The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Hoover]

USA wollen Ukraine einige bereits zugesagte Waffen nicht liefern | tagesschau.de

Ukrainekrieg: USA stoppen teilweise Waffenlieferungen an Ukraine | DIE ZEIT

White House confirms it has halted weapons that Ukraine was scheduled to receive, including PAC3 Patriots, 155mm artillery rounds, GMLRS, Stinger, AIM-7, and Hellfire missiles. - liveuamap.com

The USA stops delivery of Patriot missiles, Stinger, Arty shells and others to the Ukraine.

 

[rsemmes]

USA wollen Ukraine einige bereits zugesagte Waffen nicht liefern | tagesschau.de
Ukrainekrieg: USA stoppen teilweise Waffenlieferungen an Ukraine | DIE ZEIT
White House confirms it has halted weapons that Ukraine was scheduled to receive, including PAC3 Patriots, 155mm artillery rounds, GMLRS, Stinger, AIM-7, and Hellfire missiles. - liveuamap.com
The USA stops delivery of Patriot missiles, Stinger, Arty shells and others to the Ukraine.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/01/pentagon-munitions-ukraine-halt-00436048

 

[rsemmes]

Suggest Russia doesn’t consider NATO a threat so much as Putin considers it an opportunity for domestic politics to play the hard man.
Putins “high horse”of playing the victim and defender of history has done nothing for Russia or Ukraine but brought death and damage on a grand scale.
Whatever you or I think,the reality of the situation is the vast majority of Ukraine’s depleted population of 2014 has migrated west not east.
There’s a reason for that!
This region faces generational challenges going forward because of one person.
Putin
Just another brutally vile character that one day will be confined to history.
Regards S

A very good point.
I wasn't privy to his considerations, I cannot give an informed opinion. I wasn't privy to French deliberations before sinking the rainbow Warrior either, but I hope you see the similarities.
(Please, allow me to point something out about unilateralism to someone else.)

Yes, we have (and had) a lot of them (brutally vile character) in our western democracies.

Edit.
For some reason, some people see blaming others as defending one. For me, you cannot blame one without blaming the rest.

 

[rsemmes]

If Russia is the equivalent of the heroin-addict on the street, talking to the fire hydrants, why should we give the Russian opinion any merit.
Please, for our benefit, describe how the utterly depleted NATO forces of 2021 were a threat to Russia:
here is a space for you to lay out your arguments
----
Now, you may not believe that NATO was a threat, and you are in fact, being the Devil's advocate, which is fair enough. In which case, the point is that there is no rational analysis of military spending and force structures that leads a thinking human being to believe that NATO was about to invade Russia.
NATO is just a smokescreen. Putin.Doesnt.Care.About.NATO. If Putin was afraid of NATO, why did he remove virtually all Russian forces from Kaliningrad and the Finnish border ?
Putin.Doesnt.Care.About.NATO. It is nothing more than a convenient excuse for bad behavior.
A nuclear armed iran is a threat to a lot of the world. An Iranian nuke is a Hezbollah nuke.

(Should Cuba be allowed to have nuclear missiles in its territory? Should Pakistan be allowed to have the atomic bomb? "Be allowed", what is that? I consider the "be allowed" insulting (fairness, moral standards?) and the point irrelevant.)


I wonder if you are missing the point on purpose, you sound a bit like Donald Rumsfeld; the "unknown known" and all that.
It is not if it is a threat, but if Russia considers it a threat. Russia took an unilateral action, US just took an unilateral action, as western democracies has been taken unilateral actions, always based on their own considerations.

We don't like this unilateral action, it goes against our interest... All right, still, just another unilateral action.

 

[Feanor]

If Russia is the equivalent of the heroin-addict on the street, talking to the fire hydrants, why should we give the Russian opinion any merit.

Please, for our benefit, describe how the utterly depleted NATO forces of 2021 were a threat to Russia:

here is a space for you to lay out your arguments
----



----

Now, you may not believe that NATO was a threat, and you are in fact, being the Devil's advocate, which is fair enough. In which case, the point is that there is no rational analysis of military spending and force structures that leads a thinking human being to believe that NATO was about to invade Russia.

I think this is untrue. Russia is not Putin's personal empire. Russia has a ruling clan of oligarchs. And they watched what the US and NATO did in Yugoslavia with concerns for a reason. The 1999 rump-Yugoslavia that remained was not that different from the Russian Federation. It's a former socialist state, reduced to a fraction of its former power, with separatist movements in its borders that it was putting down violently. There were crimes committed by the separatists, and crimes committed by government forces. If NATO gets to decide the right and wrong, and militarily intervene in Yugoslavia in '99, is it so impossible that they could intervene in a potential Third Chechen War, if they don't like the behavior of Russian government forces and think they can make it stop with impunity? NATO is not a threat as long as Russia is strong, relatively united, and has a robust nuclear deterrent. But a weak and divided Russia, and NATO could quickly move in to secure nuclear weapons so they don't fall into the wrong hands (with NATO getting to decide who counts as the wrong hands), move in for humanitarian or "humanitarian" reasons, move in because Europe is dependent on gas, and wants to keep it flowing.

