NATO relations with Ukraine

[tsmmiller]

Methinks Ukraine would find a nuclear deterrent quite handy at the moment....

We should send them a bunch of model rockets.

VERY large models.

 

[dr wogz]

https://locprecision.com/collections/rockets-7-675-diameter/products/ypat75

 

[Peartree]

Interesting read. IMHO, Putin sees himself as the new Czar of Russia and is working to reclaim former Russian territories one piece at a time.

I would replace "Czar of Russia" with, "Premier of the Soviet Union", but, yeah.

 

[tsmmiller]

I would replace "Czar of Russia" with, "Premier of the Soviet Union", but, yeah.

Nah, let's go with Czar, just because we all know what they did to the last Czar they had.

 

[JamesS]

Interesting read. IMHO, Putin sees himself as the new Czar of Russia and is working to reclaim former Russian territories one piece at a time.

The Kieven Rus - Belarus, Russia (Moscow), Ukraine (Kiev).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus'
Putin being a devout Russian Orthodox Christian. When Vladimir The Great converted basically making it the primary Russian religion, of which Kiev was the center. Ukraine being part of NATO would make it very difficult to reunite those territories into a single Russia.

Not sure how much (or quality of) perspective it might add, but watched Viking movie on amazon prime recently. It's a decent interesting/entertaining watch if you have time; I recommend Russian w/ english subtitles instead of the english dub.

 

[amiles]

...the USA, UK and Russia promised to respect and defend Ukrainian sovereignty.

Not quite. The commitment is to respect the sovereignty and borders, not to defend them. That's an important distinction. Only one country is in violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

 

[Jim Hinton]

Not quite. The commitment is to respect the sovereignty and borders, not to defend them. That's an important distinction. Only one country is in violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

NATO was formed to defend against offensive actions by the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Neither the USSR or the Warsaw Pact exists any longer. When those entities disbanded, it was done with the understanding that NATO would not try to recruit any the former SSRs. I think we should take a hard look at who seems to be picking a fight in eastern Europe.
Jim

 

[Bill S]

NATO was formed to defend against offensive actions by the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Neither the USSR or the Warsaw Pact exists any longer. When those entities disbanded, it was done with the understanding that NATO would not try to recruit any the former SSRs. I think we should take a hard look at who seems to be picking a fight in eastern Europe.
Jim

Historically speaking, it has been the tendency for countries with that are having internal problems (of various kinds) to pick a fight with another country to whip up patriotic feelings and wallpaper over the existing problems (albiet temporarily). It also allows said country to enact various wartime restrictions that somehow never go away afterwards. We're being played here.

 

[Woody's Workshop]

Nah, let's go with Czar, just because we all know what they did to the last Czar they had.

Yea...But...Who did it to the Czar and his family and what did Russia turn into afterwards?
Not sure that is what the world needs to see?
Maybe we could replace Putin with Trump?

 

[boatgeek]

NATO was formed to defend against offensive actions by the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Neither the USSR or the Warsaw Pact exists any longer. When those entities disbanded, it was done with the understanding that NATO would not try to recruit any the former SSRs. I think we should take a hard look at who seems to be picking a fight in eastern Europe.
Jim

Sure, let's take a hard look at who's picking a fight in Eastern Europe. Which country has invaded/taken chunks of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova... Don't think that's NATO. If Russia doesn't want former SSRs to feel like they need NATO to defend them, they have a clear course of action. Don't threaten to/actually invade their neighbors. With apologies to Princess Leia, the more Putin tightens his grip, the more countries slip through his fingers.

Let's be real. Regardless of NATO's potential ability to put missiles within a few hundred miles of [St. Petersburg or Moscow], they aren't going to launch the first strike. That would be an invitation for nuclear war. Furthermore, as you said, NATO is a mutual defense treaty. If Ukraine decided to get frisky and invade Russia on their own, they'd be on their own.

 

[Jim Hinton]

Sure, let's take a hard look at who's picking a fight in Eastern Europe. Which country has invaded/taken chunks of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova... Don't think that's NATO. If Russia doesn't want former SSRs to feel like they need NATO to defend them, they have a clear course of action. Don't threaten to/actually invade their neighbors. With apologies to Princess Leia, the more Putin tightens his grip, the more countries slip through his fingers.

