Russia says US ignored its security demands over Ukraine
Vladimir Putin told French President Emmanuel Macron that the West has failed to consider Russia’s key conditions.
www.thenational.scot
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
www.thenational.scot
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #202
I suspect he wants NATO non-expansion into Georgia and Ukraine as the top points, with everything else as a secondary consideration. I wouldn't be surprised if he wants to re-engage the US and NATO on general talks about mutual disarmament and observation protocols. Ukraine NATO membership is already highly unlikely, at least in the forseeable future, and he wants something binding to that extent.
Last edited:
Cyberattack Targets Belarus' Rail Network To Slow Flood Of Russian Forces Into The Country
The cyberattack was claimed by a non-state actor and underlines just how complex the cyber battlefield is becoming.
www.thedrive.com
A taste of the same medicine for Moscow’s cyber team? I am sure Warsaw is pleased to play a small role in providing some facilities to front this move. Moscow itself has no immunity to such deniable cyber attacks, when the next phase begins.Belarus railway network just got hit by a cyber attack, the attackers are demanding that Lukashenko stop hosting the Russians. It's alarming that a Polish funded TV channel is providing a platform for the hackers to make demandsCyberattack Targets Belarus' Rail Network To Slow Flood Of Russian Forces Into The Country
The cyberattack was claimed by a non-state actor and underlines just how complex the cyber battlefield is becoming.
I suspect that there is a cost to be paid and Moscow has to roll with it. Just as Putin may exercise his options, there is a reply to such hard nosed behaviour — as part of phase zero planning.
Last edited:
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Thanks Feanor.
I'm not sure how one organises a binding 'never' arrangement? 'Never' is a long time, heck, in 15 years time Russia and NATO might be chums.
I can see that mutual disarmament would be of interest to both sides.
What about the DPR and LPR? Surely Mr Putin would be looking at some changes to their status?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #206
I think you know is is a fairly unlikely scenario. It would require a fundamental change either within NATO or within Russia. A binding never arrangement might be very simple. A document that simply says that the US promises to veto further NATO expansion into the former Soviet states. The question of course is what guarantees could be asked. Perhaps the implicit blank check on Russia's part to strike at Ukraine if the US violates the document can serve as the guarantee? It's one thing if the position of the US is "anyone can join NATO and we will support them". It's another thing if the position of the US "we promised not to do this but we're doing it anyway".
Maybe. Personally I hope so. There's ~3.5 million people there who, for whatever reason, have made a choice to stay. They're serving the republican armed forces, they're choosing to live under the authoritarian (far more so then Russia's) government of the breakaway regions, under regular Ukrainian artillery shellings. They've more or less thrown their lot in with Russia. In my opinion Putin owes it to them to do something to correct their situation. And given the carnivorous nature of Ukrainian politician's statements regarding plans to "reintegrate" the Donbass, abandoning them isn't a good choice. But personally I'm not sure. Russia didn't want to take the Donbass in 2014 when it could have been done to any arbitrarily drawn boundary, be it the administrative border or a convenient geographic feature. If the purpose of the breakaway regions is to prevent NATO membership, they can do that just fine in their present state. And with binding guarantees of non-membership this would be even less likely. The one thing is that the front-line in these republics constantly eats resources, and the fact that the front line is so close to major urban centers creates problems for regular economic activity there.
I also suspect, that Ukraine and threat of invasion is just the way to start negotiations. The secondary things, stated in US and NATO letters are probably the main things that Russians want to discuss. As on one hand it will give them max output (ask maximum at the beginning) and will show globally and locally (mainly) that we have some muscles and Putin is a strong figure on the geopolitcal arena, Europe is weak, and on other hand it will give the room for US and NATO to agree to the proposal without looking like they lost (invasion prevented, everyone is happy).
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/ORTNDUEF3BMWDCWQOHG42LGBSU.jpg)
Dial down the Russian war talk to save our economy, Ukraine tells West
Ukraine's president wants weapons and loans at a time of problems with Moscow. But one thing he does not want from the West is more panic-inducing warnings that Russia is about to attack.
www.reuters.com
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/YIWGLYU435MKJIAI2L77S67RN4.jpg)
Ukraine's president lashes out at too much 'panic' over Russia tensions
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday did not rule out a full-blown war with Russia but said Ukraine was not a sinking Titanic and accused Washington and media of fuelling panic that weighed on the economy while there were "no tanks in the streets".
www.reuters.com
Obviously... It's a tactic which has been practised for centuries. Putting pressure on an opponent [hoping it influences his behaviour] and demonstrating what will come next if talks fail.
Indeed.
But read western narratives, analysts and many seem to be unable to accept this point. They find it incredulous that Russia would mobilise a 100k troops, tanks and divisions as a mere negotiation tactic. Case in point, the news story about Russians moving blood supplies to the frontlines as a sign that war is imminent, but I see this as a piece of information (which can be true) deliberately leaked to keep up the pressure.
One does not go into negotiations with "reasonable requests"; that is not a negotiation, that is a meeting. The Russians wants to establish a position of strength, and making unreasonable demands, threats of war, just to test how the West and NATO reacts. If your threats are not real, it won't work. There are also pressures from internal factions that Putin wants to keep a lid on.