NATO is just a smokescreen. Putin.Doesnt.Care.About.NATO. If Putin was afraid of NATO, why did he remove virtually all Russian forces from Kaliningrad and the Finnish border ?

Which time period are you talking about specifically?

Putin.Doesnt.Care.About.NATO. It is nothing more than a convenient excuse for bad behavior.

I don't think this is true.

However, allow me to put some refinement on what you said. NATO was not created to oppose Russia. It was not created to invade Russia. It was created to oppose Russian expansion.

NATO wasn't created to bomb Libya or Yugoslavia, or fight the Taliban yet it did all of those things.

None of that changes the fact that:

1) No promises were made to not expand NATO

Yes there were. It's been linked to before in this very thread. They may have been relatively informal, but they existed.

its "relatively diplomatic" to constantly threaten nuclear war ? Dont get me wrong, we all know Medvedev is a vodka fueled convenient pawn for Putins ascent to power again. Of course, none of that matters now that Putin removed term limits. Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer ! <--- you see the sarcasm here, dont you ?

I think it's a good example of Russian leadership genuinely fearing NATO. This is why they threaten nuclear weapon use.

Oh sure, thats why the US has 5-6 fully staffed divisions in Poland and eastern europe. <---- more sarcasm.

Let me clue you in to the west here: No one cares to invade Russia. Russia is under no threat from the US or Europe (seriously, how many European nations can field a single fully staffed combat brigade ?)

How many combat brigades did it require to turn Libya into a failed state?

 

[Aleks.ov]

I was about to accuse you of the same, but let us skip that and head to your arguments.

"It seems 'blaming' is the only thing you're reasonably good at.

1) No promises were made to not expand NATO
2) No one forced a country to join NATO.

NATO expansion is not merely a 'voluntary choice'—it's ignoring the oral agreements of the 1990s (Gorbachev, Baker) and the principle of 'no eastward expansion.' See the declassified talks in the George Washington University National Security Archive. The bombings of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran are direct proof of the threat, and frankly, of aggression.

Let me remind you: Many, many people in Eastern Europe despise Russia as a country for being under the yoke of the USSR. They joined for a reason. Russia is once again proving the necessity of NATO.

The same applies to Britain and its former colonies. This is likely why Latvia holds solemn processions for Latvian SS legionnaires in its capital, Riga—where Russians make up at least 35% of the population—while imposing language restrictions in education, media, and government structures. Every 10th Russian speaker has the status of a so-called 'non-citizen.'

Was it as a big of an insult as the awful sectarian violence the Balkans experienced ? NATO made peace. Russia did not.

Classic Orwell: 'War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.'
Yugoslavia, like many other countries (see the list above), should be 'grateful.'

...which conveniently leaves out the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) of the two nations. Items are relatively cheaper in Russia due to cheaper labor, materials, and looser restrictions.
Russia’s 2024 Military Spending Surpassed EU, U.K. Combined in PPP Terms – Study - The Moscow Times
Russia’s military spending in 2024, when adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), exceeded that of the European Union and the United Kingdom combined by nearly $5 billion, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said Wednesday.
www.themoscowtimes.com

How convenient to cite 2024 while ignoring previous years and the structural crisis in the military-industrial complex and armed forces after the USSR's collapse. The alliance received $2 trillion in military investments after 2014—further comparisons are simply meaningless.

Regardless of the relative budgets, should the Allied nations in WW2 shed a tear for Nazi Germany when the German military budget was dwarfed by the Allied powers ? I suspect not.

I believe so, yes, since the main hostilities occurred on the Eastern Front (70%), where the USSR's GDP was more than 3 times smaller than the Third Reich's.

Yanokovich tossed a pro European economic agreement on Putins orders. This led to Maidan. There was no conspiracy to remove him by outside powers (spare me the picture of Nuland handing out cookies, I have heard that line a thousand times). Few people cared about Ukraine one way or another until Putin stoked the sectarian violence by having elements of 8th Guards Army enter the fray on the separatists part.

Maidan is a classic regime-change technology. Yanukovych’s refusal of the EU association agreement (Russia being Ukraine’s main trade partner) was merely the trigger. Consider:
Nuland’s leaked call with the US ambassador,
NGO funding via USAID,
McCain’s direct calls for protests,
Decades of media propaganda.

Russian separatist forces in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.
Oh, you didnt know about that ?

Strelkov only got involved after repeated requests from influential politicians and businessmen from eastern Ukraine, who were impressed by the success of the Crimea operation.

Oh sure, thats why the US has 5-6 fully staffed divisions in Poland and eastern europe. <---- more sarcasm.

The US goal is to create a buffer zone of allied states along Russia’s European border. Only Belarus held out (after the failed 2021 protests).

