Russia/Ukraine

Mwelolo said:
How have they buddied up with Putin and his regime?

They have put strong sanctions on Russia and given a fortune in weapons and financial aid to Ukraine to fight them.
Click to expand...
They have yes. But prior to that for decades they strengthened ties, including finance, to Russia. Trump lost the election and the mood started to change. Post invasion EU pressure may have significantly contributed in the decision to sanction the RF as hard as they have done.
I am not sure the US cares who is in charge in Kiev.
 
Hap said:
They have yes. But prior to that for decades they strengthened ties, including finance, to Russia. Trump lost the election and the mood started to change. Post invasion EU pressure may have significantly contributed in the decision to sanction the RF as hard as they have done.
I am not sure the US cares who is in charge in Kiev.
Click to expand...
I think it was quite reasonable to strengthen ties with Russi after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The US cared enough about who was in charge in Kiev for the CIA to effectively arrange a coup.
 
Last edited:
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions about NATO funding being put forward on this thread. NATO members do not put money into a central fund for NATO military spending.

(There is a small "common funding" budget for administrative overheads but it's peanuts relatively speaking - only 0.3% of total allied defence spending - and the US is not the biggest single contributor to it).

The main funding that most people talk about, the 2% of GDP, is what the countries allocate to their own defence spending, not some centralised NATO military budget.

Because the US has the biggest military budget of any of the NATO members, what they spend on their military dwarfs what the other members spend but let's be clear, what the US spends is what it chooses to spend on its own defence needs.

It is true that whatever defence forces or equipment each member country has, can at least theoretically be provided to NATO for defence activities and military operations but it's still their own defence spending, not part of some centralised NATO military budget (because there isn't one).
 
Liamo said:
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions about NATO funding being put forward on this thread. NATO members do not put money into a central fund for NATO military spending.

(There is a small "common funding" budget for administrative overheads but it's peanuts relatively speaking - only 0.3% of total allied defence spending - and the US is not the biggest single contributor to it).

The main funding that most people talk about, the 2% of GDP, is what the countries allocate to their own defence spending, not some centralised NATO military budget.

Because the US has the biggest military budget of any of the NATO members, what they spend on their military dwarfs what the other members spend but let's be clear, what the US spends is what it chooses to spend on its own defence needs.

It is true that whatever defence forces or equipment each member country has, can at least theoretically be provided to NATO for defence activities and military operations but it's still their own defence spending, not part of some centralised NATO military budget (because there isn't one).
Click to expand...
The NATO agreement was that all member states would commit 2% of their GDP to spending on defence.

Most member states did not achieve this, it’s understandable that member states like the US and the UK who have met the target were not happy about this.

The US in particular as they are by far the biggest single contributor to NATO.

No misconception on my part.
 
Last edited:
Liamo said:
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions about NATO funding being put forward on this thread. NATO members do not put money into a central fund for NATO military spending.

(There is a small "common funding" budget for administrative overheads but it's peanuts relatively speaking - only 0.3% of total allied defence spending - and the US is not the biggest single contributor to it).

The main funding that most people talk about, the 2% of GDP, is what the countries allocate to their own defence spending, not some centralised NATO military budget.

Because the US has the biggest military budget of any of the NATO members, what they spend on their military dwarfs what the other members spend but let's be clear, what the US spends is what it chooses to spend on its own defence needs.

It is true that whatever defence forces or equipment each member country has, can at least theoretically be provided to NATO for defence activities and military operations but it's still their own defence spending, not part of some centralised NATO military budget (because there isn't one).
Click to expand...
trump and the far right libertarian voices and Russian shills have successfully pushed this narrative and people have bought into it
 
Mwelolo said:
The NATO agreement was that all member states would commit 2% of their GDP to spending on defence.

Most member states did not achieve this, it’s understandable that member states like the US and the UK who have met the target were not happy about this.

The US in particular as they are by far the biggest single contributor to NATO.

No misconception on my part.
Click to expand...
Yes there is - right there. The US is not the biggest single contributor to NATO. They are the country that spends the most on their own defence budget.

What they spend on their military budget does not go to NATO. Some of their forces might be used for NATO operations but their money is not used by NATO (apart from the small amount they put into the common funding overhead budget).
 
They are the biggest single contributor to NATO operations.

They are able to bring far, far more to the party than anyone else and that has underwritten NATO since its inception.

This when some member states have not even stumped up the agreed 2% spending on their own defence budgets.
 
Last edited:
Many posters on this thread don't seem to aware of the history of this conflict.

Everything you need to know about Russia, Ukraine and the US is set out very clearly in this article by Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

www.google.com

Why Won't the US Help Negotiate a Peaceful End to the War in Ukraine? — Jeffrey D. Sachs

For goodness' sake, negotiate! For the fifth time since 2008, Russia has proposed to negotiate with the U.S. over security arrangements, this time in proposals made by President Vladimir Putin on June 14, 2024. Four previous times, the U.S. rejected the offer of negotiations
www.google.com www.google.com
 
iamborome said:
Many posters on this thread don't seem to aware of the history of this conflict.

Everything you need to know about Russia, Ukraine and the US is set out very clearly in this article by Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

www.google.com

Why Won't the US Help Negotiate a Peaceful End to the War in Ukraine? — Jeffrey D. Sachs

For goodness' sake, negotiate! For the fifth time since 2008, Russia has proposed to negotiate with the U.S. over security arrangements, this time in proposals made by President Vladimir Putin on June 14, 2024. Four previous times, the U.S. rejected the offer of negotiations
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...
So if Ukraine's position is they do not wish to negotiate a peace until the invader leaves their land what can the US do?

Would it not be better for Russia to end this illegal invasion, return their fighters back to their families and then start a dialogue?
 