Rock the kasbah
Active Member
I have been listening and learning alot from here
My question is at what point can a middle nation like Ukraine and Australia stand up and say Fxxx off
To all areas, the poor bastar22 have had to be trampled on for centuries.
Depends on the circumstances but in general smaller or less powerful countries have to form alliances/partnerships; have to acquire some level of deterrence;; have to engage in dialogue/diplomacy; have to avoid hubris and overconfidence and require a clear appraisal and understanding of what they can and can't achieve on their own.
On the current situation; an advantage the West, NATO and the Ukraine has is that it only has to deal with Russia and Russia alone. The Russians have to deal with the West, NATO and the Ukraine; whilst it can gain from the fact that there are differences of opinion within NATO itself and the U.S.; the fast remains that Russia needs a reach a deal with is acceptable to both NATO and the U.S' a deal which also has to be sold to the Ukraine.
Last edited:
Well said.
It's a long established fact that as part of negotiations; one tries to negotiate from a position of strength and to present all his demands. During the course of negotiations it becomes clear as to how far the other side is willing to go in meeting the demands which then leads to compromises. Many however have assumed that because Russia has made certain demands which NATO will surely reject; that negotiations are just a facade; intended by the Russians to fail from the onset and give them the chance at a later date to say they tried diplomatic means but failed and were left no choice but to invade. I personally doubt this is the case but of course I could be wrong.
Poll: Over half of Ukrainians will actively resist Russian invasion
More than half of Ukrainians will actively resist in the event of an all-out Russian invasion, according to a new survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology published on Dec. 17. The Kremlin has amassed nearly 100,000 troops surrounding Ukraine in November in what Ukrainian and...
kyivindependent.com
Rock the kasbah
Active Member
The case of Ukraine, looking back and looking forward - Breaking Defense
"The Russian threat to Ukrainian sovereignty is simply not about Ukraine," writes author Robbin Laird. "It is about the stability of the current European order."
breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com
I totally forgot about the nukes.
Perhaps Ukraine does have a bit of an argument in thinking that NATO and the west would assist in their defence if we asked them to / made them give up their ex USSR nuclear stockpile.
The West and NATO does not owe Ukraine anything, much less the post Cold War disarmament. Western support of Ukraine (i.e. the training, the flights carrying missiles) is one of expediency, which is countering Russia, not charity or some undeclared love for Ukraine.
That was in the 1990's and involved the cooperation of Russia [it had no major objections]; no way the NATO would have come reached such an agreement with the Ukraine. It would have been a political minefield given the geo strategic conditions during that period. Also. the potential for trouble with Russia was not something which was factored in by the Ukrainians in the mid to late 1990's.
What I'm really interested in is determining if indeed [as has been mentioned in various places] whether in the post Cold War period; to gain Russian cooperation in various areas [namely German reunification; disarmament, etc] and to provide it with the assurance it wanted; NATO promised never to expand NATO to Russia's border.
Putin no longer fears a ‘democratic Ukraine’
Amid botched Western policies, pro-democracy Russians do not see post-Maidan Ukraine as a role model.
''Despite all the Maidan hopes for radical change and democratic transformation, it became apparent that the country was still ruled by the same clique of oligarchs, aided by networks of corrupt politicians and security agents, who ran the show before the revolution. Some new personalities emerged, but most remained in place, as did the nature of the political system. With a war in one corner of the country, powerful organised crime and way more political assassinations than Putin’s Russia saw during the same period, Ukraine came to remind Russians of the turbulent 1990s''.
''From the Russian perspective, what happened in Ukraine after the Maidan revolution has also revealed the hypocrisy of the West. Despite its persistent rhetoric on democratic values, Brussels and Washington have been turning a blind eye to a multitude of factors that prevented Ukraine from becoming a role model for Russians. These include discriminatory language laws, which severely restrict the use of the Russian language, the glorification of Nazi collaborators in street names and public celebrations, the apparent lack of desire by the government to investigate political assassinations and the fact that oligarchs are still running the show.''
''Russians have felt that the West betrayed them in the 1990s. After the Soviet Union collapsed and they emerged from the totalitarian regime, they hoped they would be offered full integration into the Western world, its military and political structures. Instead, the West invited everyone in the neighbourhood, except Russia, to join NATO and the European Union.''
Last edited:
This seems like mismatched expectations. The West is good on the rhetoric side of things, but have neither the interest or patience to guide any country to democracy, Ukraine or Russia.
Personally, I don't think NATO is interested in bringing Ukraine into the alliance, if they applied.
Before all this unpleasantness started it was generally felt that Ukrainian membership was a matter of when; not if. As it stands however NATO has nothing to gain from granting Ukraine membership; it might even be seen by Russia a casus belli for war. If things get worse in the coming years it will also be interesting to see what Sweden and Finland do with regards to membership.
He's got the KGB, the guns, the army, and Putin's support. He's quite capable of putting any protests or uprisings down. The only way he could be deposed is if the army turned on him and the KGB.