|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:""US told Kremlin it's willing to discuss giving Russia a way to verify there aren't Tomahawk cruise missiles stationed at NATO bases in Romania and Poland—on condition Russia shares similar info on certain bases in Russia, sources tell @JenniferJJacobs, @AlbertoNardelli and Henry Meyer Somehow I don't think Russia's going to agree with the idea that the US stationing missiles in Eastern Europe is the same as Russia stationing missiles in Russia.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Meanwhile Chechnya's representative in Duma is recording instagram videos threatening his enemies (and anyone who translates his videos into Russian) with beheadings which is extremely fine and normal But not to worry! Duma's ethics committee are already on the case! A Duma member from CPRF asked the prosecutor's office to look into it, too. I expect that in full accordance to Chechen traditions, Delimhanov will record a public apology for his emotional video, and that will be the end of it. Also, Chechen state news media report on a 400k strong protest in Grozny in support of Kadyrov and his persecution of Yangulbaevs. https://www.grozny-inform.ru/news/society/135384/ The entire population of Grozny is ~300k.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Somehow I don't think Russia's going to agree with the idea that the US stationing missiles in Eastern Europe is the same as Russia stationing missiles in Russia. It was a principle that worked in the Cold War. And that's the point, Russia is the one that has dismantled the arms control regimes that worked in the 80's and 90's and is refusing to replace them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It was a principle that worked in the Cold War. And that's the point, Russia is the one that has dismantled the arms control regimes that worked in the 80's and 90's and is refusing to replace them. Wasn't that a response to Bush pulling out of the ABM treaty? And obviously the US didn't station missiles in Eastern Europe during the Cold War for other reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
Somaen posted:Does seem like everything took a more positive tone recently after all the meetings. Grandpa just needed some attention and respek for being stronk after years in the bunker https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1488838198696583171 RusMil staffing movements underway at Pogonovo and Novozerne.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
No idea who these El Pais folks are. https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1488793739787177985
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
I think reasonably high-profile Spanish newspaper?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Absolutely demented, lol. What is this ridiculous demand supposed to accomplish other than inflaming things more?cinci zoo sniper posted:No idea who these El Pais folks are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
The point is to call out Russia's bad faith argument that it is worried about States increasing their security at the expense of others. Russia is the country currently occupying multiple European states without their consent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The point is to call out Russia's bad faith argument that it is worried about States increasing their security at the expense of others. Russia is the country currently occupying multiple European states without their consent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Absolutely demented, lol. What is this ridiculous demand supposed to accomplish other than inflaming things more? i mean it's a demand, anyone can demand anything it doesn't really mean much. seems p much parallel to russia demanding that nato just give up half of its member states
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
I've said it before but these negotiations are performative. US deploying a reduced Brigade to EE NATO states: 2k from 82nd AB to Poland and Romania, 1k already in Germany to Poland. Token.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Absolutely demented, lol. What is this ridiculous demand supposed to accomplish other than inflaming things more? I suspect they knew these would be non-starters as well, its demonstrating that Putin is also making unreasonable demands and force him to publicly meet in the middle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1488838198696583171 is this new or is this just repeating the response from NATO to Russia (the same response El Pais leaked)? doesn't seem like anything earth-shattering or unexpected. of course the US and NATO would include this in its formal response. it would be surprising if they were not. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Feb 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
I thought this was an interesting thread on the issue of the infamous promise to Russia not to expand NATO eastward. The short version is that some kind of guarantee was made, but that doesn't mean everyone understood it exactly the same way, Russia didn't get it in writing (rookie mistake), and basically that no guarantee is forever. I think Russia has plenty of reason to feel betrayed since the guarantee didn't even last a decade, but obviously YMMV. https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1487774539006238723
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Ok, so what does that accomplish though? This seems like a geopolitical equivalent of an NYT article calling out Republican hypocrisy or something. i dont think any of the negotiations accomplish anything rn tbh. I don't know if putin will invade or if he's bluffing (i suspect invade) but I think its all baked at this point and only a monumental unforseen event will change the plan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:i dont think any of the negotiations accomplish anything rn tbh. I don't know if putin will invade or if he's bluffing (i suspect invade) but I think its all baked at this point and only a monumental unforseen event will change the plan. An issue is that if Putin is genuinely on the fence, he's been offered basically no off ramp that isn't total humiliation. Maybe there's secret diplomacy going on that can give him and off ramp like Khruschev got for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but so far every indication is that the West would rather watch Ukraine get invaded (not like it hurts them) than be seen as being insufficiently tough. Not that I think Russia's demands were serious either, so there's certainly blame to go around for the poor state of public diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I thought this was an interesting thread on the issue of