The Ukraine Crisis

[HI54UNI]

I thought we sanctioned Russia?

Russian fertilizer sales are exempt from the sanctions imposed by US and EU in response to the war on Ukraine, and some shipments are entering the US, according to cargo data tracked by Bloomberg.”

https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/202 ... declining/

[SeattleGriz]

[kalm]

I thought we sanctioned Russia?

Russian fertilizer sales are exempt from the sanctions imposed by US and EU in response to the war on Ukraine, and some shipments are entering the US, according to cargo data tracked by Bloomberg.”

https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/202 ... declining/

Ugh. CID would be chiming in on strategic industries about now. Globalism is inevitable but it still has many warts.

[Winterborn]

I thought we sanctioned Russia?

Russian fertilizer sales are exempt from the sanctions imposed by US and EU in response to the war on Ukraine, and some shipments are entering the US, according to cargo data tracked by Bloomberg.”

https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/202 ... declining/

Ugh. CID would be chiming in on strategic industries about now. Globalism is inevitable but it still has many warts.

And he would be right. Then again some of the same reasons we haven't built a new refinery in the U.S. applies here.

[kalm]

Ugh. CID would be chiming in on strategic industries about now. Globalism is inevitable but it still has many warts.

And he would be right. Then again some of the same reasons we haven't built a new refinery in the U.S. applies here.

Globalism is NOT what Adam Smith had in mind.

[SeattleGriz]

Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.

The war in Ukraine has dragged on long enough now to reveal certain clear trajectories. First, two fundamental realities:

1) Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war. Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.

2) Secondary condemnation belongs to the US (NATO) in deliberately provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia. This war did not have to be if Ukranian neutrality, á la Finland and Austria, had been accepted. Instead Washington has called for clear Russian defeat.

https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/

[houndawg]

Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.

The war in Ukraine has dragged on long enough now to reveal certain clear trajectories. First, two fundamental realities:

1) Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war. Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.

2) Secondary condemnation belongs to the US (NATO) in deliberately provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia. This war did not have to be if Ukranian neutrality, á la Finland and Austria, had been accepted. Instead Washington has called for clear Russian defeat.

https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/

Fucking COMSYMPs

[SeattleGriz]

Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.



https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/

Fucking COMSYMPs

You're bored, aren't you?

Graham E. Fuller is a former Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council at CIA with responsibility for global intelligence estimates.

[kalm]

Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.

The war in Ukraine has dragged on long enough now to reveal certain clear trajectories. First, two fundamental realities:

1) Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war. Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.

2) Secondary condemnation belongs to the US (NATO) in deliberately provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia. This war did not have to be if Ukranian neutrality, á la Finland and Austria, had been accepted. Instead Washington has called for clear Russian defeat.

https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/

Are Russia’s red lines their border or country’s they’ve invaded, or?

NATO is potentially hostile to Russia. Russia chooses the hostility.

[SeattleGriz]

Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.



https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/

Are Russia’s red lines their border or country’s they’ve invaded, or?

NATO is potentially hostile to Russia. Russia chooses the hostility.

Well, as you can read in the quote and the article, the former Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council at CIA says:

provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia.

This bolded statement tells me the red lines preceded Russian borders. I'll take his experience as an expert as to what precipitated this war.

[GannonFan]

Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.

The war in Ukraine has dragged on long enough now to reveal certain clear trajectories. First, two fundamental realities:

1) Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war. Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.

2) Secondary condemnation belongs to the US (NATO) in deliberately provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia. This war did not have to be if Ukranian neutrality, á la Finland and Austria, had been accepted. Instead Washington has called for clear Russian defeat.

https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/

Man, if that's the types of places that you go to for your information then I do worry about you. As for the arguments:

1) I don't recall Bush implementing genocide or declaring an American Empire. For all his faults, Iraq still has the same territory today that it had before any American forces were there, as does Afghanistan.

2) NATO is a "hostile military organization"? That demands some kind of explanation, which of course is lacking in what you linked. How many offensive wars has NATO prosecuted since its inception almost 75 years ago? I'm pretty sure that number is well below the number of offensive wars Russia has in the same time. Russian red lines that existed so that they could have free reign to interfere with and end other nation's sovereignty are not really red lines that anyone should accept. Russia had already long violated Ukraine's neutrality by repeated interferences with their internal politics (which isn't a huge deal, since many people had hands in internal Ukrainian affairs), as well as unilaterally determining that parts of Ukraine (i.e. Crimea) could be taken at will whenever they wanted them (which is a big deal and part of the issue with Russia and it's demand to have parts of the world set aside so that Russia can exert dominance over those parts, contrary of course to the wants and wishes of the people who live in those parts).