Let's be real. Regardless of NATO's potential ability to put missiles within a few hundred miles of [St. Petersburg or Moscow], they aren't going to launch the first strike. That would be an invitation for nuclear war. Furthermore, as you said, NATO is a mutual defense treaty. If Ukraine decided to get frisky and invade Russia on their own, they'd be on their own.

The US does not have any form of mutual defense treaty with Ukraine or any other former SSR. If we did, Putin would be understandably angry. He doesn't want NATO in his back yard. The US isn't too happy about Cuba and Venezuela. The root of the issue is NATO trying to bring Ukraine into the alliance. It's not a friendly world out there and NATO's actions have done nothing to calm the situation. We have no national interests in eastern Europe that can justify the loss of a single American soldier, sailor, or marine.

Jim

 

[Bravo52]

We have no national interests in eastern Europe that can justify the loss of a single American soldier, sailor, or marine.

...or Airman or Guardian.

 

[Jim Hinton]

...or Airman or Guardian.

Right you are, Bravo 52. I regret my oversight. I'm a USCG vet, I should know better

Jim

 

[boatgeek]

The US does not have any form of mutual defense treaty with Ukraine or any other former SSR. If we did, Putin would be understandably angry. He doesn't want NATO in his back yard. The US isn't too happy about Cuba and Venezuela. The root of the issue is NATO trying to bring Ukraine into the alliance. It's not a friendly world out there and NATO's actions have done nothing to calm the situation. We have no national interests in eastern Europe that can justify the loss of a single American soldier, sailor, or marine.

Jim

There is a very long distance between "I'm unhappy about a situation" and "I'm invading." Are we unhappy about Cuba and Venezuela? Sure! Are we sending troops? Absolutely not! (at least not since Bay of Pigs*/Cuban Missile Crisis) As previously noted, Russia has already invaded Ukraine once and annexed Crimea. And you want to blame NATO? Fascinating.

I respectfully disagree with you about the root of the issue. Backed by several of the items upthread, I believe that the root of the issue is that Putin wants Ukraine to be a client state of Russia, much like most of Eastern Europe was during the Cold War. Ukraine's current government doesn't believe that's in their best interest (see also, Holodomor). They are interested in joining NATO as a hedge against Russian aggression. If Putin didn't throw his weight around trying to create client states, there would be a lot fewer nations on his borders looking to join NATO.

You'll also note from several items upthread that I'm all for giving Ukraine means to defend themselves, but not for sending any US servicemembers there or starting a shooting war elsewhere.

* Technically, no US servicemembers involved, but you get the point.

 

[Arnie]

There is a very long distance between "I'm unhappy about a situation" and "I'm invading." Are we unhappy about Cuba and Venezuela? Sure! Are we sending troops? Absolutely not! (at least not since Bay of Pigs*/Cuban Missile Crisis) As previously noted, Russia has already invaded Ukraine once and annexed Crimea. And you want to blame NATO? Fascinating.

I respectfully disagree with you about the root of the issue. Backed by several of the items upthread, I believe that the root of the issue is that Putin wants Ukraine to be a client state of Russia, much like most of Eastern Europe was during the Cold War. Ukraine's current government doesn't believe that's in their best interest (see also, Holodomor). They are interested in joining NATO as a hedge against Russian aggression. If Putin didn't throw his weight around trying to create client states, there would be a lot fewer nations on his borders lookin

The US does not have any form of mutual defense treaty with Ukraine or any other former SSR. If we did, Putin would be understandably angry. He doesn't want NATO in his back yard. The US isn't too happy about Cuba and Venezuela. The root of the issue is NATO trying to bring Ukraine into the alliance. It's not a friendly world out there and NATO's actions have done nothing to calm the situation. We have no national interests in eastern Europe that can justify the loss of a single American soldier, sailor, or marine.

Jim

There is a very long distance between "I'm unhappy about a situation" and "I'm invading." Are we unhappy about Cuba and Venezuela? Sure! Are we sending troops? Absolutely not! (at least not since Bay of Pigs*/Cuban Missile Crisis) As previously noted, Russia has already invaded Ukraine once and annexed Crimea. And you want to blame NATO? Fascinating.