the infamous promise to Russia not to expand NATO eastward. The short version is that some kind of guarantee was made, but that doesn't mean everyone understood it exactly the same way, Russia didn't get it in writing (rookie mistake), and basically that no guarantee is forever. I think Russia has plenty of reason to feel betrayed since the guarantee didn't even last a decade, but obviously YMMV. No, the short version is that James loving Baker wagged his tongue a bit, but no such promise was ever made by a US President, let alone was part of a signed agreement, never mind one ratified by the Senate. And no, Russia isn't dumb enough to think that such a thing was promised, they are just racist enough to feel entitled to such a thing and shameless enough to lie about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:i dont think any of the negotiations accomplish anything rn tbh. I don't know if putin will invade or if he's bluffing (i suspect invade) but I think its all baked at this point and only a monumental unforseen event will change the plan. Yeah the number of units Putin has committed doesn't make too much sense from a propaganda perspective alone, I also suspect invade. Who knows when.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:No, the short version is that James loving Baker wagged his tongue a bit, but no such promise was ever made by a US President, let alone was part of a signed agreement, never mind one ratified by the Senate. How does racism enter into this? James Baker would seem to be somebody whose word you could take as authoritative. He’s not just some schmuck who showed up, he’s probably one of the most powerful and important people of the late 20th century background—not the faces, but the ones who get poo poo done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:No, the short version is that James loving Baker wagged his tongue a bit, but no such promise was ever made by a US President, let alone was part of a signed agreement, never mind one ratified by the Senate. I think he was authorized to say basically whatever would smooth the process of German reunification and then they'd worry about what came next later. Obviously Bush didn't get a second term, and it was easy for Clinton as the post-triumph president while Russia was at its weakest to shrug off any guarantees as not his problem, but I don't think Russia viewed it as a bullshit promise from day one. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification. The conversations before Kohl’s assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries, and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” (See Document 2) Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev. Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6) Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas Hurd, on April 11, 1990. At this point, the East Germans had voted overwhelmingly for the deutschmark and for rapid unification, in the March 18 elections in which Kohl had surprised almost all observers with a real victory. Kohl’s analyses (first explained to Bush on December 3, 1989) that the GDR’s collapse would open all possibilities, that he had to run to get to the head of the train, that he needed U.S. backing, that unification could happen faster than anyone thought possible – all turned out to be correct. Monetary union would proceed as early as July and the assurances about security kept coming. Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain clearly “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his “nine points,” which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, “Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you.” (See Document 18) The French leader Francois Mitterrand was not in a mind-meld with the Americans, quite the contrary, as evidenced by his telling Gorbachev in Moscow on May 25, 1990, that he was “personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs”; but Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must “create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole.” But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO. (See Document 27) The view of the State Department was that NATO expansion was not on the agenda, because it was not in the interest of the U.S. to organize “an anti-Soviet coalition” that extended to the Soviet borders, not least because it might reverse the positive trends in the Soviet Union. (See Document 26) The Bush administration took the latter view. And that’s what the Soviets heard. As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28) Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Feb 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
selec posted:How does racism enter into this? Russia feels that Eastern Europeans are theirs to rule, and if any resist it's because they've been mislead by perfidious anglo-saxons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:An issue is that if Putin is genuinely on the fence, he's been offered basically no off ramp that isn't total humiliation. Maybe there's secret diplomacy going on that can give him and off ramp like Khruschev got for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but so far every indication is that the West would rather watch Ukraine get invaded (not like it hurts them) than be seen as being insufficiently tough. Not that I think Russia's demands were serious either, so there's certainly blame to go around for the poor state of public diplomacy. He intentionally chose to have no ramp off. Absolute demands were his initiative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah the number of units Putin has committed doesn't make too much sense from a propaganda perspective alone, I also suspect invade. Who knows when.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Why does everyone think an invasion is imminent when the Ukrainian gov't itself says it is overblown? Both the US and Ukraine are trying to manifest their preferred outcome into the universe imo. If you think this crisis has brought NATO together and unified a Europe that was skeptical of the US after Trump behind the US again, wait until Russia actually invades and the US gets to deploy all these wild new sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Why does everyone think an invasion is imminent when the Ukrainian gov't itself says it is overblown? Because the Ukrainian government is trying to keep an already struggling economy on the rails, not that they don't believe military action is not coming. Its an outward appearance move. If they truly believed nothing would happen they would not be seeking as much help as they have been. They are more worried about an economic panic in the face of Russian aggression amplifying the possibility of internal struggle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Why does everyone think an invasion is imminent when the Ukrainian gov't itself says it is overblown? do you remember when covid was first getting rolling in the US and the trump administration kept saying that it was nothing to worry about and could be easily defeated through simply washing our hands?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Why does everyone think an invasion is imminent when the Ukrainian gov't itself says it is overblown? "an invasion is imminent and our country will soon know death" is a great way to terrify investors and also spark a panic
