The Invasion of Ukraine, Russia Threatens Finland/Sweden

[Heloin]

It’s not biased to support one cause but it’s bias to support another. Some 4D chess you’re working with there.

She is a journalist, and is evidently supporting the Ukrainian government cause, owing to those comments that she made.

What?

She made a comment referring to Crimea as part of Ukraine.

You really think what you’re saying makes sense and it really doesn’t. You consider it bias beyond reproach to make a factual statement.

[Novo Rossiya]

She is a journalist, and is evidently supporting the Ukrainian government cause, owing to those comments that she made.


She made a comment referring to Crimea as part of Ukraine.

If she was a journalist supporting the Russian government line, would she still be discredited?

It would depend on comments that she would make.

Though she's a journalist, and shouldn't be interjecting with her own opinion.

[Genivaria]

A Russian journalist claimed that she was allowed to vote even after admitting she was a Russian citizen with only a temporary one-year permit to live in Crimea.[121] "According to all the laws, this is illegal," she said in one interview. "I am a foreign citizen. How can I decide the destiny of the Crimean Autonomous Republic of Ukraine?"[121]

1. That lady referred to Crimea as being part of Ukraine. It obviously shows that she is biased towards Ukraine. Of course she would lie.

2. She is a journalist, so it's in her interest to make a big noise and drum up a story.

Oh c'mon now you'll hurt your back with this level of stretching.

[Genivaria]

If she was a journalist supporting the Russian government line, would she still be discredited?

It would depend on comments that she would make.

Though she's a journalist, and shouldn't be interjecting with her own opinion.

So you think that saying Russians shouldn't vote in a Crimean referendum discredits her?
And you think you're in any position to accuse someone of bias?

[Novo Rossiya]

It would depend on comments that she would make.

Though she's a journalist, and shouldn't be interjecting with her own opinion.

So you think that saying Russians shouldn't vote in a Crimean referendum discredits her?
And you think you're in any position to accuse someone of bias?

I'm saying that her essentially referring to Crimea as belonging to Ukraine discredits her.

[Segland]

So you think that saying Russians shouldn't vote in a Crimean referendum discredits her?
And you think you're in any position to accuse someone of bias?

I'm saying that her essentially referring to Crimea as belonging to Ukraine discredits her.

Why? What makes that statement any more arbitrary or biased than your claim that Crimea belongs to Russia? I'd be open to hearing a nuanced historical argument here, but I doubt I'm going to get it.

[Novus America]

Donetsk and Lugansk are pro-Russian and Russian-backed separatist provinces, and are unrecognized by about everyone else. In short, no.

Crimea had an extremely rigged referendum and then got annexed by Russia when everyone knew the referendum was bogus. The fact that they asserted troops into the territory made it far worse than the BS referendum. In short, no.

The referendum wasn't rigged at all.

If another referendum were held tomorrow, it would return the same result.

The first part has already been addressed, the referendum was not free or fair. But sure a free and fair one might still show the majority wanting to be part of Russia (although if run today it would not be possibly free or fair given it would be illegal to campaign against the annexation and the lack of political and press in Russia). Advocating self determination is illegal in Russia.

But what the heck does it do to justify Russia’s ridiculous demands to a unique and super special “sphere of influence” or “security zone” no other countries get? Even if we accepted that Crimea is legally part of Russia (again I would actually be willing to possibly do that if certain conditions were met, but they have not been) how does that give Russia the right to control Ukraine’s Foreign policy and control NATO membership as well as what NATO does on its own territory?

Crimea is only tangentially related to the topic as Russia’s demands here do not really involve Crimea.

[Genivaria]

So you think that saying Russians shouldn't vote in a Crimean referendum discredits her?
And you think you're in any position to accuse someone of bias?

I'm saying that her essentially referring to Crimea as belonging to Ukraine discredits her.

Except she didn't, she said that Crimea was defacto part of Ukraine, which it was.

[Novo Rossiya]

The referendum wasn't rigged at all.

If another referendum were held tomorrow, it would return the same result.

The first part has already been addressed, the referendum was not free or fair. But sure a free and fair one might still show the majority wanting to be part of Russia (although if run today it would not be possibly free or fair given it would be illegal to campaign against the annexation and the lack of political and press in Russia). Advocating self determination is illegal in Russia.

But what the heck does it do to justify Russia’s ridiculous demands to a unique and super special “sphere of influence” or “security zone” no other countries get? Even if we accepted that Crimea is legally part of Russia (again I would actually be willing to possibly do that if certain conditions were met, but they have not been) how does that give Russia the right to control Ukraine’s Foreign policy and control NATO membership as well as what NATO does on its own territory?

Crimea is only tangentially related to the topic as Russia’s demands here do not really involve Crimea.

Well, flirting with NATO is just the latest piece of traitorous behavior from the Ukrainian government.

Ukraine should respect it's former allies wish for security.