I respectfully disagree with you about the root of the issue. Backed by several of the items upthread, I believe that the root of the issue is that Putin wants Ukraine to be a client state of Russia, much like most of Eastern Europe was during the Cold War. Ukraine's current government doesn't believe that's in their best interest (see also, Holodomor). They are interested in joining NATO as a hedge against Russian aggression. If Putin didn't throw his weight around trying to create client states, there would be a lot fewer nations on his borders looking to join NATO.

You'll also note from several items upthread that I'm all for giving Ukraine means to defend themselves, but not for sending any US servicemembers there or starting a shooting war elsewhere.

* Technically, no US servicemembers involved, but you get the point.

The Ukraine is in a no-win situation. If it joins NATO it will lead to a Russian invasion plus retaliation by all of NATO because the NATO treaty is worded in a way that makes an attack on one NATO nation, an attack on every NATO nation If they don't join NATO Russia will still try to annex them, but at least then you'll have universal world opinion against Russia because they no longer will have the excuse that their border has been infringed upon by another military alliance.

 

[Jim Hinton]

There is a very long distance between "I'm unhappy about a situation" and "I'm invading." Are we unhappy about Cuba and Venezuela? Sure! Are we sending troops? Absolutely not! (at least not since Bay of Pigs*/Cuban Missile Crisis) As previously noted, Russia has already invaded Ukraine once and annexed Crimea. And you want to blame NATO? Fascinating.

I respectfully disagree with you about the root of the issue. Backed by several of the items upthread, I believe that the root of the issue is that Putin wants Ukraine to be a client state of Russia, much like most of Eastern Europe was during the Cold War. Ukraine's current government doesn't believe that's in their best interest (see also, Holodomor). They are interested in joining NATO as a hedge against Russian aggression. If Putin didn't throw his weight around trying to create client states, there would be a lot fewer nations on his borders looking to join NATO.

You'll also note from several items upthread that I'm all for giving Ukraine means to defend themselves, but not for sending any US servicemembers there or starting a shooting war elsewhere.

* Technically, no US servicemembers involved, but you get the point.

The US has no national interests in that area, It's simply none of our business. After it's last general election, Ukraine imprisoned the opposition party candidate and shut down all of the opposition party media outlets. Those edicts are still in force. Kind of sounds a lot like Putin and the CCP, doesn't it? Not even a moral high ground to be had here. For what it's worth my military service was during the late Vietnam era and the cold war. I'm definitely not a member of the USSR fan club. My kneejerk response is to go fight Russians and cheer on NATO. Knee jerk response is a really crappy reason to be morally attached to a war. Just supplying material is still enabling a war that we have no good reason to be involved in.

Jim

 

[cerving]

The US, Russia/USSR, and China have a long history of supplying weapons/supplies and occasionally "advisors" to countries involved in a conflict in which they do not wish to go all-in on. The US' national interest is in protecting the stability of the region (and thus our economy, since we're trading partners with them)... not necessarily any individual country per se.

 

[afadeev]

In related news, far-left and far-right extremists found another cause to unite them (other than anti-vax):
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60297302

After it's last general election, Ukraine imprisoned the opposition party candidate and shut down all of the opposition party media outlets. Those edicts are still in force. Kind of sounds a lot like Putin and the CCP, doesn't it?

It might, if it was true. Alas, your examples sound far-fetched, and reads like something that someone write in Kremlin.
Here is what credible 3rd parties wrote about elections in Ukraine, and country in general. The country is not without problems (seams like corruption is a thing), but "elections were considered generally competitive and credible" and "media landscape features considerable pluralism, and open criticism of the government and investigation of powerful figures"

It appears they did ban Communist party, if that's what's bothering you?

And no, the loosing presidential candidate was no imprisoned, and he did concede his loss without drama:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/ukraine/freedom-world/2020

The US has no national interests in that area, It's simply none of our business.

