Russia(gate/bot) At what rate is NATO planning to invite in Ukraine? If NATO doesn't know, why is negotiating away a neutrality agreement a non-starter?

LordsFire · Mar 5, 2022

Bacle said:
Moscow would never accept NATO troops possibly being within minutes flight time from Moscow; we saw what happened with the missiles we placed in Turkey that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It's ~350 miles from Latvia (a NATO member) to Moscow. Ukraine to Moscow is ~270. The difference there in travel time for missiles is seconds. Do some bloody research before you repeat nonsensical claims like this.

Terthna said:
No, because they're not a sovereign nation. Not since the coup in 2014, and the ongoing civil war that resulted from it.

I have yet to see you present a single shred of evidence that this is true. From what I've seen, it's more likely that the government before the 2014 coup was a Russian puppet government, but I know my familiarity with Ukraine is sparse enough that I might be misreading the situation. If you'd actually present some evidence, I might be persuaded you're right here.

We know that either way the Ukrainian government was very corrupt both before and after the coup, though whether it was worse before or after I don't know.

GoldRanger · Mar 5, 2022

Terthna said:
No, because they're not a sovereign nation. Not since the coup in 2014, and the ongoing civil war that resulted from it.

That's Putin's propaganda, not reality.

Terthna · Mar 5, 2022

GoldRanger said:
That's Putin's propaganda, not reality.

So we all just hallucinated the Maidan coup, is that what you're saying?

GoldRanger · Mar 5, 2022

Terthna said:
So we all just hallucinated the Maidan coup, is that what you're saying?

No. Did we all hallucinate the 2019 elections?

strunkenwhite · Mar 5, 2022

Bacle said:
Ukraine was fine as a neutral buffer state, but the DC and Brussels really wanted to get them into the EU and NATO, just to make it easier to put first strike weapons minutes from Moscow.

Then why aren't there first strike weapons in the Baltic states?

Marduk · Mar 5, 2022

Bacle said:
The Russians shouldn't have invaded, but the West should not have tried to pull Ukraine into the EU or NATO; it was better as a buffer state.

>Pull
That is a very inaccurate term to use. Look up the votes on NATO membership in all ex-communist countries who joined.
Look up the polls about that too.
There was no need for any pulling.
The kind of "but poor Russia is just scared about its security, it will leave you alone if you have no one help defend you against it" arguments are mostly a western thing, they are not getting a lot of traction in regions that have happened to be Russia's neighbors or colonies for centuries for a reason.

LordsFire · Mar 5, 2022

Terthna said:
So we all just hallucinated the Maidan coup, is that what you're saying?

That this change of regime happened is not the question, that this was a puppeteered coup by western powers that removed a legitimate government and replaced it with an illegitimate one, that is what you have been operating on the assumption on, that many of the rest of us find dubious.

Can you present proof that the 2014 coup was what you think it is?

Bacle · Mar 5, 2022

strunkenwhite said:
Then why aren't there first strike weapons in the Baltic states?

There might be; Aegis Ashore in Poland and the possibility of it having first strike weapons in its magazines, not just ABM missiles, is part of what's making Moscow nervous about NATO pushing east.

Its part of why Moscow wants weapons inspections of the Aegis sites, to make sure we are not trying to hide first strike weapons in them.

Marduk said:
>Pull
That is a very inaccurate term to use. Look up the votes on NATO membership in all ex-communist countries who joined.
Look up the polls about that too.
There was no need for any pulling.
The kind of "but poor Russia is just scared about its security, it will leave you alone if you have no one help defend you against it" arguments are mostly a western thing, they are not getting a lot of traction in regions that have happened to be Russia's neighbors or colonies for centuries for a reason.

Aegis Ashore is a thing, and I get Russia concerns about them possibly hiding first strike weapons in supposed ABM tubes.

Marduk · Mar 5, 2022

Bacle said:
There might be; Aegis Ashore in Poland and the possibility of it having first strike weapons in its magazines, not just ABM missiles, is part of what's making Moscow nervous about NATO pushing east.

Its part of why Moscow wants weapons inspections of the Aegis sites, to make sure we are not trying to hide first strike weapons in them.Aegis Ashore is a thing, and I get Russia concerns about them possibly hiding first strike weapons in supposed ABM tubes.