Let me clue you in to the west here: No one cares to invade Russia. Russia is under no threat from the US or Europe (seriously, how many European nations can field a single fully staffed combat brigade ?)

As we have hopefully established, trusting verbal assurances from Western (and not only Western) politicians makes no sense.
What do we actually have:
Expansion right up to Russia's borders after 1991
Deployment of missile defense systems in Romania/Poland
Conducting military exercises, establishing military bases
Supporting color revolutions in countries bordering Russia

Russia stole Crimea (go ahead and justify that, I dare you) and the world did nothing.
I will say it again: No one is going to invade Russia. No one. Well, maybe the Chinese in a few years.

Tell me about the 'horrors of occupation'—as someone who lived in Crimea for 13 years, I’m genuinely curious.

That would explain the massive economic trading between the EU and Russia before 2022.
You know, the trade that Putin killed ?
Sorry, you are spouting conspiracy theories with nothing to back them up.

Open support for an armed coup in Ukraine, refusal to negotiate, and complete disregard for Russia’s legitimate interests—this is provocation aimed at inciting conflict.
The US sabotaged Nord Stream 2 and projects like the Renault-AvtoVAZ alliance. The goal isn’t 'defending democracy'—it’s blocking the 'EU + Russia + China' integration. Economic sanctions since 2014.

 

[swerve]

... I believe so, yes, since the main hostilities occurred on the Eastern Front (70%), where the USSR's GDP was more than 3 times smaller than the Third Reich's. ...

The "main hostilities" - in terms of German manpower. In terms of industrial effort it was rather different, & those figures ignore the war against Japan.

And a direct comparison of GDP ignores western aid to the USSR, e.g. more trucks than total German or Soviet production given to the USSR. The Red Army's advance from Stalingrad to Berlin was supplied by western trucks. Just a tiny fraction of the aid - & getting it to the USSR took a lot of naval warfare, which needed a lot of ships & aircraft. Germany used more high quality steel for u-boats than tanks, for most of the war it had more aircraft fighting in the west than the east, a million men (far more heavily equipped per head than thoae on the eastern front) defending the Reich against Allied bombers, etc.

 

[swerve]

...which conveniently leaves out the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) of the two nations. Items are relatively cheaper in Russia due to cheaper labor, materials, and looser restrictions.

Russia’s 2024 Military Spending Surpassed EU, U.K. Combined in PPP Terms – Study - The Moscow Times

Russia’s military spending in 2024, when adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), exceeded that of the European Union and the United Kingdom combined by nearly $5 billion, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said Wednesday.

www.themoscowtimes.com

...

You're right in principle, that military spending converted to USD at prevailing exchange rates is misleading, but looking at the figures here on military PPP (& they refer to the IISS & SIPRI), suggests that Moscow Times report's not quite right.

It says $401 bn for Russia, $510 bn for the EU, & $85 bn for the UK. Oh, & $183 bn for Ukraine.
[Edited for brain fade]

 

[seaspear]

You're right in principle, that military spending converted to USD at prevailing exchange rates is misleading, but looking at the figures here on military PPP (& they refer to the IISS & SIPRI), suggests that Moscow Times report's not quite right.

It says $401 bn for the USSR, $510 bn for the EU, & $85 bn for the UK. Oh, & $183 bn for Ukraine.

Ukraines military budget seems a mixture its direct spending of of overseas equipment through loans and , direct gifts which would need to be broken down to understand in total Ukraines spending ,also how much of N.A.T.O spending quoted is for supporting Ukraine,s defence which is not a N.A.T.O country

 

[seaspear]

Does this decree make it harder for international organisations to assess Russia's economy accurately?

Putin Expands State Secrets to Cover Economy, Science, and Mobilization Plans

Putin expands Russia's state secrets, covering foreign policy, economic strategy, and military mobilization, with strict penalties for disclosure.

united24media.com

 

[Feanor]

Does this decree make it harder for international organisations to assess Russia's economy accurately?

Putin Expands State Secrets to Cover Economy, Science, and Mobilization Plans

Putin expands Russia's state secrets, covering foreign policy, economic strategy, and military mobilization, with strict penalties for disclosure.

united24media.com

I'm sure it does. There has been a trend for increasing government secrecy since ~2014. It's made many things harder to asses. The current war makes it worse of course as more and more things are kept secret. Of course this is all bad for Russia since, Putin notwithstanding, Russia does have a civil society, and one that was demanding accountability and putting pressure on authorities, a thoroughly healthy process that this war completely derailed.

 

[Aleks.ov]

The "main hostilities" - in terms of German manpower. In terms of industrial effort it was rather different, & those figures ignore the war against Japan.

And a direct comparison of GDP ignores western aid to the USSR, e.g. more trucks than total German or Soviet production given to the USSR. The Red Army's advance from Stalingrad to Berlin was supplied by western trucks. Just a tiny fraction of the aid - & getting it to the USSR took a lot of naval warfare, which needed a lot of ships & aircraft. Germany used more high quality steel for u-boats than tanks, for most of the war it had more aircraft fighting in the west than the east, a million men (far more heavily equipped per head than thoae on the eastern front) defending the Reich against Allied bombers, etc.