[The free romanians]

The only way to happen should be referendums
No forced exit

How is o zone connexted to anarchism

If I told you then you’d know the top secrets of anarchism that only the few select may know.

Anarchists like the song
I mean
Who wouldn't

[FNU]

Ukraine should respect it's former allies wish for security.

You're joking right?

[Merriwhether]

Well, flirting with NATO is just the latest piece of traitorous behavior from the Ukrainian government.

Ukraine should respect it's former allies wish for security.

"Well, flirting with her fiancé is just the latest unfaithful behavior of his ex-wife.

She should respect her former husband's desires for closed intimacy."

[Novus America]

The first part has already been addressed, the referendum was not free or fair. But sure a free and fair one might still show the majority wanting to be part of Russia (although if run today it would not be possibly free or fair given it would be illegal to campaign against the annexation and the lack of political and press in Russia). Advocating self determination is illegal in Russia.

But what the heck does it do to justify Russia’s ridiculous demands to a unique and super special “sphere of influence” or “security zone” no other countries get? Even if we accepted that Crimea is legally part of Russia (again I would actually be willing to possibly do that if certain conditions were met, but they have not been) how does that give Russia the right to control Ukraine’s Foreign policy and control NATO membership as well as what NATO does on its own territory?

Crimea is only tangentially related to the topic as Russia’s demands here do not really involve Crimea.

Well, flirting with NATO is just the latest piece of traitorous behavior from the Ukrainian government.

Ukraine should respect it's former allies wish for security.

Ukraine and the Russian Federation never had a treaty of alliance. Ukraine was never part of CSTO. Not that it would matter, having a alliance in the past would not require Ukraine to make foreign policy based on it.
FORMER allies are no NO LONGER allies.

Treason is regarded as supporting your country’s enemies. Given Russia’s open hostility and the fact Russia waged a war in East Ukraine, actually supporting Russia would be arguably traitorous.

But their is nothing traitorous in wanting to defend you country which is what Ukraine wants.

You have yet to provide WHY Ukraine would accept Russia’s unique, hypocritical and legally baseless claims that somehow Ukraine has not right to make foreign policy decisions independent of Russia.

Why does Ukraine have to accept Russia’s security demands when Russia tramples on Ukraine’s security and sovereignty?

Most Ukrainians opposed joining NATO before Russia started the war in the East.

If Russia does not want Ukraine to side with NATO, it should stop threatening Ukraine. The irony here being the more Russia threatens Ukraine the more pro NATO Ukraine becomes. Russia is its own worst enemy.

[Novo Rossiya]

You have yet to provide WHY Ukraine would accept Russia’s unique, hypocritical and legally baseless claims that somehow Ukraine has not right to make foreign policy decisions independent of Russia.

Because it will avert a war.

[The Two Jerseys]

You have yet to provide WHY Ukraine would accept Russia’s unique, hypocritical and legally baseless claims that somehow Ukraine has not right to make foreign policy decisions independent of Russia.

Because it will avert a war.

Okay Neville Chamberlain.

[Vassenor]

The first part has already been addressed, the referendum was not free or fair. But sure a free and fair one might still show the majority wanting to be part of Russia (although if run today it would not be possibly free or fair given it would be illegal to campaign against the annexation and the lack of political and press in Russia). Advocating self determination is illegal in Russia.

But what the heck does it do to justify Russia’s ridiculous demands to a unique and super special “sphere of influence” or “security zone” no other countries get? Even if we accepted that Crimea is legally part of Russia (again I would actually be willing to possibly do that if certain conditions were met, but they have not been) how does that give Russia the right to control Ukraine’s Foreign policy and control NATO membership as well as what NATO does on its own territory?

Crimea is only tangentially related to the topic as Russia’s demands here do not really involve Crimea.

Well, flirting with NATO is just the latest piece of traitorous behavior from the Ukrainian government.

Ukraine should respect it's former allies wish for security.

In other words Ukraine is beholden to whatever Russia wants and has no right to sovereignty.

[Novus America]

You have yet to provide WHY Ukraine would accept Russia’s unique, hypocritical and legally baseless claims that somehow Ukraine has not right to make foreign policy decisions independent of Russia.

Because it will avert a war.

If the US says “surrender big Diomede to avert war” should Russia do so?

This is straight extortion. No better than a street thug saying “do what I want or I shoot you”.
This is a method of robbers and rapists. Admittedly it is a reason, just an atrocious one much of the rest of the world has every reason to oppose. And in making this justification you have completely given up any claim to Russia having legal justification or moral high ground. But good you stopped pretending Russia’s claim is anything but extortion.

Besides if you have already shot the person…
Ukraine is already at war, so averting war is not really even a reason. Russia could in greatly escalate the war sure but that is likely a bluff considering it would further sink Russia’s international standing in Europe, increase support for NATO even more in Ukraine and likely also increase it in Sweden and Finland, tank Russian-German relations and incur massive sanctions. Plus Russia would likely suffer very heavy casualties in doing so.