Does it? The west specifically offered that possibility in the distraction negotiations.
Look where that went...
No, Russia is committed to whine about any permanent NATO, and doubly so US installations, in its "sphere of influence", regardless of their purpose, proportionally to their value and chance of its owners defending them. Both Russia and the NATO countries that host them see these bases as a kind of tripwire force that can't be conveniently evacuated.
They didn't go for it, because they would rather continue to have a reason to whine.

U.S. Dangles Offer to Russia on Missile Checks at Key NATO Bases

The Biden administration has informed the Kremlin it is willing to discuss giving Russia a way to verify there aren’t offensive Tomahawk cruise missiles stationed at sensitive NATO missile-defense bases in Romania and Poland, according to people familiar with the matter.

www.bloomberg.com

Bacle said:
Its part of why Moscow wants weapons inspections of the Aegis sites, to make sure we are not trying to hide first strike weapons in them.Aegis Ashore is a thing, and I get Russia concerns about them possibly hiding first strike weapons in supposed ABM tubes.

Hypothetical 24 subsonic cruise missiles decapitation strike don't make.
USA can do far better with parking a tomahawk loaded warship on a friendly visit in a Baltic NATO port, or flying a ALCM loaded B-2 over allied territory, than hiding piddly 24 tubes in an obvious location near overly expensive radar and fire control system, in turn blocking the main role of said system.

Bacle · Mar 5, 2022

Marduk said:
Does it? The west specifically offered that possibility in the distraction negotiations.
Look where that went...
No, Russia is committed to whine about any permanent NATO, and doubly so US installations, in its "sphere of influence", regardless of their purpose, proportionally to their value and chance of its owners defending them. Both Russia and the NATO countries that host them see these bases as a kind of tripwire force that can't be conveniently evacuated.
They didn't go for it, because they would rather continue to have a reason to whine.

U.S. Dangles Offer to Russia on Missile Checks at Key NATO Bases

The Biden administration has informed the Kremlin it is willing to discuss giving Russia a way to verify there aren’t offensive Tomahawk cruise missiles stationed at sensitive NATO missile-defense bases in Romania and Poland, according to people familiar with the matter.

www.bloomberg.com

Hypothetical 24 subsonic cruise missiles decapitation strike don't make.
USA can do far better with parking a tomahawk loaded warship on a friendly visit in a Baltic NATO port, or flying a ALCM loaded B-2 over allied territory, than hiding piddly 24 tubes in an obvious location near overly expensive radar and fire control system, in turn blocking the main role of said system.

Here's the problem with your thinking on this; you are expecting both DC and Moscow to be rational about this.

The last few years have proven neither are rational when the pride of thier leadership class is in the line.

I absolutely believe some in DC/NATO would be dumb enough to try to hide first strike weapons in the Aegis Ashore, so I very much get why Putin/Russia are worried about that.

I also get that those installations and different from bombers that can launch ALCMs or ships/subs with Tomahawks; the ships and bombers have limited endurance, while Aegis Ashore does not. As well, remember parts of the US defense groups have hinted that we are quietly rebuilding/remaking our tac nuke stockpile so nuclear Tomahawks are a thing again, which is part of why Russia is fearful, perhaps rationally, perhaps irrationally, of first weapons in those Aegis Ashore installations.

Marduk · Mar 5, 2022

Bacle said:
Here's the problem with your thinking on this; you are expecting both DC and Moscow to be rational about this.

The last few years have proven neither are rational when the pride of thier leadership class is in the line.

I absolutely believe some in DC/NATO would be dumb enough to try to hide first strike weapons in the Aegis Ashore, so I very much get why Putin/Russia are worried about that.

But that would be idiotic. Not because it would be provocative, but because if they wanted to hide a bunch of nuclear tipped Tomahawks (which were retired by the way), there are so many better ways to do this than hiding 24 of them in a public facility "camouflaged" by ridiculously expensive radar system.
This B movie tier scheme could be foiled by 2 Russian agents taking turns camping few kilometers from the very stationary facility in shifts with binoculars and looking if there is no launch salvo looking suspiciously like Tomahawks and heading towards Moscow, and then phoning a contact in Russia that Moscow is getting nuked in one and quarter of an hour.

Bacle said:
I also get that those installations and different from bombers that can launch ALCMs or ships/subs with Tomahawks; the ships and bombers have limited endurance, while Aegis Ashore does not. As well, remember parts of the US defense groups have hinted that we are quietly rebuilding/remaking our tac nuke stockpile so nuclear Tomahawks are a thing again, which is part of why Russia is fearful, perhaps rationally, perhaps irrationally, of first weapons in those Aegis Ashore installations.