Your objections do not cancel my thesis.
The main share of Germany’s industrial resources went to the ground forces engaged against the USSR: armor, ammunition, fuel (see steel production).
Throughout the conflict, for containing Japan, the USSR was forced to maintain in the Far East (10,000 km from Moscow) a grouping numbering 1 million people, 2000+ tanks, and 3000+ aircraft.
The share of Lend-Lease is 7% of the USSR’s GDP and this is mainly logistics, not firepower 90% of which the USSR produced independently. Without Lend-Lease the war would have been longer and bloodier, but not fatal for the USSR.
From 1941-43 the main mass of combat aircraft was engaged in the East (65%). Only in the first month on the Eastern Front the Luftwaffe lost 1200 aircraft, which is comparable to the Battle of Britain.

 

[rsemmes]

It is worth mentioning that without attacking East, the situation on the West (and South) would have been a lot harder... for the Allies.
Count the dead.

Edit:
Each lorry (yes, tanks, aircraft and whatever) sent to the Soviet Union was helping the Western Front and the USSR. The Luftwaffe in the Mediterranean instead of in the East? Two million German troops in France? Germany lost the war in the Eastern Front, not in Falaise.

 

[rsemmes]

"In short, this decision will cost Ukrainian lives and territory."
On the battlefield, a halt in precision munitions would limit the capacity of Ukrainian troops to strike Russian positions farther behind the front line, said Jack Watling, a military analyst at the Royal United Services Institute.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-halts-some-missile-shipments-ukraine-over-low-stockpiles-politico-reports-2025-07-01/

Ukraine has summoned the acting US envoy to Kyiv to warn the Trump administration that any “delay or procrastination” in supplying the war-hit nation with weapons will only benefit Russia.

Ukraine war latest: Deputy head of Russian Navy killed in Ukrainian attack on Kursk

A regional governor confirmed Major General Mikhail Gudkov was killed in a Ukrainian attack in Russia’s Kursk region

www.independent.co.uk

And that is the only decision (complain) Ukraine can take. Did Zelenski learn anything?

 

[vikingatespam]

(Should Cuba be allowed to have nuclear missiles in its territory? Should Pakistan be allowed to have the atomic bomb? "Be allowed", what is that? I consider the "be allowed" insulting (fairness, moral standards?) and the point irrelevant.)

Whats wrong with "allowed" ? The world as a whole can take a stance on what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

Iran should not be allowed to have nukes, plain and simple.

[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree

Hitler was not allowed to take over all of Europe

[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree

What the problem with these statements ?

I wonder if you are missing the point on purpose, you sound a bit like Donald Rumsfeld; the "unknown known" and all that.

I get the feeling English isnt your native langauge. Thats not a bad thing, its just leading to your confusion.

It is not if it is a threat, but if Russia considers it a threat.

That isnt good enough. If the "Russian Fear" is lrrational, illogical, and indefensible, then why should the rest of the world give it any credence ?

Hitler had a fear of the jews taking power. Should his view point mattered ?

Russia took an unilateral action, US just took an unilateral action, as western democracies has been taken unilateral actions, always based on their own considerations.

I dont deny in the slightest that unilateral actions in their own interest are a part of the political landscape everywhere in the globe.

What unilateral action are we talking about ? The invasion of Ukraine ?

We don't like this unilateral action, it goes against our interest... All right, still, just another unilateral action.

What unilateral action by "The West" caused Russia to invade Ukraine ? You are trying to make it sound like Russia is not responsible for its own actions.

The Ukrainians dont want to be Russian. Accept that.

 

[vikingatespam]

I think this is untrue. Russia is not Putin's personal empire. Russia has a ruling clan of oligarchs.

From my viewpoint (a point from the west), I see that Putin hasnt been Polonium-poisoned, hasnt died from nerve agent, and hasnt died of window-cancer. Whereas all of his potential political competitors are dead.

Sounds like a absolute dictatorship to me.

Seriously, Hitler had an entourage of politically powerful individuals ("oligarchs" - Himmler, Goering, Goebbles, etc), but ultimate power resided in Hitler. Any one of them could of tried to kill Hitler and seize power, but they were all too afraid. I see a lot of parallels.

But thats my opinion as a non-Russian. Can anyone tell me what limits Putin has ? Sure, I suppose there is overall societal limits - I suspect he realized declaring an actual "war" and mobilizing a large fraction of the populace wont go well, but other than that - does he have any limits ? He already abolished his term limits.

And they watched what the US and NATO did in Yugoslavia with concerns for a reason.

NATO made a peace that lasts today. Too bad Russia didnt do that.

The 1999 rump-Yugoslavia that remained was not that different from the Russian Federation. It's a former socialist state, reduced to a fraction of its former power, with separatist movements in its borders that it was putting down violently.