I guess it is more “do what I say or I shoot you again”. But that is not based on any international law or any idea that is good for the world, or ironically good even for Russia.

Pure “might makes right” means Japan, the US and the PRC could agree to carve up Eastern Russia, which Russia could not stop short of nuclear suicide. Because we have far more might in the Pacific. A return the the type of world that brought us the World Wars is not in most countries’ interest, something Russia should know most of all.

[Krasny-Volny]

These are not new.

I watched an interview from 2017 when President Putin basically repeated similar talking points. His major concerns, which he keeps repeating year after year, in every single interview I've watched in 2017, 2018, and then in 2020, are:

1. The US promised Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union they would not expand NATO into Eastern Europe. They broke this promise. Russia doesn't actually care if Poland/Hungary/Romania joins NATO for domestic reasons, but for the reason that the US may then move strategic weapons into those countries, within easy striking distance of Moscow. It's the same reason the US didn't want nukes on Cuba in 1962, and the way current crisis is portrayed in Russia is eerily similar to the way the Cuban Missile Crisis was portrayed at the time in the states.

2. Going hand in hand with the above, the US placed strategic missile systems in both Romania and Poland after those countries became NATO member states. Putin's worst fears were becoming realized. He suspects Ukraine's next up for NATO membership, and the missiles will then appear there - less than a day's drive from Moscow itself.

2. The US promised Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union that it would continue to be a party to the ABM treaty, which by mutual agreement carried on as a binding treaty with the Soviet successor states. The treaty was an arms control treaty that limited the number and type of nuclear capable missile systems the US and the ex-Soviet Union were allowed to stockpile. In 2002, Bush Jr announced the US was unilaterally withdrawing from that treaty.

Putin wants a return to the status quo of the early 2000s - no missile systems in Eastern Europe from either side, by mutual agreement. Also, a return to the ABM treaty. He told Megyn Kelly in 2017 and 2018 that he's flexible on how this is carried out, and at least he's willing to talk with US leaders and NATO about it. However, he was miffed that they kept telling him to shove it rather than negotiate. Partly because they consider Russia an undemocratic, tyrannical dictatorship they don't want to negotiate with, and partly because Russia has no bargaining chip other than its own military force (which is frankly not up to snuff against the US and NATO).

Putin admitted both of these things during both his interviews - he said Russia's capabilities simply cannot match those of the US, and the US doesn't want to work with him because it considers him an enemy of democracy. But you can't blame him for reacting the way he did (and continues to do). The equivalent would be Russia pulling out of an arms control treaty with the US in 2002 without giving a reason, building up its nuke stockpile for the first time since the Cold War, and then putting ICBMs in Canada and Cuba, and hinting on a future military alliance with Mexico, meaning possibly ICBMs there too, right across the border from San Diego.

The US has slowly driven Russia into a corner from 2002 to present, 2021. And a cornered enemy may start acting irrationally.

I'm all in favor of letting Eastern European nations join NATO. I'm opposed to the way the US decided to pull out of the arms control treaty with Russia and start putting ICBMs in Poland and Romania, in effect starting a new arms race with the Kremlin. It wasn't Russia that fired the first proverbial shot here. And I'm opposed to the way the US has continually snubbed Putin, forgetting this man controls the second largest nuclear arsenal in the entire world. If we don't want the risk of billions of people dead, I see no harm in compromising with him. Compromise doesn't have to be appeasement and surrender. It doesn't have to mean abandoning US allies in Eastern Europe. But it does have to mean doing a deal with somebody the majority of Americans find unpleasant. That's politics.

[Novus America]

These are not new.

I watched an interview from 2017 when President Putin basically repeated similar talking points. His major concerns, which he keeps repeating year after year, in every single interview I've watched in 2017, 2018, and then in 2020, are:

1. The US promised Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union they would not expand NATO into Eastern Europe. They broke this promise. Russia doesn't actually care if Poland/Hungary/Romania joins NATO for domestic reasons, but for the reason that the US may then move strategic weapons into those countries, within easy striking distance of Moscow. It's the same reason the US didn't want nukes on Cuba in 1962, and the way current crisis is portrayed in Russia is eerily similar to the way the Cuban Missile Crisis was portrayed at the time in the states.

2. Going hand in hand with the above, the US placed strategic missile systems in both Romania and Poland after those countries became NATO member states. Putin's worst fears were becoming realized. He suspects Ukraine's next up for NATO membership, and the missiles will then appear there - less than a day's drive from Moscow itself.

2. The US promised Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union that it would continue to be a party to the ABM treaty, which by mutual agreement carried on as a binding treaty with the Soviet successor states. The treaty was an arms control treaty that limited the number and type of nuclear capable missile systems the US and the ex-Soviet Union were allowed to stockpile. In 2002, Bush Jr announced the US was unilaterally withdrawing from that treaty.

