I’m confused?

[quattro]

If American self defence was a good enough excuse for America to invade Iraq & Afganistan plus a few others you can hardly blame Russia for thinking that it's the way the modern world works.
As I keep saying America sets an example for others to follow.

Did an America attack those countries to take them over and indiscriminately flatten city’s and towns and kill thousands of innocent people??

 

[Vader]

Did an America attack those countries to take them over and indiscriminately flatten city’s and towns and kill thousands of innocent people??

If America had flattened the city's then would they been bad guys, even if they then handed the land back?

Usa is high tech and uses expensive precise hardware.
Russia is low tech and uses cheap less precise stuff.
Usa cares (worrys) about civilian casualties in the press.
Russia don't care what the press think.

In the end it's war, which should not happen at all. But it seems it's human nature to do it. we been at it since we could pick up a branch and whack someone with it.
As populations increase and space and resources decrease more wars will occur.

 

[quattro]

If America had flattened the city's then would they been bad guys, even if they then handed the land back?

Usa is high tech and uses expensive precise hardware.
Russia is low tech and uses cheap less precise stuff.
Usa cares (worrys) about civilian casualties in the press.
Russia don't care what the press think.

In the end it's war, which should not happen at all. But it seems it's human nature to do it. we been at it since we could pick up a branch and whack someone with it.
As populations increase and space and resources decrease more wars will occur.

Totally agree, it was meant directly to brian as he constantly uses america as a excuse for Russia to invade Ukraine
totally different exercuses in my eyes

 

[Muck Spreader]

Oh please, if the Americans had said that they totally understood the Russian concerns regarding NATO expansion into Ukraine & we’re prepared for Ukraine to remain totally neutral provided Ukraine could have some form of relationship with the EU market then Russia would have had no excuse for an invasion & could have claimed some type of win.
America/Biden had no intention of doing so as a Russian invasion was very much in the US planning.

How many more times, this war has nothing to do with NATO expansionism. It has everything to do with persistent Russian interference in a independent sovereign state. In 2013 Putin could see that his puppet president Yanukovych was losing control and the public and parliament were overwhelmingly demanding closer links with the EU. His reaction was to unsuccessfully use the FSB in Kiev to try and control the anti-government protesters. He then took the opportunity to invade and takeover Luhansk, Donbas and Crimea those populations generally had a more pro Russian stance than the rest of the country. And the rest is history.

 

[Vader]

Totally agree, it was meant directly to brian as he constantly uses america as a excuse for Russia to invade Ukraine
totally different exercuses in my eyes

I would say Russian invasion was due 99% to bad intelligence.
They thought could drive in and be seen as liberators.
They did not expect a war.

 

[robs1]

What some seem to forget is that Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons in exchange for the USA, the UK and IIRC France guaranteeing it's independence, the west hasn't upheld that, to me it made no difference whether Ukraine joined NATO or not with the guarantee given we should have made it clear to Russia before they invaded that we would adhere to the agreement we made and help them far more than we have.

 

[ollie989898]

Did the Russians arm the Iraqis or Afghans when America invaded those countries, surely you can see the theme here?

Brian, just because your Russian handlers didn't inform you of this does not mean it didn't happen.

Insurgents in Iraq started turning up with some very nasty weaponry- things like EFP IEDs which appeared to be coming from Iran. No prizes for guessing who might have helped Iran with that.

 

[essex man]

I would say Russian invasion was due 99% to bad intelligence.
They thought could drive in and be seen as liberators.
They did not expect a war.

If the intel had predicted the albeit, time limited western support and ukranian response then you think they wouldn't have invaded or maybe reduced war aims to donbas and crimean land bridge?

 

[ollie989898]

I would say Russian invasion was due 99% to bad intelligence.
They thought could drive in and be seen as liberators.
They did not expect a war.

I agree. They thought the Ukrainian government would fold and run.

Now Putin can't reverse his moves because he would lose face.

I don't think for one second the average Russian believes in the war. They have lost thousands of lives, to say nothing of those wounded horribly.

 

[Muck Spreader]

What some seem to forget is that Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons in exchange for the USA, the UK and IIRC France guaranteeing it's independence, the west hasn't upheld that, to me it made no difference whether Ukraine joined NATO or not with the guarantee given we should have made it clear to Russia before they invaded that we would adhere to the agreement we made and help them far more than we have.

Part of the agreement was that Russia, USA, and UK would immediately go to the UN security council to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State in the event of an attack. And guess who had a veto on that. France and China did not sign up to this. But in reality Ukraine was in no position to be able to afford to use, or even maintain any nuclear deterrent at that time.

 

[BrianV]

How many more times, this war has nothing to do with NATO expansionism. It has everything to do with persistent Russian interference in a independent sovereign state. In 2013 Putin could see that his puppet president Yanukovych was losing control and the public and parliament were overwhelmingly demanding closer links with the EU. His reaction was to unsuccessfully use the FSB in Kiev to try and control the anti-government protesters. He then took the opportunity to invade and takeover Luhansk, Donbas and Crimea those populations generally had a more pro Russian stance than the rest of the country. And the rest is history.

Really? Think you are very naive if you truly believe that!

The Guardian - Back to home​

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored​

This article is more than 2 years old
Ted Galen Carpenter

It has long been clear that Nato expansion would lead to tragedy. We are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance

nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine

Ukraine war follows decades of warnings that NATO expansion into Eastern Europe could provoke Russia​

Published: February 28, 2022 7.06pm GMT Updated: February 28, 2022 8.33pm GMT
ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999

NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine​

The continuing U.S. obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. And now Ukrainians are paying a terrible price.​

nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion

 

[Vader]

If the intel had predicted the albeit, time limited western support and ukranian response then you think they wouldn't have invaded or maybe reduced war aims to donbas and crimean land bridge?

