Ukraine

[Silvanus]

Following the dissolution of the USSR, a third of the ex-Soviet nuclear weapons were in Ukraine. They fully denuclearised their arsenal, in exchange for several legal guarantees expressed in the Budapest Memorandum.

The text of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum reads as follows;

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Underlining mine. Particularly interesting is the explicit mention of existing borders.

Just another international legal agreement (along with the Minsk Accords), freely signed and agreed by Russia, which has been contravened by the actions of the last 3 days.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Both can be true.

...so, obvious question?

 

[Seanchaidh]

1- When the troops were all in Russia, and hadn't crossed the border, you endlessly insisted that it was a routine placement and we were just moaning about troops in their own country.

You were. They had every right to be where they were and the case made that they were going to do something more than sit in Russia (and Belarus) was presented quite poorly. The United States was the boy who cried wolf saying "trust me! we have intelligence!" So did Colin Powell waving around vials at the UN. Can we see anything that would corroborate the claims being made? Well, no. But trust us, it's there.

2- Then they marched over the border. And you just instantly dropped that line-- no recognition that you'd just been shown to be talking a load of bollocks. The excuse changed to "Oh, borders are meaningless, what really matters is they're not actually shooting at anyone!"

They weren't.

3- Then they literally declare war and start shooting. And of course, instantly, the excuse shifts again. Zero recognition that your last excuse has just turned out to be bollocks as well.

They're literally doing exactly what you've been insisting for page after page would never happen. You've been swearing till you're blue in the face that warnings of Russia declaring war were all western hysteria. And then when aaaaaall those excuses get blown to pieces, is there even the slightest recognition that you were wrong?

The crucial thing about all this is that it was a series of events. It didn't all happen at once. Neither of us are clairvoyants. And people have been predicting something like this was just over the horizon repeatedly for the last several years based in part on similar troop movements. Which were then followed by nothing fucking happening. Why didn't it happen then? Who knows? And not to put too fine a point on it, but Ukrainian officials themselves were saying "Russia isn't invading" as late as 24 hours ago-- maybe even less than that, I'm not sure. There were apparent diplomatic off-ramps to this outcome, but neither the Ukraine nor the US or NATO decided to pursue them. Instead they seemed to at the same time try to call Russia's bluff while also telling everyone it wasn't a bluff. Confusing strategy, honestly. Especially the part where media were crowing that Russia's hesitation in attacking Ukraine was a product of Joe Biden's strategic genius in saying that something was going to happen while doing nothing of apparent utility to stop it.

Nope. Just shifts again, this time onto pure whataboutery about the US.

Someone proposed sanctions explicitly to target the Russian people, but you're concerned about this:

You have a complete inability to recognise or accept that you made a mistake.

The most important takeaway, obviously. Tell me, what has you being approximately correct-- eventually-- in your predictions of what will happen achieved for anyone? And how would my agreement with your sage speculations have helped brighten our world that much more?

Maybe you, as a citizen of the UK, should starve just as much as I should because the UK helped Bush lie his way into Iraq. That is what is being called for. Someone treats a white country like the US treats Iraq or Libya and there is a call to punish the people of that country in a way that neither the United States nor the UK nor the rest of that "coalition of the willing" ever had to experience. Tony Blair and George W. Bush still appear on the news to give their bloodstained opinions. The hypocrisy is just incredible. No, you shouldn't be sanctioning Russia. You shouldn't be doing shit. The US made this world, the UK happily tagged along, and the Ukraine was never anything more than a pawn to either of them; attempting to starve the masses of another country or starting world war 3 over it isn't going to change that or prove it wrong. The United States and all its very special friends should be sitting the fuck down and shutting the fuck up before they turn regrettable tragedy into nuclear exchange.

That you, in one of the countries that is absolutely guilty of, in the relevant details, exactly what Russia has done to Ukraine in your lifetime, would dismiss a comparison to the Iraq War and the sanctions that never happened in response as "whataboutery" is quite some brass.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Just another international legal agreement (along with the Minsk Accords), freely signed and agreed by Russia, which has been contravened by the actions of the last 3 days.