Comparing Yugoslavia to Russia is a bit silly, isnt it ? Economically, socially, militarily ?

NATO is not a threat as long as Russia is strong, relatively united, and has a robust nuclear deterrent. But a weak and divided Russia, and NATO could quickly move in to secure nuclear weapons so they don't fall into the wrong hands (with NATO getting to decide who counts as the wrong hands), move in for humanitarian or "humanitarian" reasons, move in because Europe is dependent on gas, and wants to keep it flowing.

Are you trying to imagine the fears of the typical Russian, or your own ? Trying to claim NATO could invade the entirely of Russia to seize nuclear weapons, is such a delusional paranoid fantasy, I dont know what to say.

Lets consider the facts then - when Russia was weak and divided after the fall of the Soviet union, did NATO invade ?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

Which time period are you talking about specifically?



I don't think this is true.

I have no context here - what specifically do these questions refer to ?

NATO wasn't created to bomb Libya or Yugoslavia, or fight the Taliban yet it did all of those things.

NATO helped remove an odious dictator. oh.no. How awful.

NATO made an attempt to turn Afghanistan back into a functioning country after Russia ruined it.

Yes there were. It's been linked to before in this very thread. They may have been relatively informal, but they existed.

Nope.

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

I think it's a good example of Russian leadership genuinely fearing NATO. This is why they threaten nuclear weapon use.

You are trying to rationalize the irrational. There is no military balance which allows NATO to invade Russia. None.

How many combat brigades did it require to turn Libya into a failed state?

The question would be relevant if Russia was in a similar situation as Libya. Which it is clearly not.

 

[Feanor]

From my viewpoint (a point from the west), I see that Putin hasnt been Polonium-poisoned, hasnt died from nerve agent, and hasnt died of window-cancer. Whereas all of his potential political competitors are dead.

Sounds like a absolute dictatorship to me.

Seriously, Hitler had an entourage of politically powerful individuals ("oligarchs" - Himmler, Goering, Goebbles, etc), but ultimate power resided in Hitler. Any one of them could of tried to kill Hitler and seize power, but they were all too afraid. I see a lot of parallels.

But thats my opinion as a non-Russian. Can anyone tell me what limits Putin has ? Sure, I suppose there is overall societal limits - I suspect he realized declaring an actual "war" and mobilizing a large fraction of the populace wont go well, but other than that - does he have any limits ? He already abolished his term limits.

I'm going to leave this part out. I don't want to deep-dive internal Russian politics. Historically Putin came to power as part of an internal clan of individuals tied to current and former leadership roles in force-wielding institutions within Russia and the USSR. They were affiliated with the gas industry the same way that some oligarchs were with certain oil companies or colored metal exports. This group came to power in '99, and stayed in power since. The exact balance between Putin and other figures in this group is murky at best, and requires extensive research. Dictatorship and authoritarianism are not synonyms, though they're close, and they can look similar from the outside. The main question there isn't whether Putin can do whatever he wants vis-a-vis Russian society, but vis-a-vis his own partners in power.

As far as absolutism goes, Russia still has some independent media, and there is still room for some public expressions of dissent, and we have seen Russian authorities react to public discontent by trying to address the underlying issues. We've also seen local authorities act in a particularly ugly manner, but get called out in the press and back off. While critical voices often get suppressed eventually, even during this war we've had major figures in Russian social media openly criticize the conduct of the war and the Russian government for months of even years before any action was taken, some are still doing it.

NATO made a peace that lasts today. Too bad Russia didnt do that.

NATO acted against another sovereign state in violation of the UN Charter. This was a major red flag. Russia was involved in several ethnic messes in the '90s both inside their own borders and outside. Even when the separatists were pro-Russian, Russia leaned on respecting state sovereignty, and not promoting actual independence. This was the case in Georgia, Transnestria, and Crimea. NATO acted against a sovereign state, and then supported the independence of pieces of that state. This was an obvious concern for Russia.

Comparing Yugoslavia to Russia is a bit silly, isnt it ? Economically, socially, militarily ?

It is not. '90s Russia and today's Russia are very different. And it's not inconceivable that Russia could face Yugoslav-style ethnic tensions in some regions of the country.

Are you trying to imagine the fears of the typical Russian, or your own ? Trying to claim NATO could invade the entirely of Russia to seize nuclear weapons, is such a delusional paranoid fantasy, I dont know what to say.

It depends on the internal state of Russia. You can't tell me that there is literally no scenario where this could play out.

Lets consider the facts then - when Russia was weak and divided after the fall of the Soviet union, did NATO invade ?

It wasn't that weak or that divided. The strategic nuclear arsenal remained intact. And this was a time when NATO's penetration in Europe was far more limited. Invading Russia was geographically very difficult. It's much easier when you're right next door.

I have no context here - what specifically do these questions refer to ?

I quoted the parts it refers to. You claim Putin had removed Russian forces from, among others, Kaliningrad. But we've seen Kaliningrad host fewer military assets in the '90s and early '00s, and then later more assets as tensions with NATO rose. What time period are you referring to when you talk about units being removed from there?