Putin wants a return to the status quo of the early 2000s - no missile systems in Eastern Europe from either side, by mutual agreement. Also, a return to the ABM treaty. He told Megyn Kelly in 2017 and 2018 that he's flexible on how this is carried out, and at least he's willing to talk with US leaders and NATO about it. However, he was miffed that they kept telling him to shove it rather than negotiate. Partly because they consider Russia an undemocratic, tyrannical dictatorship they don't want to negotiate with, and partly because Russia has no bargaining chip other than its own military force (which is frankly not up to snuff against the US and NATO).

Putin admitted both of these things during both his interviews - he said Russia's capabilities simply cannot match those of the US, and the US doesn't want to work with him because it considers him an enemy of democracy. But you can't blame him for reacting the way he did (and continues to do). The equivalent would be Russia pulling out of an arms control treaty with the US in 2002 without giving a reason, building up its nuke stockpile for the first time since the Cold War, and then putting ICBMs in Canada and Cuba, and hinting on a future military alliance with Mexico, meaning possibly ICBMs there too, right across the border from San Diego.

The US has slowly driven Russia into a corner from 2002 to present, 2021. And a cornered enemy may start acting irrationally.

I'm all in favor of letting Eastern European nations join NATO. I'm opposed to the way the US decided to pull out of the arms control treaty with Russia and start putting ICBMs in Poland and Romania, in effect starting a new arms race with the Kremlin. It wasn't Russia that fired the first proverbial shot here. And I'm opposed to the way the US has continually snubbed Putin, forgetting this man controls the second largest nuclear arsenal in the entire world. If we don't want the risk of billions of people dead, I see no harm in compromising with him. Compromise doesn't have to be appeasement and surrender. It doesn't have to mean abandoning US allies in Eastern Europe. But it does have to mean doing a deal with somebody the majority of Americans find unpleasant. That's politics.

I certainly hope Putin does not believe this as it is based on several things that are objectively false, and is a rather confused mess.

To start the US has ZERO ICBMs in Europe. Placing ICBMs on your opponents border makes no sense whatsoever either, as your opponent could easily destroy it on the ground or shoot it down in the boost phase, which is when it is most vulnerable.

ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. ICBMs are classified as missiles with a range of 5,500km or greater. As the name suggests they are usually placed very far away from the target, when land based literally on a different continent! Why the Hell would the US put an ICBM in Europe? To hit Australia or North America?

The entirety of US land based ICBMs, which have a range of 13,000 km are place in the Dakotas and Montana. That is very far away from Russia.

That is in the middle of North America.

We also have ICBMS on Submarines but these while their exact locations are classified are going to be in safe waters near the US.

Like the Northeast Pacific. Certainly not Ukraine.

MRBMs are a potential issue. They have a range of 1,000 to 3,000km. The issue with them is they can theoretically hit their targets with very little warning, from directions early warning radars do not generally focus . US and Russian early warning systems are focused north, as an intercontinental attack would come from over the North polar regions.

The US however has zero MRBMs in Europe. In fact we do not have any at all.

We destroyed all of them.
However with the collapse of the INF treaty, we could in theory place MRBMs in Ukraine (although it would be silly to put them right on the border) which would be a legitimate threat to Russia. However there is zero evidence we have any plans to do so.

But I did state from the beginning this is about the only thing in the mess of mostly completely unreasonable demands that has any validity.

We can and should work out a deal in which NATO and the CSTO would agree to not place or supply MRBMS, in striking distance of each other’s territory, in the North Atlantic region (Europe, the Mediterranean and Caribbean, parts of the Middle East).

That would address that issue, the US is seemingly quite willing to go along with such a thing. So all these theatrics, hysterics and threats by Russia are unnecessary and counterproductive.

Now onto to some other issues. First of all the US has not increased its total nuclear stockpile. And if we pissed of Mexico or Canada so badly they felt compelled to enter into an alliance against us that would be OUR FAULT for being so stupid…
And herein lies Russia’s problem. Russia’s worst enemy is the Kremlin. Russia does not seem to understand threats and claims to override the sovereignty of other places, do not make allies. They make enemies. Russia’s bad strategic position is self inflicted by Russia’s cartoonishly bad behavior. If Russia cleaned up its act, stopped with the threats, the assassinations, occupations, cyber attacks, etc. its situation would improve.
Before you say “but Iraq” Iraq was a self inflicted wound that seriously harmed our international standing. Russia does not have a monopoly on stupid, but they have been really pushing it.

Russia needs to stop blaming everyone else and consider why so many places view Russia badly. And completely change its behavior. And then things will improve. If Putin is unhappy with Russia’s strategic position he should stop making it WORSE!

Now on the “promises”, Russia should know better. The US is not a one man dictatorship. And we have the rule of law. There is international and US law governing treaties and international agreements. This is not secret, presumably Putin can read. Why he never bothered to look it up is beyond me, unless he is merely feigning ignorance.
Although that would still not make him right.