As for the rest of that essay, it sounded like the whining of an old man who's no longer part of the game and is bitter that he didn't have a bigger impact on things (or that what he did have impacts on didn't have lasting effects) when he was part of the game. Russia and China have been shaping to be counters to the US for about the past 6 decades, so it's not like Ukraine all of a sudden made them realize they have some common goals. As for his views on Europe, again, no new ground - everyone knows Europe is always fickle to actually get involved to stand up to things they say are wrong but don't always have the will to back it up. Heck, Kosovo was right in their own backyard and they dithered on that for quite some time.

[GannonFan]

Are Russia’s red lines their border or country’s they’ve invaded, or?

NATO is potentially hostile to Russia. Russia chooses the hostility.

Well, as you can read in the quote and the article, the former Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council at CIA says:

provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia.

This bolded statement tells me the red lines preceded Russian borders. I'll take his experience as an expert as to what precipitated this war.

Again, red lines that say that Russia gets to have full sway to do with another sovereign country whatever they want, regardless of the wishes of the people in that particular sovereign country, aren't really valid red lines. Ukraine hasn't been part of Russia since 1992 or so, like so many other regions freed from Soviet oppression, and has not indicated in anyway that they want to change that since then. Again, tell me how NATO is hostile as a military organization? As for experience, isn't this guy part of the group that initiated the Iran-Contra deal under Reagan? I hold the Reagan presidency up as, overall, a pretty good 8 years. But no one really thinks the Iran-Contra thing was a good thing.

[UNI88]

And to add to the discussion, while we shouldn't have attacked Iraq under Dubya, it's dishonest to compare that to how Russia has gone attacked Ukraine. Dubya built a coalition of other countries and had widespread support for the invasion. Putin ignored the world before and after he took Crimea and again for this latest invasion. Dubya's invasion of Iraq hardly justifies Russia's invasions of Ukraine.

[UNI88]

Putin: The mask is off. Europe is next

When Putin started the war, he tried to shift the blame to NATO, calling it the instigator. He argued that Russia had no choice but to defensively launch the war to prevent NATO from surrounding Russia from all sides.

The reality, of course, was very different. NATO was a sclerotic, toothless, mission-less defense (not offense) alliance in retirement, collecting its “peace dividend” from the breakup of the Soviet Union. Most of its European members maintained their defense spending below NATO charter rules.
...
Another excuse Putin used to sell the war to Russians was that the mighty Russian army was purifying Ukraine from Nazis and drug addicts. This was a lie. Ukraine has about as many Nazis as any other country in Europe, no more and no less. I wrote a lengthy essay on this topic. And if Putin was really worried about drug addicts, Russia should have invaded San Francisco instead.

A few days ago, Putin finally lifted his veil of pretense. He compared himself to Peter the Great and the war in Ukraine to Russia’s 21-year war with Sweden. He said (I am paraphrasing) that Peter had returned land to and fortified Mother Russia, and he added that now it was his time to do the same. Putin openly wants to be Vlad the Great, and Russia looks at Europe as its oyster.

Oops, it's not about Nazis or self-defense. It's about Putin's ego and perceived place in history.

[SeattleGriz]

A brief walk down history lane shows red lines have been crossed for years. From George Washington university's national security archive.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”

[kalm]

A brief walk down history lane shows red lines have been crossed for years. From George Washington university's national security archive.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”

Yes…how dare we go back on Thatcher’s assurances.

[UNI88]

A brief walk down history lane shows red lines have been crossed for years. From George Washington university's national security archive.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”

The biggest red line that was crossed was the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and that was crossed by Russia invading Ukraine twice.

[SeattleGriz]

A brief walk down history lane shows red lines have been crossed for years. From George Washington university's national security archive.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early

The biggest red line that was crossed was the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and that was crossed by Russia invading Ukraine twice.

Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.

I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University

[UNI88]

The biggest red line that was crossed was the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and that was crossed by Russia invading Ukraine twice.

Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.

I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University

We disagree and I have at least two reasons:

1) A nation voluntarily requesting to join NATO and being accepted is far less egregious then a nation twice violating the sovereignty of a nation that it had agreed to not threaten or use military force or economic coercion against it.

2) Those assurances were given to the USSR. The USSR no longer exists, the assurances died with the USSR.

[SeattleGriz]

Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.

I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.