NATO helped remove an odious dictator. oh.no. How awful.

What happens if NATO decides Putin is an odious dictator and has the means to remove him?

NATO made an attempt to turn Afghanistan back into a functioning country after Russia ruined it.

Of course. It was a humanitarian effort. I think you're missing the point. NATO has the ability to do things that go well beyond simple mutual defense.

Nope.

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

Interesting. Der Spiegel says he said yes. Did he change his story? I think it's clear western politicians intended their Russian and Soviet counter-parts to believe there would be no further NATO expansion and they accomplished this goal. Then further NATO expansion occurred.

NATO's Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has accused the West of breaking promises made after the fall of the Iron Curtain, saying that NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification. Newly discovered documents from Western archives...

www.spiegel.de

You are trying to rationalize the irrational. There is no military balance which allows NATO to invade Russia. None.

The question would be relevant if Russia was in a similar situation as Libya. Which it is clearly not.

But it's not inconceivable that Russia faces major internal dissent bungled crackdowns, coupled with ethnic tensions in some regions. And let's say the west is very unhappy with how Russia handles this dissent and the ethnic tensions. Now it becomes a question of is it possible for the west to interfere? If Ukraine and Georgia are NATO members, and Azerbaijan is a closer partner, suddenly inserting forces via the Caspian into Tatarstan might be a credible option, coupled with a no-fly zone in southern Russia. If NATO's closest facilities are in Turkey and Turkey is not interested in meddling in Russia, and therefore granting their facilities for this purpose, suddenly it's not an option. It's not about NATO actively preparing to invade. It's about making such an invasion effectively impossible, regardless of circumstances.

 

[vikingatespam]

"It seems 'blaming' is the only thing you're reasonably good at.

Try answer some of the questions put to you before you deflect.

I blame Russia for the invasion of Ukraine. Am I:

[ ] Right
[ ] Wrong

Go ahead and tell us - tell us in this forum, if you think that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a good thing.

NATO expansion is not merely a 'voluntary choice'—it's ignoring the oral agreements of the 1990s (Gorbachev, Baker) and the principle of 'no eastward expansion.' See the declassified talks in the George Washington University National Security Archive.

Gobrachev says there was no agreement.

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

No one was or is forced to join NATO, or even stay in it. If Orban is so butt-hurt, due to aid to Ukraine, he can drop out of NATO and the EU if he wants.

The bombings of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran are direct proof of the threat, and frankly, of aggression.

Agression, Yes. Agression to Russia, No.

Yugoslavia: stopped an awful civil war. A win for Yugoslavia.
Afghanistan: rooted out the Taliban, and tried to repair the damage Russia did. Well, we all lost that one.
Iraq, Libya, Syria: helped remove odious dictators. A win for those countries.

Are these bad things ?

The same applies to Britain and its former colonies.

If that was true you would see the creation of a NATO-like entity poised to limit the aims of England.

Which of course, doesnt exist. Former colonies of England havnt banded together against England.

This is likely why Latvia holds solemn processions for Latvian SS legionnaires in its capital, Riga—where Russians make up at least 35% of the population—while imposing language restrictions in education, media, and government structures. Every 10th Russian speaker has the status of a so-called 'non-citizen.'

So Latvia has solemn processions.....how is this relevant ? Are you pointing out "Russification" policies of the Soviet Union have led to issues in the demographics in Latvia ? Should Latvia be forced to teach Russian in place of Latvian ?

Should we expect a Russian invasion of Latvia if/when UKR loses ?

Classic Orwell: 'War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.'
Yugoslavia, like many other countries (see the list above), should be 'grateful.'

Im sure the Yugoslavians would rather still be engaged in the slaughter of a continued civil war. <--- sarcasm

How convenient to cite 2024 while ignoring previous years and the structural crisis in the military-industrial complex and armed forces after the USSR's collapse. The alliance received $2 trillion in military investments after 2014—further comparisons are simply meaningless.

I gave you a definition of PPP in case you didnt know what it was.

Your own arguments are self-defeating. If the PPP-adjusted military expenditures were so unfavorable towards RU during the 1990s, AND NATO did not invade.....then what exactly are you fearing now that RU military expenditures are much more favorable towards RU ?

Let me remind you - NATO was dying in 2021. Trade with RU was booming and profitable for both sides. There was no threat to RU.

Maidan is a classic regime-change technology. Yanukovych’s refusal of the EU association agreement (Russia being Ukraine’s main trade partner) was merely the trigger. Consider:
Nuland’s leaked call with the US ambassador,
NGO funding via USAID,
McCain’s direct calls for protests,
Decades of media propaganda.

None of which means there was in-place a desire or mechanism to somehow overthrow Yanokovich. Victoria NUland handing out cookies is not the material that makes a conspiracy.