First of all a treaty must be in writing and signed. And made public. Secret treaties are illegal under international law.
If a U.S. president or Secretary of State verbally and in private says they will do something it is not the US agreeing to be forever bound by it. It is at best a gentleman’s agreement that solely applies to the person making the statement subsequent US administrations and presidents are obviously not bound by and have no obligation to follow.

For a treaty to count as a treaty under U.S. law it must also be ratified by the Senate. If a treaty lacks a withdrawal clause it is assumed it can be canceled by any party at any time as well.

Now on the ABM Treaty it was quite clear in the treaty either side could unilaterally withdraw it, after providing the required 6 months notice. That was EXPLICITLY in the text of the treaty. Putin is presumably literate. That is obviously NOT an agreement it would last forever.
That is what we ACTUALLY agreed to, as the US, to give them 6 months notice. We followed the treaty, and withdrew from it in clear accordance with what the treaty said we could do.
The black letter if the law obviously is superior any real or imagined private verbal statements made by past presidents.

However the systems in Romania and Poland are air defense systems. Not ICBMs, not MRBMs, not ballistic missiles at all. In theory we could stick a surface to surface missile in them, but it would make absolutely zero sense to do so. So the argument they somehow are going to be used for that purpose is not convincing. It would make far more sense to stick said missiles on a mobile vehicle. Placing them in a fixed location that is open and obvious would negate using them for a hard to detect surprise attack.

But obviously Putin should know this too. Given Putin should know better he is clearly making several bad faith arguments.

But to sum up, sure we should and are seemingly quite willing to engage in talks on limiting hypothetical future MRBM deployments in the North Atlantic area. Russia however need not resort to to these hysterics however to get this done, and it is not some immediate pressing issue as again we are taking hypothetical future weapons we currently do not possess and have no plans to deploy to Ukraine anyways.

And this still would not justify the other demands.

[Confederation of South Africa]

The referendum wasn't rigged at all.

If another referendum were held tomorrow, it would return the same result.

The first part has already been addressed, the referendum was not free or fair. But sure a free and fair one might still show the majority wanting to be part of Russia (although if run today it would not be possibly free or fair given it would be illegal to campaign against the annexation and the lack of political and press in Russia). Advocating self determination is illegal in Russia.

But what the heck does it do to justify Russia’s ridiculous demands to a unique and super special “sphere of influence” or “security zone” no other countries get? Even if we accepted that Crimea is legally part of Russia (again I would actually be willing to possibly do that if certain conditions were met, but they have not been) how does that give Russia the right to control Ukraine’s Foreign policy and control NATO membership as well as what NATO does on its own territory?

Crimea is only tangentially related to the topic as Russia’s demands here do not really involve Crimea.

The only thing they are asking for is NATO to not expand to the east anymore and to retire their bases from Eastern Europe (NOT that they abandon NATO) anyways all of that could be solved by letting Russia into the NATO.

[Confederation of South Africa]

These are not new.

I watched an interview from 2017 when President Putin basically repeated similar talking points. His major concerns, which he keeps repeating year after year, in every single interview I've watched in 2017, 2018, and then in 2020, are:

1. The US promised Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union they would not expand NATO into Eastern Europe. They broke this promise. Russia doesn't actually care if Poland/Hungary/Romania joins NATO for domestic reasons, but for the reason that the US may then move strategic weapons into those countries, within easy striking distance of Moscow. It's the same reason the US didn't want nukes on Cuba in 1962, and the way current crisis is portrayed in Russia is eerily similar to the way the Cuban Missile Crisis was portrayed at the time in the states.

2. Going hand in hand with the above, the US placed strategic missile systems in both Romania and Poland after those countries became NATO member states. Putin's worst fears were becoming realized. He suspects Ukraine's next up for NATO membership, and the missiles will then appear there - less than a day's drive from Moscow itself.

2. The US promised Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union that it would continue to be a party to the ABM treaty, which by mutual agreement carried on as a binding treaty with the Soviet successor states. The treaty was an arms control treaty that limited the number and type of nuclear capable missile systems the US and the ex-Soviet Union were allowed to stockpile. In 2002, Bush Jr announced the US was unilaterally withdrawing from that treaty.

Putin wants a return to the status quo of the early 2000s - no missile systems in Eastern Europe from either side, by mutual agreement. Also, a return to the ABM treaty. He told Megyn Kelly in 2017 and 2018 that he's flexible on how this is carried out, and at least he's willing to talk with US leaders and NATO about it. However, he was miffed that they kept telling him to shove it rather than negotiate. Partly because they consider Russia an undemocratic, tyrannical dictatorship they don't want to negotiate with, and partly because Russia has no bargaining chip other than its own military force (which is frankly not up to snuff against the US and NATO).

Putin admitted both of these things during both his interviews - he said Russia's capabilities simply cannot match those of the US, and the US doesn't want to work with him because it considers him an enemy of democracy. But you can't blame him for reacting the way he did (and continues to do). The equivalent would be Russia pulling out of an arms control treaty with the US in 2002 without giving a reason, building up its nuke stockpile for the first time since the Cold War, and then putting ICBMs in Canada and Cuba, and hinting on a future military alliance with Mexico, meaning possibly ICBMs there too, right across the border from San Diego.

