual, this redline must never be crossed. But the war hawks in the West said that our security must come at the expense of the security of others. They believe that Western security is only possible if they dominate everyone, Russia included. So, they require that Ukraine be a forward operating base for the US as part of their security framework, knowing full well that this means Russia becomes insecure.
Russia refuses to be national insecure, so, it appeased the West for 20 years until 2014 when it finally reacted for the first time by invading Crimea. From Crimea is monitored the continued build up of threat level on Ukraine until it reached a point requiring reaction and interpreted whatever was going on 2022 as that point, at which point they asserted their national security interest and disrupted the ongoing US/NATO operations with the SMO.
You need to actually analyze the situation instead of just vibing about it
That's a mighty big revision from the original narrative that the people of Crimea and eastern Ukraine where actually Russian and wanted to join Russia, so Vlad needed to rescue them from a bunch of Nazis.
It's literally what Putin and his staff said when they launched the SMO. They also said the thing about the ethnic Russians. You can cherry pick whatever you want from the English translations of Russian that the news media spins for you, but it doesn't change the facts.
Primary source? Google translate is a thing I can take a look.
No need. The US media reported it briefly but memoryholed it.
https://tass.com/defense/1378631
As the Russian president emphasized, Moscow does not demand any special exclusive terms for itself. "Russia stands for equal and indivisible security in the entire Eurasian space," Putin said.
Moscow says it is entitled to move its military freely within its borders and that it is taking precautionary steps because of increased NATO activity near its territory.
And just so we're clear about military exercises - a military exercise is a combat readiness activity. It involves the deployment of troops, armor, planes, munitions, defenses, and logistics that are indistinguishable from preparing for invasion. That's why militaries have to schedule them in advance and invite foreign heads of state to observe - they must do everything they can to assure people that these are just exercises and will not become invasions, because they are indistinguishable from invasion preparations from the perspective of military intelligence.
When you are Belgium, you don't have billions of dollars of equipment on Thailand doing military exercises that simulate an invasion of China.
But when you're the USA and you have control over a transnational nuclear military force across Europe, the transition from not having any presence in Ukraine to being able to conduct military exercises that simulate an attack on Russia is a significant escalation of threat level. The Western rhetoric may be that we should be allowed to exercise wherever we want because exercise is harmless, but military exercise is quite literally preparation for use of lethal force. There was a time when Ukraine did not have military exercises in Ukraine.
In fact, the first ever NATO exercise in Ukraine was Rapid Trident 21. Guess when that happened?
September 2021.
When did Russia launch the SMO?
MOSCOW/WASHINGTON, Nov 23 (Reuters) - Russia's defence minister on Tuesday accused U.S. bombers of rehearsing a nuclear strike on Russia from two different directions earlier this month and complained that the planes had come within 20 km (12.4 miles) of the Russian border.
But the Pentagon said its drills were announced publicly at the time and adhered to international protocols.
Moscow's accusation comes at a time of high tension with Washington over Ukraine, with U.S. officials voicing concerns about a possible Russian attack on its southern neighbour - a suggestion the Kremlin has dismissed as false.
Moscow has in turn accused the United States, NATO and Ukraine of provocative and irresponsible behaviour, pointing to U.S. arms supplies to Ukraine, Ukraine's use of Turkish strike drones against Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, and NATO military exercises close to its borders.
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that Moscow had noted a significant increase in the activity by U.S. strategic bombers, which he said had carried out 30 flights close to Russia this month. That, he said, was 2.5 times more than the same period last year.
Russia was already throwing assistance to rebellious forces in Ukraine and staging their military for an invasion that they denied was going to happen. The NATO drills where the same annual practices as every year and publicly announced in accordance with international norms. Yet Russia did in fact invade despite proclamations to the contrary. Even if it where to be credibility marked as a defensive action, that would hardly translate to an extended assault on territory far outside their borders with a demand to accept annexation of not only newly occupied ground but territory they assumed control of in 2014 in Crimea without provocation.
Did you just stop reading my comment at a certain point?
But the Pentagon said its drills were announced publicly at the time and adhered to international protocols.
International protocols governing military readiness preparations that literally no one else in the world is capable of doing because the US outspends the next 10 countries combined AND has over 700 forward operating bases globally. Russia doesn't conduct military exercises at the Mexico/US border for a reason.
Moscow has in turn accused the United States, NATO and Ukraine of provocative and irresponsible behaviour, pointing to U.S. arms supplies to Ukraine, Ukraine’s use of Turkish strike drones against Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, and NATO military exercises close to its borders.
This is accurate.
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that Moscow had noted a significant increase in the activity by U.S. strategic bombers, which he said had carried out 30 flights close to Russia this month. That, he said, was 2.5 times more than the same period last year.
Again, this demonstrates my point.