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Why does everyone think an invasion is imminent when the Ukrainian gov't itself says it is overblown? What they’re actually saying is that Americans could use less dramatic language.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
there's cost/incentive to think about too. let's say putin's bluffing, then starting a panic would mean you self-inflicted wounds on the ukrainian economy and your own political standing. Let's say putin's not bluffing, then you're political career's over anyway from either a lost war or him installing a puppet regime. why take a stupid risk?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:there's cost/incentive to think about too. let's say putin's bluffing, then starting a panic would mean you self-inflicted wounds on the ukrainian economy and your own political standing. Let's say putin's not bluffing, then you're political career's over anyway from either a lost war or him installing a puppet regime. why take a stupid risk? You'd think losing a war would guarantee defeat, but Pashinyan's still in charge in Armenia somehow. I agree about Zelensky's incentives in general though. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Feb 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Why does everyone think an invasion is imminent when the Ukrainian gov't itself says it is overblown? Because the Ukranian government has (absolutely legitimate) reasons to downplay the threat it's under. At this point, my understanding of the situation is that the Russian military has been given a genuine mission for some kind of military operation in Ukraine. Whether or not Putin gives the final green light, or he only intended it as brinksmanship in the first place, is only up to him. So if it's a bluff, the Russian military isn't in on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:If you think this crisis has brought NATO together and unified a Europe that was skeptical of the US after Trump behind the US again, I assume this is being said with significant sarcasm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I assume this is being said with significant sarcasm. No, NATO's been extremely united on this despite people complaining about Germany dragging their feet or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:22
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I thought this was an interesting thread on the issue of the infamous promise to Russia not to expand NATO eastward. The short version is that some kind of guarantee was made, but that doesn't mean everyone understood it exactly the same way, Russia didn't get it in writing (rookie mistake), and basically that no guarantee is forever. I think Russia has plenty of reason to feel betrayed since the guarantee didn't even last a decade, but obviously YMMV. based off that picture, i'm guessing it wasn't a deal with russia tho
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because the Ukrainian government is trying to keep an already struggling economy on the rails, not that they don't believe military action is not coming. Its an outward appearance move. If they truly believed nothing would happen they would not be seeking as much help as they have been. https://twitter.com/Kevinliptakcnn/status/1488934224623284225
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:based off that picture, i'm guessing it wasn't a deal with russia tho Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union. If people want to make the case that the guarantees made to Gorbachev were null and void the day the Soviet Union ended, it's ahistorical since that's not what was said to Yeltsin at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union. If people want to make the case that the guarantees made to Gorbachev were null and void the day the Soviet Union ended, it's ahistorical since that's not what was said to Yeltsin at the time. I mean that's the case that the tweet you linked makes
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:An issue is that if Putin is genuinely on the fence, he's been offered basically no off ramp that isn't total humiliation. Maybe there's secret diplomacy going on that can give him and off ramp like Khruschev got for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but so far every indication is that the West would rather watch Ukraine get invaded (not like it hurts them) than be seen as being insufficiently tough. Not that I think Russia's demands were serious either, so there's certainly blame to go around for the poor state of public diplomacy. If the NATO demands are really as unlikely to be met as Russia's demands were, doesn't the act of making those demands actually create space for Putin to withdraw? He can say, "We did not give in to NATO's demands!" and claim that as a win while minimizing that his own demands weren't met, either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I mean that's the case that the tweet you linked makes It's one part of a broader discussion on why the sides view the guarantees differently today, not one weird trick to make guarantees not matter at all. In any case, Yeltsin believed he'd received assurances as well. Tbf I do agree with you in a sense that that's why the US did it though. Like yeah we made the commitments, but Russia's weaker now, so gently caress them, we'll do what we want. surf rock posted:If the NATO demands are really as unlikely to be met as Russia's demands were, doesn't the act of making those demands actually create space for Putin to withdraw? He can say, "We did not give in to NATO's demands!" and claim that as a win while minimizing that his own demands weren't met, either. No, because real progress has been made toward Ukrainian integration in the Western alliance during the crisis. Putin needs something to show for all of this or he just made the situation worse for no reason. Which may be the end result! I'm not saying he's made good decisions here, just that nobody's making it any easier for him to back down. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Feb 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:37
|
|