CNN: Russia plotting false flag event in Ukraine

[Helsinkian]

The Eastern European countries were drawn into NATO by a program of rapid expansion and drawing red lines on Russian borders after the Cold War and by betraying their promise to Secretary Gorbachev that NATO would not move "one inch to the east" of Berlin. That was in exchange for the astonishing concession to allow a united Germany to join a hostile military alliance in the first place.

The "one inch" thing has been taken out of context. It referred only to NATO troops in Germany moving from old West Germany to the former East Germany following unification. But even if it had referred to wider NATO expansion, it was not a treaty, but merely spoken banter by the secretary of state of one NATO country. In the absense of a formal treaty, one secretary of state (James Baker) has no authority to bind future administrations, nor can he bind other NATO countries.

And Baker's "one inch" promise was not even supported by his boss, president Bush sr:

Were these promises ever written down in a treaty?

No, largely because Bush felt Baker and Kohl had gone too far, or in Baker’s words he had “got a little forward on his skis”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today

Furthermore, a few years later, Russia did in fact accept NATO expansion to Eastern Europe, showing that they did not believe in such "one inch" principle:

In August 1993 Yeltsin, in talks with the Polish leader, Lech Wałęsa, conceded Poland’s right to join Nato, a concession that left his colleagues thunderstruck. More formally Russia did the same with the Nato Russia Founding Act in 1996.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today

Calling NATO a "hostile military alliance" is just Russian propaganda. NATO has not attacked its neighbours -- Russia has (Georgia and Ukraine, not even counting the Soviet times).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sovereignty means that a government gets to decide its own foreign policy; who it chooses to ally with (or not), which international organisations it choose to join or otherwise affiliate with. A state that cannot do this is, by definition, not sovereign. If the governments of former Soviet states decide to hew to a foreign policy detached from that of the Russian Federation, up to an including joining NATO,* whose business is it other than theirs?

_{*And in the specific case of Ukraine it really isn't certain whether this will actually ever happen: quite a few governments are not enthusiastic about the practical implications of expanding the shield of collective security to a state locked in permanent and often very violent series of territorial disputes with Russia.}

[MaxQue]

1) How have they backed down from invasion? Russia continues to have more than 100,000 troops on the border. That is not anywhere near comparable to the token force of NATO troops in the Baltics (around three battalions).

There's currently over 22k NATO troops in the Baltics and that number is increasing. Meanwhile just recently Russia withdrew 10k of their troops.

2) Yanukovich did not practice neutrality; he was a puppet of Moscow. The people of Ukraine did not like that, so they overthrew him. Nato is in Eastern Europe because the Eastern European countries, as sovereign nations, have wanted that, not because of NATO "forcing itself" upon them.

Yanukovich was the popularly elected President of Ukraine and was overthrown in a coup with significant Western initiatives there. The Eastern European countries were drawn into NATO by a program of rapid expansion and drawing red lines on Russian borders after the Cold War and by betraying their promise to Secretary Gorbachev that NATO would not move "one inch to the east" of Berlin. That was in exchange for the astonishing concession to allow a united Germany to join a hostile military alliance in the first place.

Welcome to international politics. USSR lost and Russia needs to accept it. Russia needs to understand that if it wants good relationships with its neighbors, it needs to treat them well, not threathen them or invade as they always did.

[Big Abraham]

The "one inch" thing has been taken out of context. It referred only to NATO troops in Germany moving from old West Germany to the former East Germany following unification.

No, it didn't. "would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote.

But even if it had referred to wider NATO expansion, it was not a treaty, but merely spoken banter by the secretary of state of one NATO country. In the absense of a formal treaty, one secretary of state has no authority to bind future administrations, nor can he bind other NATO countries.

It was not "spoken banter," it was a verbal agreement. Such verbal agreements are legally binding in international relations and in a court of law. Just because a treaty wasn't signed does not mean the agreement as confirmed by written transcripts and then-precedent of non-expansion should still not be adhered to. It is generally considered a good thing when you uphold your end of the bargain, especially if unprovoked (as they were when NATO enlargement began).