Russia was already throwing assistance to rebellious forces in Ukraine
This is a ridiculous way of framing Ukraine and US arming and training literal neo-nazis to go kill ethnic Russians within Ukraine's own borders.
staging their military for an invasion that they denied was going to happen
OH!? They engaged in military preparedness WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS and lied about not invading? Funny. I wonder why they would do that? Could it be what they literally said it was - the continued escalation of lethal preparedness by NATO within Ukraine specifically at the Russian border?
The NATO drills where the same annual practices as every year and publicly announced in accordance with international norms
Again, NATO and Ukraine did almost NOTHING together until the Euromaidan coup that saw Victoria Nuland and John McCain on the ground supporting Right Sector the evening before they stormed the Ukrainian capitol and forced the sitting government to flee at gun point. 20 years of neutrality ended then, and the build up began.
The NATO drills where the same annual practices as every year and publicly announced in accordance with international norms
The very first NATO exercise in Ukraine was actually Rapid Trident in 2017 (not Rapid Trident 21 as I previously stated). In political terms, 4 years of exercises is new. Rapid Trident 2017 only involved 2500 personnel.
In 2020, B-52 bombers made their first flight ever in Ukraine. A massive escalation.
That same year a NATO exercise was staged that was literally a mock invasion of Kaliningrad.
Rapid Trident 21 was the first exercise of its kind in September of 2021 and it's not even listed on the Wikipedia article of NATO exercises, despite being well documented by NATO itself.
Also, critical to note, the Trident moniker is literally the nuclear program.
Yet Russia did in fact invade despite proclamations to the contrary
Oh noes! Russia said one thing and did another! Oh noes! What incredible subterfuge and criminality! I'm so glad you and I live in countries that never lie!
Even if it where to be credibility marked as a defensive action, that would hardly translate to an extended assault on territory far outside their borders with a demand to accept annexation of not only newly occupied ground but territory they assumed control of in 2014 in Crimea without provocation.
It's pretty clear that it was a defensive action to the vast majority of analysts, including US and Euro diplomats and even Stoltenberg. It has been well understood since Clinton participated in the negotiations around the dismantling of the USSR that Ukraine becoming a staging ground for Western military readiness was a clear and present national security threat to Russia. It was discussed openly on the floors of the US Congress. It was discussed openly at the UN. Most international security strategists have stated that security is mutual and that means Russia must be included in a security framework. Security for the West at the expense of Russian security is security for no one because it will ultimately force Russia to defend itself.
And that's literally exactly what happened. We've been talking about it for over 20 years. It happened as we discussed it would happen. You will note that Russia says the reason for the Crimean annexation involved the Euromaidan coup. People like you claim that this is nonsense, because the change in 2014 was not material to Russian security in the least. And yet, the very first NATO/Ukraine collaboration was in late 2013, followed by US politicians and state dept actors on the ground for the coup, followed almost immediately by NATO involvement in Ukraine. So clearly the change in Ukrainian government goes hand in hand with an increased security threat for Russia - exactly as Russia said was happening, exactly as the international community of analysts and diplomats have been discussing since the USSR was dissolved.
The only thing that's surprising is just how effective Western propaganda has been at convincing people like you to ignore all of history and only focus on exactly what makes it seem like the West is in the right. You look at every Russian action as without any historical context, just the ravings of a mad man. You look at every Russian statement as an outright lie. And you look at each lie as though it justifies continued military escalation by the US (independently and through NATO).
None of what I'm saying is controversial in the least to anyone with a grasp on the history.
Ukraine is not (yet?) NATO either, so why send troops there?
Wouldn't sending troops actually just escalate things further and drag the whole of NATO into it if anything were to happen to those soldiers?
Ukraine needs a guaranteed security measure to prevent Russia from attacking again. It's a stop gap to a more permanent solution. Either NATO membership or Nukes.
They had a security guarantee and it stood for 20 years. Then the USA finally made good on Clinton's duplicitous plan to make Ukraine a NATO country and the security guarantee evaporated. Russia has been so consistent on this point for 30 years it's amazing that the propaganda engine has made it impossible to talk about it in the US.
Why not both? Call the nukes a welcome to NATO bonus.
Perhaps Russia wouldn't attack if it wasn't provoked.
So what you're saying is, there is nothing wrong with attacking Russia as they consistently provoke other nations? Or is it simply that only Russia is allowed to invade and its the fault of the victim once they do?
Is that what he said? No. Explanation does not equal justification. Just like the oct 7th does not justify the genocide in gaza, but it certainly is a part of its explanation and one may even come to a conclusion that it was provocative. I cannot understand how do people still have this brainfog when it comes to basic logic and context in these mattters
Peacekeepers keep the peace silly boy.
That is truly a 5 years old understanding of the current conflict