The premise that US has not national interests in Central/Eastern Europe is plain false, as has been discussed earlier:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/nato-relations-with-ukraine.155158/#post-2215906

 

[Enocelot]

Not quite. The commitment is to respect the sovereignty and borders, not to defend them. That's an important distinction. Only one country is in violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

You know, the Brits knew the USA knew that the Ukrainians would exchange their arsenal because the other powers' shields would make their own redundant.

All three countries are in violation.

If you are renegeing on a deal beacuse Ukraine is not worth WW III then tell it like it is. Not sure the Ukrainians wouldn't even agree with you.

Though I also strongly suggest that they regert trusting the USA and the UK.

Also, Britsih and American behaviour makes it extremely difficult to explain to Iran and N.Korea why they do not need nukes.

It will also be difficult to justify asking Poland , Australia, Japan or dare I say Taiwan from attempting to develop their own capabilities.

So yes, quite.

Lest you really want to argue that the threat addressed in Budapest was of British and American invasion of Ukraine....

 

[Arnie]

You know, the Brits knew the USA knew that the Ukrainians would exchange their arsenal because the other powers' shields would make their own redundant.

Back that statement up with facts

 

[Enocelot]

?

 

[Enocelot]

Nato has no business dealing with Ukraine.

The UK and USA has unilateral obligations, as the Ukraine would be under no existential threat from Russia now, if it weren't for the Budapest Memorandum.

There is a reason why Nato didn't enter that agreement.

The Brits and Americans did, I guess knowing that they would betray their word as needed in the future.

Of course during the Euphoria of the id-90s no one foresaw Putin.

But no one also foresaw the US and the UK being fair-weather friends.

 

[Peartree]

This headline today doesn't move the needle, but it's an interesting side story created by the current tension.

With fears still high that the Kremlin may soon launch a new invasion ofU kraine, it's not surprising that a curious flight by a U.S. Army HH-60M, a "dustoff" or air ambulance variant of the Black Hawk, to a checkpoint along the Polish-Ukrainian border last night drew significant attention on social media. For some, the scene had almost a clandestine Bridge Of Spies feel to it. The War Zone can now confirm that this helicopter was retrieving a U.S. service member assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine who was experiencing an unspecified medical emergency.

Read the rest of the article here:

Why a US Blackhawk helicopter landed on the Poland-Ukraine border last night

 

[user 35280]

https://clarksvillenow.com/local/10...leave-fort-campbell-for-deployment-to-europe/

 

[JamesS]

A whole lot has happened in a week, even more so once the China olympics closed. China says they support an independent Ukraine, but they'll probably just watch on the sidelines and take notes for Taiwan. Wouldn't surprise me if they even agreed to buy (more) gas from Russia.

It almost seems like Putin's intent was never going to change regardless of any talks, especially when he says on Russian television that an independent Ukraine was a mistake that needed to be corrected.

Germany cancelling Nordstream 2 and new and other sanctions coming - I'm sure Putin knew these would be coming so it appears he's committed. How long before this "peacekeeping force" arrives in Kiev?

 

[afadeev]

If anyone is interested: "The Crisis in Ukraine: A Conversation with Amb. Bill Taylor "

https://cornell.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_U1N__t7qQJue5plLap4HIQ

 

[Dotini]

Recently the New York Times has published its opinion that the war has entered a prolonged stalemate phase, potentially lasting through the coming year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-stalemate.html
Elsewhere, leaders such as Macron, Scholtz, Boris Johnson, Anthony Blinken, Admiral Mike Mullen and Henry Kissinger have surprisingly hinted or even openly suggested the February 24th borders could be the basis for a cease fire and peace deal.

https://original.antiwar.com/Ted_Snider/2022/12/22/five-statements-that-could-change-the-war/
But there is another view that the war will be settled decisively in the coming weeks and months by a massive Russian offensive. Scott Ritter and Col. Douglas Macgregor have published extensively on this possibility.

 

[boatgeek]

Recently the New York Times has published its opinion that the war has entered a prolonged stalemate phase, potentially lasting through the coming year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-stalemate.html
Elsewhere, leaders such as Macron, Scholtz, Boris Johnson, Anthony Blinken, Admiral Mike Mullen and Henry Kissinger have surprisingly hinted or even openly suggested the February 24th borders could be the basis for a cease fire and peace deal.