President Zelensky was speaking of building a nuclear arsenal again sometime in the past week which, for what it's worth, was all but an announcement of an intention to contravene that treaty himself. Doesn't seem very wise to say that in retrospect. Very confusing treatment of Russia as both definitely going to invade but also we're definitely not going to respect the possibility that Russia might invade.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

President Zelensky was speaking of building a nuclear arsenal again sometime in the past week which, for what it's worth, was all but an announcement of an intention to contravene that treaty himself. Doesn't seem very wise to say that in retrospect. Very confusing treatment of Russia as both definitely going to invade but also we're definitely not going to respect the possibility that Russia might invade.

Preemptive strikes are just attacks

 

[CM156]

Yeah, these sanctions aren't going to do shit besides getting some poor Russians killed and driving the rest to be more extreme. Like, I cannot think of a time sanctions actually worked

South Africa?

-Snip-

I have noticed that there is a segment of people who nominally describe themselves as left-wing who are willing to simp for all sorts of despotic states, seemingly as a means to oppose American/Western imperialism. When called out on this, such people frequently resort to Whataboutism as a means to derail the argument. I find it prudent to not engage with these sorts of people.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Preemptive strikes are just attacks

Indeed. But they are also a commonplace of the "rules-based international order" we live in, at least for some countries.

When called out on this, such people frequently resort to Whataboutism as a means to derail the argument. I find it prudent to not engage with these sorts of people.

People want the global hegemon and its allies to hypocritically impose sanctions targeting the people of Russia. Comparisons are absolutely justified.

Do you think that you, me, and the rest of the people of the United States should suffer hunger, shortages of medicine, and other hardships that sanctions typically result in because of what our government has done and continues to do?

South Africa?

A lot more going on there than just sanctions-- there is no peace movement in Russia that is anything like the ANC to my knowledge.

 

[tstorm823]

...so, obvious question?

Strong global leadership can inspire and encourage cooperation over conflict without war even beginning.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Strong global leadership can inspire and encourage cooperation over conflict without war even beginning.

This isn't really "strong" anymore, just "good" in some vague way.

 

[tstorm823]

This isn't really "strong" anymore, just "good" in some vague way.

Ok. If you prefer conservative critics of Biden call him "bad" instead of "weak", I accept.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Strong global leadership can inspire and encourage cooperation over conflict without war even beginning.

That's almost violently vague, thank you

 

[Hades]

President Zelensky was speaking of building a nuclear arsenal again sometime in the past week which, for what it's worth, was all but an announcement of an intention to contravene that treaty himself. Doesn't seem very wise to say that in retrospect. Very confusing treatment of Russia as both definitely going to invade but also we're definitely not going to respect the possibility that Russia might invade.

And he should. Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for their sovereignty. And since Russia broke that agreement and insist Ukraine has no sovereignty that should get their nukes back, since giving them up evidently didn't help at all.

 

[McElroy]

Not starve but get fed up and broke af.

 

[Silvanus]

The crucial thing about all this is that it was a series of events. It didn't all happen at once. Neither of us are clairvoyants. And people have been predicting something like this was just over the horizon repeatedly for the last several years based in part on similar troop movements. Which were then followed by nothing fucking happening.

No. Which were followed by Russia invading. Not that long after Russia last invaded.

You really cannot weasel out of this: An event was warned about. You incessantly repeated that the warning was hysterical. Then the specific event that was warned about HAPPENED.

Why didn't it happen then? Who knows? And not to put too fine a point on it, but Ukrainian officials themselves were saying "Russia isn't invading" as late as 24 hours ago-- maybe even less than that, I'm not sure. There were apparent diplomatic off-ramps to this outcome, but neither the Ukraine nor the US or NATO decided to pursue them.

The responsibility rests on those who failed to offer Russia enough to get them to call off the invasion, rather than the literal invading force. Farcical.

"Why oh why did Cuba refuse to take the diplomatic course of action to stop us invading? If only they'd just changed the policies we want them to change! Now we have to land at the Bay of Pigs, and it's all their fault!"

The most important takeaway, obviously. Tell me, what has you being approximately correct-- eventually-- in your predictions of what will happen achieved for anyone? And how would my agreement with your sage speculations have helped brighten our world that much more?

What an utterly pathetic snipe.

What has it accomplished? Not much, because we're on a fucking Internet forum. What impact do you expect any of our commentary to have?