SuedeDenimSecretPolice said:
So if Ukraine's position is they do not wish to negotiate a peace until the invader leaves their land what can the US do?

Would it not be better for Russia to end this illegal invasion, return their fighters back to their families and then start a dialogue?
Click to expand...

If you read the article Russia has consistently tried to start a dialogue but negotiations have been scuppered by the US, even after an agreement was reached in the early stages of the conflict.
 
This would appear to be at the core of the article
There are three core issues for Russia: Ukraine’s neutrality (non-NATO enlargement), Crimea remaining in Russian hands, and boundary changes in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. The first two are almost surely non-negotiable. The end of NATO enlargement is the fundamental casus belli. Crimea is also core for Russia, as Crimea has been home to Russia’s Black Sea fleet since 1783 and is fundamental to Russia’s national security.
Click to expand...
The first issue is something of a moot point. NATO has expended and now touches Russia from the Artic to the Black Sea. Sorry Vlad. Why not have a go at NOT sending troops into neighbouring countries? Be a "good" neighbour. Acknowledge (like the UK have had to do) that your Empire/Hegemony was founded on fear and conquest and it is falling apart. As Princess Leia would tell you, the tighter you try to hold onto something the more will it slip through your fingers. NATO enlargement as a "Casus Belli" is bourn from their own deeds and actions. The repeated invasion of neighbouring states with extreme violence is not ever going to endear you to them. Hence the attitudes of the Fins, Baltic States, Poland and others. Russia is not trusted and has historically behaved as an aggressor with an expansionist agenda. To claim that those states entering a defensive pact is a threat to their security is nonsense, a convenient scare story for their own population but with little credibility elsewhere.

Secondly, Crimea. Russia no historical right to Crimea. It was taken by force from the Ottoman Empire by Peter the Great in 1774 establishing an independent Tatar state. In 1783 Catherine the Great annexed it and subsequent attempts to re-establish such a state was probably stopped by the mass deportation of over 200,000 Tatars to Siberia under Stalin. So the Russian claim to Crimea is one based on a desire for a naval base in the Black Sea. They have one at Novorossiysk, make do with that. Sevastopol is a symbol of Russian prestige that is true, but one to which they have little historical right. Portraying Sevastopol as "fundamental to Russia's national security" is just further rubbish. Novorossiysk is one reason but there is another very simple geographical reason, the Bosphorus. You cannot deploy a "blue water" navy from Sevastopol.

This ill conceived adventure was always doomed to failure once the SMO descended into chaos, Russia could never successfully occupy a resistant Ukraine. That they have persisted is down to Putin and his enablers who cannot countenance failure as that will in all likelihood lead to their own loss of power (and probably a heart beat)

Oh and the "Minsk Agreements" were negotiated to stop the fighting AFTER the 2014 invasion of Ukraine by Russia and were largely broken/ignored by Russian "agents" the DPR and LPR who were signatories to the agreement.
 
There’s no point negotiating any agreement with a party who, through breaking numerous previous agreements, has shown it has no intention of abiding by them.

Peace today, would see Russia rearm and return as soon as it was able to. Ukraine appears to be the first of a number of counties Russia intends to annex. Some Russia media commentators have said this very clearly out loud. Which, when you consider who controls what is said in the Russian media, is not something to discount.

A conflict was inevitable sadly.
 
Muttley said:
This would appear to be at the core of the article

The first issue is something of a moot point. NATO has expended and now touches Russia from the Artic to the Black Sea. Sorry Vlad. Why not have a go at NOT sending troops into neighbouring countries? Be a "good" neighbour. Acknowledge (like the UK have had to do) that your Empire/Hegemony was founded on fear and conquest and it is falling apart. As Princess Leia would tell you, the tighter you try to hold onto something the more will it slip through your fingers. NATO enlargement as a "Casus Belli" is bourn from their own deeds and actions. The repeated invasion of neighbouring states with extreme violence is not ever going to endear you to them. Hence the attitudes of the Fins, Baltic States, Poland and others. Russia is not trusted and has historically behaved as an aggressor with an expansionist agenda. To claim that those states entering a defensive pact is a threat to their security is nonsense, a convenient scare story for their own population but with little credibility elsewhere.

Secondly, Crimea. Russia no historical right to Crimea. It was taken by force from the Ottoman Empire by Peter the Great in 1774 establishing an independent Tatar state. In 1783 Catherine the Great annexed it and subsequent attempts to re-establish such a state was probably stopped by the mass deportation of over 200,000 Tatars to Siberia under Stalin. So the Russian claim to Crimea is one based on a desire for a naval base in the Black Sea. They have one at Novorossiysk, make do with that. Sevastopol is a symbol of Russian prestige that is true, but one to which they have little historical right. Portraying Sevastopol as "fundamental to Russia's national security" is just further rubbish. Novorossiysk is one reason but there is another very simple geographical reason, the Bosphorus. You cannot deploy a "blue water" navy from Sevastopol.

This ill conceived adventure was always doomed to failure once the SMO descended into chaos, Russia could never successfully occupy a resistant Ukraine. That they have persisted is down to Putin and his enablers who cannot countenance failure as that will in all likelihood lead to their own loss of power (and probably a heart beat)

Oh and the "Minsk Agreements" were negotiated to stop the fighting AFTER the 2014 invasion of Ukraine by Russia and were largely broken/ignored by Russian "agents" the DPR and LPR who were signatories to the agreement.
Click to expand...
That's similar to the information that I have been reading, once you get past all the obvious propaganda. Much appreciated.
 
It's being reported that no agreement has been reached on Ukraine using Western long range missiles in Russia.

Starmer is talking up the meeting but it doesn't look like he has got what he was after.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top