The US has slowly driven Russia into a corner from 2002 to present, 2021. And a cornered enemy may start acting irrationally.

I'm all in favor of letting Eastern European nations join NATO. I'm opposed to the way the US decided to pull out of the arms control treaty with Russia and start putting ICBMs in Poland and Romania, in effect starting a new arms race with the Kremlin. It wasn't Russia that fired the first proverbial shot here. And I'm opposed to the way the US has continually snubbed Putin, forgetting this man controls the second largest nuclear arsenal in the entire world. If we don't want the risk of billions of people dead, I see no harm in compromising with him. Compromise doesn't have to be appeasement and surrender. It doesn't have to mean abandoning US allies in Eastern Europe. But it does have to mean doing a deal with somebody the majority of Americans find unpleasant. That's politics.

I certainly hope Putin does not believe this as it is based on several things that are objectively false, and is a rather confused mess.

To start the US has ZERO ICBMs in Europe. Placing ICBMs on your opponents border makes no sense whatsoever either, as your opponent could easily destroy it on the ground or shoot it down in the boost phase, which is when it is most vulnerable.

ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. ICBMs are classified as missiles with a range of 5,500km or greater. As the name suggests they are usually placed very far away from the target, when land based literally on a different continent! Why the Hell would the US put an ICBM in Europe? To hit Australia or North America?

The entirety of US land based ICBMs, which have a range of 13,000 km are place in the Dakotas and Montana. That is very far away from Russia.

That is in the middle of North America.

We also have ICBMS on Submarines but these while their exact locations are classified are going to be in safe waters near the US.

Like the Northeast Pacific. Certainly not Ukraine.

MRBMs are a potential issue. They have a range of 1,000 to 3,000km. The issue with them is they can theoretically hit their targets with very little warning, from directions early warning radars do not generally focus . US and Russian early warning systems are focused north, as an intercontinental attack would come from over the North polar regions.

The US however has zero MRBMs in Europe. In fact we do not have any at all.

We destroyed all of them.
However with the collapse of the INF treaty, we could in theory place MRBMs in Ukraine (although it would be silly to put them right on the border) which would be a legitimate threat to Russia. However there is zero evidence we have any plans to do so.

But I did state from the beginning this is about the only thing in the mess of mostly completely unreasonable demands that has any validity.

We can and should work out a deal in which NATO and the CSTO would agree to not place or supply MRBMS, in striking distance of each other’s territory, in the North Atlantic region (Europe, the Mediterranean and Caribbean, parts of the Middle East).

That would address that issue, the US is seemingly quite willing to go along with such a thing. So all these theatrics, hysterics and threats by Russia are unnecessary and counterproductive.

Now onto to some other issues. First of all the US has not increased its total nuclear stockpile. And if we pissed of Mexico or Canada so badly they felt compelled to enter into an alliance against us that would be OUR FAULT for being so stupid…
And herein lies Russia’s problem. Russia’s worst enemy is the Kremlin. Russia does not seem to understand threats and claims to override the sovereignty of other places, do not make allies. They make enemies. Russia’s bad strategic position is self inflicted by Russia’s cartoonishly bad behavior. If Russia cleaned up its act, stopped with the threats, the assassinations, occupations, cyber attacks, etc. its situation would improve.
Before you say “but Iraq” Iraq was a self inflicted wound that seriously harmed our international standing. Russia does not have a monopoly on stupid, but they have been really pushing it.

Russia needs to stop blaming everyone else and consider why so many places view Russia badly. And completely change its behavior. And then things will improve. If Putin is unhappy with Russia’s strategic position he should stop making it WORSE!

Now on the “promises”, Russia should know better. The US is not a one man dictatorship. And we have the rule of law. There is international and US law governing treaties and international agreements. This is not secret, presumably Putin can read. Why he never bothered to look it up is beyond me, unless he is merely feigning ignorance.
Although that would still not make him right.

First of all a treaty must be in writing and signed. And made public. Secret treaties are illegal under international law.
If a U.S. president or Secretary of State verbally and in private says they will do something it is not the US agreeing to be forever bound by it. It is at best a gentleman’s agreement that solely applies to the person making the statement subsequent US administrations and presidents are obviously not bound by and have no obligation to follow.

For a treaty to count as a treaty under U.S. law it must also be ratified by the Senate. If a treaty lacks a withdrawal clause it is assumed it can be canceled by any party at any time as well.

Now on the ABM Treaty it was quite clear in the treaty either side could unilaterally withdraw it, after providing the required 6 months notice. That was EXPLICITLY in the text of the treaty. Putin is presumably literate. That is obviously NOT an agreement it would last forever.
That is what we ACTUALLY agreed to, as the US, to give them 6 months notice. We followed the treaty, and withdrew from it in clear accordance with what the treaty said we could do.
The black letter if the law obviously is superior any real or imagined private verbal statements made by past presidents.