And what good has been done by your incessant excuse-making and boot-licking and whataboutery? What have your comments accomplished? The same as mine, as it turns out: nothing. The sole differentiating factor being that what you insisted every step of the way has turned out to be completely, unavoidably, transparently wrong.

 

[SilentPony]

Salami tactics, I never took Putin for a Brit-com fan.

I know this is in bad taste but if you don't laugh you weep I guess.

The idea of Nukes being a deterrent was always a scam line for the military industrial sector. No one is ever going to use them; its the game over button. And so long as there's a few more dollars to make, no President or Prime Minister will launch, even during a full on D-Day style invasion.

 

[McElroy]

Not starve but get fed up and broke af. If sanctions don't even make them double check their foreign policy then it's obviously just a large bill for everyone. Worth a try nonetheless.

(Accidentally double posted, 'cause on mobile and so on)

 

[meiam]

The idea of Nukes being a deterrent was always a scam line for the military industrial sector. No one is ever going to use them; its the game over button. And so long as there's a few more dollars to make, no President or Prime Minister will launch, even during a full on D-Day style invasion.

That's true until its not, and then things gets really ugly. Putin just invaded a nation for absolutely nothing, the guy as clearly gone insane, who's to say he won't do another stupid thing.

 

[Silvanus]

President Zelensky was speaking of building a nuclear arsenal again sometime in the past week which, for what it's worth, was all but an announcement of an intention to contravene that treaty himself. Doesn't seem very wise to say that in retrospect. Very confusing treatment of Russia as both definitely going to invade but also we're definitely not going to respect the possibility that Russia might invade.

Directly taking the line of argument from the speech Putin gave 2 days ago, I see.

What Zelensky actually said was that the security guarantees contained in the Budapest Memorandum were not living up to their purpose, and that without nuclear weapons or that effective guarantee, Ukraine was at risk.

Which is entirely correct. It was a fair analysis already since it followed Russia breaking the agreement in 2014, and its been borne out again since they've broken it again now. They gave up one possible assurance (weapons) for another (the agreement), but now had neither, because Russia was no longer respecting that agreement. He was right.

Then in his speech, Putin spun that into a stated intention to rebuild a nuclear arsenal. But that's a fucking lie. It wasn't in Zelensky's comments, and no policies or other movements had been made towards rebuilding the arsenal.

===

What I really like is how similar Putin's argument here is to the Bush/Powell WMDs lie. Except Putin doesn't even claim there are weapons... he says there might be in future, based on subtext he's supposedly read into a speech, and that justifies invading. It somehow manages to be even more threadbare and obviously false than the WMDs rationale for toppling Saddam Hussein.

 

[SilentPony]

That's true until its not, and then things gets really ugly. Putin just invaded a nation for absolutely nothing, the guy as clearly gone insane, who's to say he won't do another stupid thing.

He didn't do it for nothing. There's a shit load of money to be made. Putin isn't just the head of Russia, he's the CEO, officially or not, of every Russian industry. Gas, mining, production, everything gives the Government and Putin personally a cut. Russia is the ultimate capitalist utopia because the head of state is also the head of the company.
Same reason NATO and the UN won't do jack shit. They have two choices. Sacrifice Ukraine and make a shit load of money off of Russian deals, or start WW3 and kill everyone, and make no money. And one of those is the answer they will always go with.
I mean hell the US has the largest nuclear arsenals in existence and most of our missiles can't even be launched the software and hardware are so out of date.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The idea of Nukes being a deterrent was always a scam line for the military industrial sector. No one is ever going to use them; its the game over button. And so long as there's a few more dollars to make, no President or Prime Minister will launch, even during a full on D-Day style invasion.

Ah, but who is going to do a full scale invasion of a nation they know has nuclear weapons, even if they think they won't use them? Hell of a thing to gamble on.

That's true until its not, and then things gets really ugly. Putin just invaded a nation for absolutely nothing, the guy as clearly gone insane, who's to say he won't do another stupid thing.

Why is he clearly insane? Nuclear capable nations have often invaded others based on dubious pretexts, that doesn't mean their leaders are insane, and it's not yet led to nuclear weapons being used. This one is a bit riskier than most times, but it's not that unusual.