What do they need endurance for? Its sneaky first strike Russia is supposedly being worried about here. When they do it, they get the order, launch and do it, once.
Also they can rotate.

Lord Sovereign · Mar 5, 2022

LordsFire said:
We know that either way the Ukrainian government was very corrupt both before and after the coup, though whether it was worse before or after I don't know.

Given that Zelensky and his cabinet haven't immediately fled the country with bags of money, I think there's some indication it's less corrupt now than it was. Indeed, some hypothesise that Ukraine having the temerity to try and become something more than a Russian satellite state might be what pushed Putin into trying to snuff out that effort...

GoldRanger said:
That's Putin's propaganda, not reality.

I get this weird thing with (not saying there's equivalence, just pattern recognition) Holocaust deniers as well. They scream about "current narrative" being western propaganda, then proceed to quote the other side's propaganda as evidence of this. Political tribalism well and truly rots the brain in my view. It's gotten the better of quite a few on here and they have utterly embarrassed themselves as a result.

LordsFire · Mar 5, 2022

Bacle said:
I also get that those installations and different from bombers that can launch ALCMs or ships/subs with Tomahawks; the ships and bombers have limited endurance, while Aegis Ashore does not. As well, remember parts of the US defense groups have hinted that we are quietly rebuilding/remaking our tac nuke stockpile so nuclear Tomahawks are a thing again, which is part of why Russia is fearful, perhaps rationally, perhaps irrationally, of first weapons in those Aegis Ashore installations.

On top of Marduk's point about a unit not needing endurance for first strike, nuclear submarines have months of endurance, and can launch with basically just a couple minute's notice.

Further, you're contradicting yourself by trying to both argue that Putin's fear of NATO using Ukraine for a first-strike basing is rational, and simultaneously arguing that he isn't rational.

Which one is it?

Bacle · Mar 5, 2022

LordsFire said:
On top of Marduk's point about a unit not needing endurance for first strike, nuclear submarines have months of endurance, and can launch with basically just a couple minute's notice.

Further, you're contradicting yourself by trying to both argue that Putin's fear of NATO using Ukraine for a first-strike basing is rational, and simultaneously arguing that he isn't rational.

Which one is it?

It can be both rational and irrational, because the fears that motivate it may be overblown, but the risks (from Putin's/Russia's POV) of it being real are too great to ignore.

With the way the US and West have acted towards Russia sence the 'Russian collusion hoax' against Trump was fabricated to distract from Hillary's email server, plus how we treated them after the Cold War, I absolutely get how fears that can be both rational/irrational, but high risk if real, have driven Moscow's thinking regarding Aegis Ashore.

LordsFire · Mar 5, 2022

Bacle said:
It can be both rational and irrational, because the fears that motivate it may be overblown, but the risks (from Putin's/Russia's POV) of it being real are too great to ignore.

With the way the US and West have acted towards Russia sence the 'Russian collusion hoax' against Trump was fabricated to distract from Hillary's email server, plus how we treated them after the Cold War, I absolutely get how fears that can be both rational/irrational, but high risk if real, have driven Moscow's thinking regarding Aegis Ashore.

To be blunt, I think you have no idea what you're talking about, and are credulously falling for Russian propaganda.

Since the Cold War ended, the US has decommissioned like 90% of its nuclear arsenal. We've retired most of our B-52 fleet, and we cut back on production numbers for missile submarines and stealth bombers. We've cut down the size of our military, and we haven't once deployed troops or readied strategic weapons to hit Russia with. We still have very powerful nuclear capacity, but we've deliberately reduced it as a show of good faith.

Russia, by contrast, has invaded Georgia and Ukraine, sent its military into Kazakhstan, and generally been a completely untrustworthy neighbor and international bully. While the US has practiced adventurism in its role as 'world police,' ever nation we've done this in, is still a separate nation from us, South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, the Balkans, etc. You can certainly say our objectives there were misguided at best, or matters of corruption to use US Federal 'aid' money to personally profit, but we did build infrastructure and try to create better governments, and we did not absorb them due to naked territorial aggression.

As Marduk said, letting the Russians inspect AEGIS Ashore sites to prove we weren't putting nukes there was offered. They turned it down. They launched a surprise invasion of Ukraine without preceding it with a formal declaration of war, and are pretty much throwing out any fig-leaf they can come up with to excuse their behavior.