Tell us this:

Does Ukraine (UKR) have the right to be an independant country , to choose to be not a vassal state, like Belarus

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

The US goal is to create a buffer zone of allied states along Russia’s European border. Only Belarus held out (after the failed 2021 protests).

No, it isnt. This is your delusional paranoid fantasy. You are just making my point for me.

Are you incapable of accepting the possibility that Ukrainians by and large, dont want to be Russians ?

Nobody cared about Russia, one way or another in 2021. Stop trying to expand your borders unrighteously and we can all go back to better times, instead of Cold War 2. More trade, less military production.

As we have hopefully established, trusting verbal assurances from Western (and not only Western) politicians makes no sense.
Expansion right up to Russia's borders after 1991

Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...

www.brookings.edu

What do we actually have:
Deployment of missile defense systems in Romania/Poland
Conducting military exercises, establishing military bases

...because those countries dont trust RU ? I wonder why ?

Are you really terrified by few small exercises being done in a few nations ?

Should Japan invade Taiwan when Russia puts on a Vostok exercise ?

You are trying to rationalize the invasion of UKR due to a fear of NATO. Putin himself doesnt care about NATO - that is what his actions indicate.
The entire argument is so self defeating, its ludicrous. "Putin fears NATO expansion so he wants to invade UKR, take it over, and increase the border length with NATO countries". Pure drivel.

Supporting color revolutions in countries bordering Russia

Which didnt happen. Ukrainians didnt want to be tied to Russia. Thats Russia's fault.

Tell me about the 'horrors of occupation'—as someone who lived in Crimea for 13 years, I’m genuinely curious.

What horrors of occupation ? Did I say that ? How about we talk about theft ? RU stole the Crimea from UKR.

Do you deny this ?

Open support for an armed coup in Ukraine,

Should we not of supported the Ukrainians ? When Yanukovich was tossed out of power, how many US divisions entered Ukraine ? Did we sell them any weapons ? No ?

refusal to negotiate, and complete disregard for Russia’s legitimate interests—this is provocation aimed at inciting conflict.

Keeping Ukraine as a vassal state in perpetuity is not a legitimate interest. The sooner RU learns this, the sooner we will ALL be better off.

The US sabotaged Nord Stream 2 and projects like the Renault-AvtoVAZ alliance. The goal isn’t 'defending democracy'—it’s blocking the 'EU + Russia + China' integration. Economic sanctions since 2014.

UKR did the pipeline.

BLocking trade ?

EU trade relations with Russia

Facts, figures and latest developments.

policy.trade.ec.europa.eu

.

"While in 2020, the EU was Russia's biggest trade partner, in 2024 the EU was Russia’s third-biggest trade partner, accounting for 38.4% of the country’s total trade in goods with the world. 10.3% of Russia’s imports came from the EU and 7.3% of its exports went to the EU. The respective shares for 2020 were 36.5% and 37.9%."

Sure sounds like blockage to me. <--- sarcasm

However, if you are so concerned about trade, how do you feel about EU-RU trade now that RU is bogged down in this stupid war ? Any regrets ?

As for economic sanctions ? Stop trying to steal other countries.

 

[vikingatespam]

It is worth mentioning that without attacking East, the situation on the West (and South) would have been a lot harder... for the Allies.
Count the dead.

Unless RU invaded Germany in this scenario, the liberation of Europe would of been virtually impossible.

 

[vikingatespam]

I'm going to leave this part out. I don't want to deep-dive internal Russian politics. Historically Putin came to power as part of an internal clan of individuals tied to current and former leadership roles in force-wielding institutions within Russia and the USSR. They were affiliated with the gas industry the same way that some oligarchs were with certain oil companies or colored metal exports. This group came to power in '99, and stayed in power since. The exact balance between Putin and other figures in this group is murky at best, and requires extensive research. Dictatorship and authoritarianism are not synonyms, though they're close, and they can look similar from the outside. The main question there isn't whether Putin can do whatever he wants vis-a-vis Russian society, but vis-a-vis his own partners in power.

A lot is said in places about oligarchs and power. However, can you name one who is capable to putting the brakes on Putin ? I cannot see, at this time, how this war will profit RU in the long term. The economics are grim, and get worse the longer this goes on. As far as I, an outsider can see, Putin has done everything in his power to move this war forward - barring only those things which would represent a major danger to his own power (WMD, mass mobilization). Who opposes Putin ?

For that matter, who is Putin's political successor ? Putin is 71 and past the average life expectancy for RU males. If he strokes out tomorrow, who takes power, or does this degenerate in a civil war none of us wants ? There was an interesting discussion on this a few months back on the Project Owl Discord channel, but no clear answers.

NATO acted against another sovereign state in violation of the UN Charter. This was a major red flag. Russia was involved in several ethnic messes in the '90s both inside their own borders and outside. Even when the separatists were pro-Russian, Russia leaned on respecting state sovereignty, and not promoting actual independence. This was the case in Georgia, Transnestria, and Crimea. NATO acted against a sovereign state, and then supported the independence of pieces of that state. This was an obvious concern for Russia.