We disagree and I have at least two reasons:

1) A nation voluntarily requesting to join NATO and being accepted is far less egregious then a nation twice violating the sovereignty of a nation that it had agreed to not threaten or use military force or economic coercion against it.

2) Those assurances were given to the USSR. The USSR no longer exists, the assurances died with the USSR.

We agree to disagree! I'll take it.

[GannonFan]

The biggest red line that was crossed was the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and that was crossed by Russia invading Ukraine twice.

Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.

I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University

Like I said before in another post - I don't give a crap what was said in conversation by leaders during the breakup of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. The Soviet Union dissolved, and people in these areas made the decisions on their own to rule themselves as they pleased. That's how we got to all the different countries that came into being after the yoke of Soviet domination was taken away. Eventually, many of these countries, fearful of exactly what we're seeing now - renewed Russian diplomatic and military aggression with the goal of re-dominating these areas against their will - decided, again, on their own, to seek protections to ensure future self-rule. NATO didn't expand, Russian aggressions forced countries to seek the only defense they could rely on to ensure they could remain as independent countries for the future. NATO isn't attacking anyone - Russia is. Russia, and you apparently, seem to think it's perfectly fine and acceptable to have a slew of countries teed up for Russia to do with what they please, kill whoever they want, force any government or systems on the population therein, with zero regards for the people who live in those countries.

Like I said, NATO hasn't expanded, Russia, through solely its own actions, has forced countries to seek refuge there. Ukraine's biggest mistake is not doing that as well and relying on Russia's good graces not to invade and subjugate their country. Oops.

[SeattleGriz]

Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.

I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.

Like I said before in another post - I don't give a crap what was said in conversation by leaders during the breakup of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. The Soviet Union dissolved, and people in these areas made the decisions on their own to rule themselves as they pleased. That's how we got to all the different countries that came into being after the yoke of Soviet domination was taken away. Eventually, many of these countries, fearful of exactly what we're seeing now - renewed Russian diplomatic and military aggression with the goal of re-dominating these areas against their will - decided, again, on their own, to seek protections to ensure future self-rule. NATO didn't expand, Russian aggressions forced countries to seek the only defense they could rely on to ensure they could remain as independent countries for the future. NATO isn't attacking anyone - Russia is. Russia, and you apparently, seem to think it's perfectly fine and acceptable to have a slew of countries teed up for Russia to do with what they please, kill whoever they want, force any government or systems on the population therein, with zero regards for the people who live in those countries.

Like I said, NATO hasn't expanded, Russia, through solely its own actions, has forced countries to seek refuge there. Ukraine's biggest mistake is not doing that as well and relying on Russia's good graces not to invade and subjugate their country. Oops.

You did and I apologize for not replying directly. I'm stuck on my phone and hate typing out long responses. Was hoping my post would cover your questions/statements.

[houndawg]

Fucking COMSYMPs

You're bored, aren't you?

Graham E. Fuller is a former Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council at CIA with responsibility for global intelligence estimates.

[houndawg]

Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.

I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.

We disagree and I have at least two reasons:

1) A nation voluntarily requesting to join NATO and being accepted is far less egregious then a nation twice violating the sovereignty of a nation that it had agreed to not threaten or use military force or economic coercion against it.

2) Those assurances were given to the USSR. The USSR no longer exists, the assurances died with the USSR.

Unfortunately it also appears that assurances to Ukraine also died after they surrendered the USSR's nuclear equipment.

[SeattleGriz]

Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.

I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.

We disagree and I have at least two reasons:

1) A nation voluntarily requesting to join NATO and being accepted is far less egregious then a nation twice violating the sovereignty of a nation that it had agreed to not threaten or use military force or economic coercion against it.

2) Those assurances were given to the USSR. The USSR no longer exists, the assurances died with the USSR.

Took me a little while to find this document. Does a Clinton signed Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France in 1997 matter?

https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/offi ... _25468.htm

NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.

There was quite a bit of additional stationing of substantial combat forces since 1997. They also weren't the USSR when this was signed by Clinton.

In addition:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its member States, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other hand, hereinafter referred to as NATO and Russia, based on an enduring political commitment undertaken at the highest political level, will build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security.

NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries. They share the goal of overcoming the vestiges of earlier confrontation and competition and of strengthening mutual trust and cooperation. The present Act reaffirms the determination of NATO and Russia to give concrete substance to their shared commitment to build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, whole and free, to the benefit of all its peoples. Making this commitment at the highest political level marks the beginning of a fundamentally new relationship between NATO and Russia. They intend to develop, on the basis of common interest, reciprocity and transparency a strong, stable and enduring partnership.