However the systems in Romania and Poland are air defense systems. Not ICBMs, not MRBMs, not ballistic missiles at all. In theory we could stick a surface to surface missile in them, but it would make absolutely zero sense to do so. So the argument they somehow are going to be used for that purpose is not convincing. It would make far more sense to stick said missiles on a mobile vehicle. Placing them in a fixed location that is open and obvious would negate using them for a hard to detect surprise attack.

But obviously Putin should know this too. Given Putin should know better he is clearly making several bad faith arguments.

But to sum up, sure we should and are seemingly quite willing to engage in talks on limiting hypothetical future MRBM deployments in the North Atlantic area. Russia however need not resort to to these hysterics however to get this done, and it is not some immediate pressing issue as again we are taking hypothetical future weapons we currently do not possess and have no plans to deploy to Ukraine anyways.

And this still would not justify the other demands.

Because of communism which doesn't rule Russia anymore AND Russians also OPPOSED.

[Confederation of South Africa]

The Ukrainians.


No, they are just failing to respect Russia's protective zone.

Yeah, how dare they not respect Russia's stupid pointless thing that other countries don't have or need.

?

[Novus America]

The first part has already been addressed, the referendum was not free or fair. But sure a free and fair one might still show the majority wanting to be part of Russia (although if run today it would not be possibly free or fair given it would be illegal to campaign against the annexation and the lack of political and press in Russia). Advocating self determination is illegal in Russia.

But what the heck does it do to justify Russia’s ridiculous demands to a unique and super special “sphere of influence” or “security zone” no other countries get? Even if we accepted that Crimea is legally part of Russia (again I would actually be willing to possibly do that if certain conditions were met, but they have not been) how does that give Russia the right to control Ukraine’s Foreign policy and control NATO membership as well as what NATO does on its own territory?

Crimea is only tangentially related to the topic as Russia’s demands here do not really involve Crimea.

The only thing they are asking for is NATO to not expand to the east anymore and to retire their bases from Eastern Europe (NOT that they abandon NATO) anyways all of that could be solved by letting Russia into the NATO.

The demands include more than that. Such as the US not sending ships within weapons range of Russia (which is ridiculous as our ships have weapons with a a range of some 1,600km, the goal being to essentially ban US ships from Europe).

Also removing all forces from Eastern Europe would be essentially abandoning them, the entire purpose of NATO is collective defense, which allows smaller countries like the Baltics to adequately defend their borders with the help of the rest. Accepting that demand would entirely defeat the point of NATO.

NATO countries have sovereignty. And any qualifying country can apply to join NATO, membership in NATO is a sovereign decision of the applicant and the countries of NATO. NATO’s open door is one o its founding principles.
Russia cannot decide any more than the US can demand the ability to control CSTO membership.

Which Russia did not mention, perhaps the biggest issue being most of these are also grossly one sided.
Russia demands NATO make concessions without offering anything in return. Any concession NATO makes should require Russia make equivalent and similar concessions.

The only reasonable thing is a limit on MRBMs but even on that Russia’s proposal is problematic, but at least we can work on that, but Russia should be expected to be subject to similar limits. (Some of these demands apply only to the US, others to all NATO, as if the US exclusively controls NATO, major NATO decisions require the agreement of ALL members, the US cannot make them alone).

On Russia joining NATO, Russia does not seem to have any interest in doing so. They have not even applied.
Not that the would likely qualify.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014 ... nt-eng.pdf
“To join the Alliance, nations are expected to respect the values of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to meet certain political, economic and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement. These criteria include a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully; an ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutions.”
Obviously Russia is not close to meeting those criteria.

Russia wants to do its own thing, CSTO. Which is fine, as long as they realize it does not give them the right to override the sovereignty of other countries. Again Russia demands this right, but apparently nobody else gets the same according to Russia.

[Novus America]

I certainly hope Putin does not believe this as it is based on several things that are objectively false, and is a rather confused mess.

To start the US has ZERO ICBMs in Europe. Placing ICBMs on your opponents border makes no sense whatsoever either, as your opponent could easily destroy it on the ground or shoot it down in the boost phase, which is when it is most vulnerable.

ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. ICBMs are classified as missiles with a range of 5,500km or greater. As the name suggests they are usually placed very far away from the target, when land based literally on a different continent! Why the Hell would the US put an ICBM in Europe? To hit Australia or North America?

The entirety of US land based ICBMs, which have a range of 13,000 km are place in the Dakotas and Montana. That is very far away from Russia.

That is in the middle of North America.

We also have ICBMS on Submarines but these while their exact locations are classified are going to be in safe waters near the US.

Like the Northeast Pacific. Certainly not Ukraine.