I wouldn’t put much stock in any of those except Scholz and Macron. Everyone else is out of power, some for years or decades.

https://original.antiwar.com/Ted_Snider/2022/12/22/five-statements-that-could-change-the-war/
But there is another view that the war will be settled decisively in the coming weeks and months by a massive Russian offensive. Scott Ritter and Col. Douglas Macgregor have published extensively on this possibility.

While it’s possible that Russia will make a successful counteroffensive, it’s hard to imagine how that would happen since their 70% of their forces in Ukraine are recently mobilized with little training. They’re also losing ground everywhere, even losing the recent gains in Bakhmut that had everyone so worried last week. Not to mention that Russia tried the big offensive to take the country once-back in February. If it didn’t work then when Russia has all of the advantages, why would it work now?

Interesting that you didn’t mention a fourth possibility-a successful Ukrainian attack that leads to a quick victory.

 

[CalebJ]

I wouldn’t put much stock in any of those except Scholz and Macron. Everyone else is out of power, some for years or decades.

While it’s possible that Russia will make a successful counteroffensive, it’s hard to imagine how that would happen since their 70% of their forces in Ukraine are recently mobilized with little training. They’re also losing ground everywhere, even losing the recent gains in Bakhmut that had everyone so worried last week. Not to mention that Russia tried the big offensive to take the country once-back in February. If it didn’t work then when Russia has all of the advantages, why would it work now?

Interesting that you didn’t mention a fourth possibility-a successful Ukrainian attack that leads to a quick victory.

It's also worth observing that in the article Dotini linked, neither Scholz or Macron hinted or openly suggested accepting the February 24th borders.

Macron said that "We need to prepare what we are ready to do, how we protect our allies and member states, and how to give guarantees to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table. One of the essential points we must address – as President Putin has always said – is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia."

So offensive weapons on Russian borders are a topic of discussion...

After criticizing Russia for "destroying the peace order we worked on for so many decades," the German chancellor made a startling addition. He said there was a "willingness" to engage with Putin on issues of arms control and missile deployment. He said that "We have to go back to the agreements which we had in the last decades and which were the basis for peace and security order in Europe." And then he said that "all questions of common security could be solved and discussed. There is a willingness to do so."

Likewise - arms control and missile deployment are on Scholz's mind.

 

[Dotini]

I wouldn’t put much stock in any of those except Scholz and Macron. Everyone else is out of power, some for years or decades.

While it’s possible that Russia will make a successful counteroffensive, it’s hard to imagine how that would happen since their 70% of their forces in Ukraine are recently mobilized with little training. They’re also losing ground everywhere, even losing the recent gains in Bakhmut that had everyone so worried last week. Not to mention that Russia tried the big offensive to take the country once-back in February. If it didn’t work then when Russia has all of the advantages, why would it work now?

Interesting that you didn’t mention a fourth possibility-a successful Ukrainian attack that leads to a quick victory.

Thanks for a very reasonable reply! Also, you asked a great question.

I guess the answer to the question depends upon the narrative that is our common set of assumptions. I get that 95% of the US people, government and media buy into the mainstream narrative. But I'm one of those iconoclasts who takes mavericks like Scott Ritter and Colonel Douglas Macgregor seriously. They both are published widely on YouTube and in The American Conservative (I've been a subscriber for 20 years). So these guys have convinced me that lots of things have changed since the initial weeks of the invasion, particularly that naive Russian expectations of a quick capitulation or negotiation were firmly dashed by a heavy dose of reality - by how well prepared and equipped the Ukraines were. But to appreciate all the details, I refer you to the voluminous works of Col Macgregor and Scott Ritter.

With regard to the 4th possibility you mention, I agree it's possible, even desirable for 95% of us, or all of us if it can prevent widening into WW3. But I think it would entail NATO - at least the US - jumping in with massive external force such as a no-fly zone and US boots on the front lines. Like Joint Chief of Staff General Milley said to Biden and in the NY Times, the Ukrainians have done all that can be expected of them. He implied it was time to negotiate. Either that or a lot more help on the ground.