RU and the West have all violated the rules over time. NATO stopped the civil war in Yugoslavia. Was it worth it ?

It is not. '90s Russia and today's Russia are very different. And it's not inconceivable that Russia could face Yugoslav-style ethnic tensions in some regions of the country.

Even if you accept that RU is vulnerable in the same ways Yugoslavia was - RU has nuclear weapons. No one is going to invade RU.

It depends on the internal state of Russia. You can't tell me that there is literally no scenario where this could play out.

I am telling you there is literally no scenario where this plays out.

1) Who is going to invade ? The EU ? How many BDE can they mobilize ? 2 ?
2) How will get get the collective political will to invade ? Do you honestly think the EU can collectively get the will to invade RU ? You think Germany, in a million years, would invade RU ?
3) Who will supply this invasion ?

Add in 5 US divisions (half all our ground forces), and the math doesnt change. Not enough troops, not enough political will, not enough supplies. All of this ignores RU nuclear weapons, which I dont doubt for a second, would be used in this type of scenario.

Not going to happen. Never.Ever. There is no army in the world that has the forces and ability to sustain a massive ground war.

I quoted the parts it refers to. You claim Putin had removed Russian forces from, among others, Kaliningrad. But we've seen Kaliningrad host fewer military assets in the '90s and early '00s, and then later more assets as tensions with NATO rose. What time period are you referring to when you talk about units being removed from there?

11th Army Corps.

11th Army Corps (Russian Federation) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Various unit insignias have been spotted in UKR.

What happens if NATO decides Putin is an odious dictator and has the means to remove him?

I think Putin is an odious dictator. NATO doesnt have the means. It never will.

Of course. It was a humanitarian effort. I think you're missing the point. NATO has the ability to do things that go well beyond simple mutual defense.

Sure it does - if the various parties can agree to do something (other than argue). Do you actually think, given the NATO/EU political in-fighting that we see today, that the NATO forces would actually entertain the idea of invading RU ? I imagine it would be something like this:

[Supreme Leader in Charge of Destroying Russia]: Okay Europe, I need you to mobilize all your forces so we can get into a ground war in Russia
[Germany]: Are you kidding me ? Once was enough
[France]: Sorry, Im with Germany. Once was enough
[Spain]: what military ?
[England]: (raises hand): Oh ! Oh ! We have a BDE ! We can only supply it for 2 weeks though.
[Vizzini]: you forget the most important rule

Interesting. Der Spiegel says he said yes. Did he change his story? I think it's clear western politicians intended their Russian and Soviet counter-parts to believe there would be no further NATO expansion and they accomplished this goal. Then further NATO expansion occurred.

Did he change his story ? I dont know, ask him. (yes, I know hes dead). At the very least there was no treaty in this regards.

Putin said he wasnt going to invade Ukraine. RU and UKR had a treaty, which is better than a possible back-room handshake, and look how that helped UKR.

Again - a fear of NATO is a smokescreen. Putin's own actions show that he is not afraid of NATO in the slightest.

But it's not inconceivable that Russia faces major internal dissent bungled crackdowns, coupled with ethnic tensions in some regions. And let's say the west is very unhappy with how Russia handles this dissent and the ethnic tensions. Now it becomes a question of is it possible for the west to interfere?

Im pretty sure that at this point, if RU undergoes large scale internal dissention, most of the west will take the time to look smug and say "told you so", and not give another shit. An actual civil war in RU would likely be an ungodly sea of blood and destruction, capped off by the use of nuclear weapons. No one wants a slice of that.

Regardless, there is no force structure in the world that can sustain an invasion of RU.

(and, yes I know UKR took a tiny sliver of the Kursk area, but thats not what we are talking about).

If Ukraine and Georgia are NATO members, and Azerbaijan is a closer partner, suddenly inserting forces via the Caspian into Tatarstan might be a credible option, coupled with a no-fly zone in southern Russia.

(lets ignore the fact the UKR and GA arent NATO, nor will likely ever be NATO, and Azerbaijan will want no part of invading their billion-times larger neighbor)

Insert forces ?!?!? WHAT FORCES ?!?!? Two US airmobile divisions and a few Btl. of EU troops ? How the f$ck are you going to sustain 25000 troops over there, and what do you think you will accomplish in Tartarstan ? Seriously ?

again:

1) no political will
2) inadequate forces
3) inadequate supply

Never.Going.To.Happen.

It's not about NATO actively preparing to invade. It's about making such an invasion effectively impossible, regardless of circumstances.

Its impossible now. The only scenario I can forsee is if we can bring Godzilla from the deep ocean, and set him upon RU.

Whether or not RU takes over UKR doesnt change the degree of impossibility. Taking over UKR simply increases your border with NATO !

Hitler invaded RU will some ~300 divisions. The US, all in has about 10.

Why dont you lay out a Invasion of Russia scenario. What are the forces. What are the logistics, what are the goals.