Possibly still invaded but planned it better and maybe just have an objective of the eastern pro Russia areas. Or maybe the Dnieper as a natural frontier.

 

[HatsOff]

What some seem to forget is that Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons in exchange for the USA, the UK and IIRC France guaranteeing it's independence, the west hasn't upheld that, to me it made no difference whether Ukraine joined NATO or not with the guarantee given we should have made it clear to Russia before they invaded that we would adhere to the agreement we made and help them far more than we have.

The Budapest memorandum wasn't quite as strongly worded as that.

Russia, UK and USA guaranteed not to invade (which Russia has done). But the other clauses referred to nuclear weapons and was otherwise a long way from a general security guarantee, NATO style Article 5 mechanism.

The West hasn't broken the agreement but Russia definitely has.

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[robs1]

The Budapest memorandum wasn't quite as strongly worded as that.

Russia, UK and USA guaranteed not to invade (which Russia has done). But the other clauses referred to nuclear weapons and was otherwise a long way from a general security guarantee, NATO style Article 5 mechanism.

The West hasn't broken the agreement but Russia definitely has.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That is pretty clear to me, they have been subject to an act of aggression, I know Russia vetoed any resolution but the rest of the world should have acted far more decisively.anything else is just weasel words.

 

[teslacoils]

The winners make the narrative.

 

[teslacoils]

US has really just given a massive cash handout to its own defence companies. Israel will get all the best gear. Ukraine will get a token bit of good kit and a pile of surplus. Just enough to keep it going while manouvering US firms to get lucrative reconstruction deals.

It's more a way to pump more into us firms and offload inventory stock.

While China just sits and watches.

 

[kiwi pom]

US has really just given a massive cash handout to its own defence companies. Israel will get all the best gear. Ukraine will get a token bit of good kit and a pile of surplus. Just enough to keep it going while manouvering US firms to get lucrative reconstruction deals.

It's more a way to pump more into us firms and offload inventory stock.

While China just sits and watches.

They really are very good at manipulating things to their advantage.
Very impressive, especially considering its supposedly run by an OAP who took over from another nutter.

 

[Hindsight]

They really are very good at manipulating things to their advantage.
Very impressive, especially considering its supposedly run by an OAP who took over from another nutter.

No. China benefited from the West approach post 1970s of trying to bring the huge country and its population into the free trading western world. After the country as a Communist state looked as though in the Cold War would destabilise the Asian Pacific rim (do you remember Korean and Vietnam War and the Malaysian insurgency - or conveniently forgotten) which was settling down following the post WW2 conflicts with Communist insurgency. A Western style political system in Japan, Thailand and the remnants of British Empire were imperative, especially to the antipodan countries and Pacific Isalnd states which were seen as vital to the security of the Western trading system - remember the 1000s of American servicemen who lost their lives recovering islands sduring the Pacific war. What the West has not allowed for post 2000 is the underlying malevolence towards the west of an autocratic political system - as you say run by OAP's. Same happened in Russia when the Soviet Empire fell apart. Trading and inclusion within the Western liberal economies was hoped to encourage peace and freedoms. Similarly in the Middle East with Iran. You and others on here who continually slate the USA (and by default the UK and NATO) in my view see a different bigger picture. Insofar as New Zealand is concerned - tis but a small country / island a long way away of which we play cricket - jesting but is it true?

 

[kiwi pom]

No. China benefited from the West approach post 1970s of trying to bring the huge country and its population into the free trading western world. After the country as a Communist state looked as though in the Cold War would destabilise the Asian Pacific rim (do you remember Korean and Vietnam War and the Malaysian insurgency - or conveniently forgotten) which was settling down following the post WW2 conflicts with Communist insurgency. A Western style political system in Japan, Thailand and the remnants of British Empire were imperative, especially to the antipodan countries and Pacific Isalnd states which were seen as vital to the security of the Western trading system - remember the 1000s of American servicemen who lost their lives recovering islands sduring the Pacific war. What the West has not allowed for post 2000 is the underlying malevolence towards the west of an autocratic political system - as you say run by OAP's. Same happened in Russia when the Soviet Empire fell apart. Trading and inclusion within the Western liberal economies was hoped to encourage peace and freedoms. Similarly in the Middle East with Iran. You and others on here who continually slate the USA (and by default the UK and NATO) in my view see a different bigger picture. Insofar as New Zealand is concerned - tis but a small country / island a long way away of which we play cricket.

I'm not slating America I'm impressed by them and the way they manipulate the world. You seem blind to the fact that what they do is for their own advantage and no one else's, we're not equals, they are top dog, they do what they want. You do see that don't you.

By the way I didn't think that way until I lived there.

As far as NZ goes both the US and China would love a major base here.
All in the name of defence of course.
Hopefully we can stay neutral.

 

[Hindsight]

I'm not slating America I'm impressed by them and the way they manipulate the world. You seem blind to the fact that what they do is for their own advantage and no one else's, we're not equals, they are top dog, they do what they want. You do see that don't you.

By the way I didn't think that way until I lived there.

As far as NZ goes both the US and China would love a major base here.
All in the name of defence of course.
Hopefully we can stay neutral.

Over time what has been best for the USA has been best for UK and Western liberal democracies. As for New Zealand be interesting to see which of China or USA becomes the dominant partner. Have you followed the elections in the Solomon Islands. China is branching out and will be basing 'defensive' military bases around the Pacific Rim. New Zealand is a little country a long way from Europe. Apart from Sheep meat and Cricket is there any strategic benefit to Europe in supporting New Zealand if China flexes muscle. As a UK voter - the answer will be no.