MRBMs are a potential issue. They have a range of 1,000 to 3,000km. The issue with them is they can theoretically hit their targets with very little warning, from directions early warning radars do not generally focus . US and Russian early warning systems are focused north, as an intercontinental attack would come from over the North polar regions.

The US however has zero MRBMs in Europe. In fact we do not have any at all.

We destroyed all of them.
However with the collapse of the INF treaty, we could in theory place MRBMs in Ukraine (although it would be silly to put them right on the border) which would be a legitimate threat to Russia. However there is zero evidence we have any plans to do so.

But I did state from the beginning this is about the only thing in the mess of mostly completely unreasonable demands that has any validity.

We can and should work out a deal in which NATO and the CSTO would agree to not place or supply MRBMS, in striking distance of each other’s territory, in the North Atlantic region (Europe, the Mediterranean and Caribbean, parts of the Middle East).

That would address that issue, the US is seemingly quite willing to go along with such a thing. So all these theatrics, hysterics and threats by Russia are unnecessary and counterproductive.

Now onto to some other issues. First of all the US has not increased its total nuclear stockpile. And if we pissed of Mexico or Canada so badly they felt compelled to enter into an alliance against us that would be OUR FAULT for being so stupid…
And herein lies Russia’s problem. Russia’s worst enemy is the Kremlin. Russia does not seem to understand threats and claims to override the sovereignty of other places, do not make allies. They make enemies. Russia’s bad strategic position is self inflicted by Russia’s cartoonishly bad behavior. If Russia cleaned up its act, stopped with the threats, the assassinations, occupations, cyber attacks, etc. its situation would improve.
Before you say “but Iraq” Iraq was a self inflicted wound that seriously harmed our international standing. Russia does not have a monopoly on stupid, but they have been really pushing it.

Russia needs to stop blaming everyone else and consider why so many places view Russia badly. And completely change its behavior. And then things will improve. If Putin is unhappy with Russia’s strategic position he should stop making it WORSE!

Now on the “promises”, Russia should know better. The US is not a one man dictatorship. And we have the rule of law. There is international and US law governing treaties and international agreements. This is not secret, presumably Putin can read. Why he never bothered to look it up is beyond me, unless he is merely feigning ignorance.
Although that would still not make him right.

First of all a treaty must be in writing and signed. And made public. Secret treaties are illegal under international law.
If a U.S. president or Secretary of State verbally and in private says they will do something it is not the US agreeing to be forever bound by it. It is at best a gentleman’s agreement that solely applies to the person making the statement subsequent US administrations and presidents are obviously not bound by and have no obligation to follow.

For a treaty to count as a treaty under U.S. law it must also be ratified by the Senate. If a treaty lacks a withdrawal clause it is assumed it can be canceled by any party at any time as well.

Now on the ABM Treaty it was quite clear in the treaty either side could unilaterally withdraw it, after providing the required 6 months notice. That was EXPLICITLY in the text of the treaty. Putin is presumably literate. That is obviously NOT an agreement it would last forever.
That is what we ACTUALLY agreed to, as the US, to give them 6 months notice. We followed the treaty, and withdrew from it in clear accordance with what the treaty said we could do.
The black letter if the law obviously is superior any real or imagined private verbal statements made by past presidents.

However the systems in Romania and Poland are air defense systems. Not ICBMs, not MRBMs, not ballistic missiles at all. In theory we could stick a surface to surface missile in them, but it would make absolutely zero sense to do so. So the argument they somehow are going to be used for that purpose is not convincing. It would make far more sense to stick said missiles on a mobile vehicle. Placing them in a fixed location that is open and obvious would negate using them for a hard to detect surprise attack.

But obviously Putin should know this too. Given Putin should know better he is clearly making several bad faith arguments.

But to sum up, sure we should and are seemingly quite willing to engage in talks on limiting hypothetical future MRBM deployments in the North Atlantic area. Russia however need not resort to to these hysterics however to get this done, and it is not some immediate pressing issue as again we are taking hypothetical future weapons we currently do not possess and have no plans to deploy to Ukraine anyways.

And this still would not justify the other demands.

Because of communism which doesn't rule Russia anymore AND Russians also OPPOSED.

I never mentioned Communism once in this. Russia was not a sovereign country while ruled by the CPSU, and the behavior that is causing much of Russia’s problems is its post Soviet behavior.

[Novus America]

Yeah, how dare they not respect Russia's stupid pointless thing that other countries don't have or need.

?

Other countries do not have and do not demand a similar “zone”. Which is not based on any international law.
Russia’s sovereignty and ability to defend its borders do not allow it the right to dictate the foreign policy of places OUTSIDE of Russia.
Notice how Russia has not acknowledged any other countries having such a “zone”. Making it pure hypocrisy.

Russia does not need nor does it have a right to demand the ability to control Ukraine’s foreign policy any more than Poland does (again Poland borders Ukraine but that does not give it some super special zone that gives it control over Ukraine’s foreign policy).
Ukraine is not part of Russia.