Bacle · Mar 5, 2022

LordsFire said:
To be blunt, I think you have no idea what you're talking about, and are credulously falling for Russian propaganda.

Since the Cold War ended, the US has decommissioned like 90% of its nuclear arsenal. We've retired most of our B-52 fleet, and we cut back on production numbers for missile submarines and stealth bombers. We've cut down the size of our military, and we haven't once deployed troops or readied strategic weapons to hit Russia with. We still have very powerful nuclear capacity, but we've deliberately reduced it as a show of good faith.

Russia, by contrast, has invaded Georgia and Ukraine, sent its military into Kazakhstan, and generally been a completely untrustworthy neighbor and international bully. While the US has practiced adventurism in its role as 'world police,' ever nation we've done this in, is still a separate nation from us, South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, the Balkans, etc. You can certainly say our objectives there were misguided at best, or matters of corruption to use US Federal 'aid' money to personally profit, but we did build infrastructure and try to create better governments, and we did not absorb them due to naked territorial aggression.

As Marduk said, letting the Russians inspect AEGIS Ashore sites to prove we weren't putting nukes there was offered. They turned it down. They launched a surprise invasion of Ukraine without preceding it with a formal declaration of war, and are pretty much throwing out any fig-leaf they can come up with to excuse their behavior.

The ship/sub numbers came down because we felt the Cold War was over, not as a peace overture to Russia.

You say I'm credolously falling for Russian propaganda, while you credolously are buying DC's propaganda.

The fact is, I'm calling out of the propaganda of all sides, including the US, and will not pretend the US/West are innocent when it comes to what we are accusing Russia of doing.

No one has the moral high ground in this fight, except maybe some of the Ukrainians civies, and I'm not going to let war hysteria cause me to stop calling out the bullshit I see the DC/Western establisent pushing.

Lord Sovereign · Mar 5, 2022

This might be ten days old, but I think the mighty David Starkey provides a good explanation for what's going on at the moment.

Sailor.X · Mar 5, 2022

Marduk said:
>Pull
That is a very inaccurate term to use. Look up the votes on NATO membership in all ex-communist countries who joined.
Look up the polls about that too.
There was no need for any pulling.
The kind of "but poor Russia is just scared about its security, it will leave you alone if you have no one help defend you against it" arguments are mostly a western thing, they are not getting a lot of traction in regions that have happened to be Russia's neighbors or colonies for centuries for a reason.

And to add........

Russian arguments saying they need a buffer between them and Nato are full of shit. When your country is comprised of a huge chunk of Eurasia. You need to be happy with your territory and shut the fuck up.

Terthna · Mar 5, 2022

Lord Sovereign said:
I get this weird thing with (not saying there's equivalence, just pattern recognition) Holocaust deniers as well. They scream about "current narrative" being western propaganda, then proceed to quote the other side's propaganda as evidence of this. Political tribalism well and truly rots the brain in my view. It's gotten the better of quite a few on here and they have utterly embarrassed themselves as a result.

I feel the exact same way, except obviously from my perspective I see people screaming about how I'm spouting Russian propaganda, while quoting the very same establishment a few weeks ago they were insisting couldn't be trusted as evidence. Political tribalism does seem to rot the brain, as its got a number of people on this forum unironically siding with those who want them broke, dead, their kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny.

GoldRanger · Mar 5, 2022

Terthna said:
I feel the exact same way, except obviously from my perspective I see people screaming about how I'm spouting Russian propaganda, while quoting the very same establishment a few weeks ago they were insisting couldn't be trusted as evidence. Political tribalism does seem to rot the brain, as its got a number of people on this forum unironically siding with those who want them broke, dead, their kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny.

People can be wrong about one thing and right about another you know, and this includes governments.

Russia(gate/bot) At what rate is NATO planning to invite in Ukraine? If NATO doesn't know, why is negotiating away a neutrality agreement a non-starter?

Internet Wizard

May the power protect you

Professional Lurker

May the power protect you

Well-known member

Well-known member

Internet Wizard

When the effort is no longer profitable...

Well-known member

When the effort is no longer profitable...

Well-known member

The resident Britbong

Internet Wizard

When the effort is no longer profitable...

Internet Wizard

When the effort is no longer profitable...

The resident Britbong

Cold War Veteran

Professional Lurker

May the power protect you

Users who are viewing this thread