Furthermore, a few years later, Russia did in fact accept NATO expansion to Eastern Europe, showing that they did not believe in such "one inch" principle:

In August 1993 Yeltsin, in talks with the Polish leader, Lech Wałęsa, conceded Poland’s right to join Nato, a concession that left his colleagues thunderstruck. More formally Russia did the same with the Nato Russia Founding Act in 1996.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today

Yeltsin was a Western puppet specifically propped up there because he was seen as an ally, hence why the U.S. famously and unabashedly intervened in the Russian presidential election to ensure Yeltsin's victory over his Communist adversaries. So the fact that he was pro-NATO is not surprising. Regardless, the Russian people themselves were very opposed to Poland (or any former Warsaw Pact state) joining NATO because of the promise the U.S. had made, and so this informal declaration of Yeltsin was retracted the following month from popular domestic opposition in Russia.

Calling NATO a "hostile military alliance" is just Russian propaganda. NATO has not attacked its neighbours -- Russia has (Georgia and Ukraine).

It is indeed hostile and in case you've forgotten, was specifically set up to oppose Russia. Of course they were hostile, they were hostile by its very nature. They sought to oppose Russia's influence. This is like saying the Warsaw Pact was not "hostile" to the West. Of course they were, they were opposing sides of the Cold War with hostile geopolitical interests. Even in the absence of a direct attack, it is still hostile towards Russia by the charter of its very existence. Not to mention NATO has displayed a great deal of direct military attacks and invasions (including war crimes towards the population) of Russia's allies: Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Libya, Syria, do any of these countries ring a bell?

[Big Abraham]

Welcome to international politics. USSR lost and Russia needs to accept it. Russia needs to understand that if it wants good relationships with its neighbors, it needs to treat them well, not threathen them or invade as they always did.

"The Native Americans lost and need to accept it. Never mind that our treaties with them are legally-binding, they need to understand that if they wants good relationship with the U.S. government, they needs to treat them well, not threaten white settlers encroaching on their land."

[Ferguson97]

Welcome to international politics. USSR lost and Russia needs to accept it. Russia needs to understand that if it wants good relationships with its neighbors, it needs to treat them well, not threathen them or invade as they always did.

"The Native Americans lost and need to accept it. Never mind that our treaties with them are legally-binding, they need to understand that if they wants good relationship with the U.S. government, they needs to treat them well, not threaten white settlers encroaching on their land."

Are you actually comparing the genocide of the Native Americans and the USSR losing the cold war?

[Big Abraham]

Welcome to international politics. USSR lost and Russia needs to accept it. Russia needs to understand that if it wants good relationships with its neighbors, it needs to treat them well, not threathen them or invade as they always did.

"The Native Americans lost and need to accept it. Never mind that our treaties with them are legally-binding, they need to understand that if they wants good relationship with the U.S. government, they needs to treat them well, not threaten white settlers encroaching on their land."

Are you actually comparing the genocide of the Native Americans and the USSR losing the cold war?

I'm comparing the logic of apparently thinking it's okay to not uphold formal agreements just because the other side "lost."

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

2) Yanukovich did not practice neutrality; he was a puppet of Moscow. The people of Ukraine did not like that, so they overthrew him.

It's not true. Not only Yanukovich was democratically elected, per polls at the time of the insurrection he was pretty popular and would easily go to the 2nd round where he would have a real chance to be re-elected. Ukraine was then an almost evenly divided country. But you know it already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2014_Ukrainian_presidential_election

Insurrections are bad, you know.

[BigSerg]

2) Yanukovich did not practice neutrality; he was a puppet of Moscow. The people of Ukraine did not like that, so they overthrew him.

It's not true. Not only Yanukovich was democratically elected, per polls at the time of the insurrection he was pretty popular and would easily go to the 2nd round where he would have a real chance to be re-elected. Ukraine was then an almost evenly divided country. But you know it already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2014_Ukrainian_presidential_election

Insurrections are bad, you know.

Shut up! to say that is a sin in this forum!

[MaxQue]

Welcome to international politics. USSR lost and Russia needs to accept it. Russia needs to understand that if it wants good relationships with its neighbors, it needs to treat them well, not threathen them or invade as they always did.

"The Native Americans lost and need to accept it. Never mind that our treaties with them are legally-binding, they need to understand that if they wants good relationship with the U.S. government, they needs to treat them well, not threaten white settlers encroaching on their land."

1. Native Americans are US citizens, they have rights and are electors. Russia isn't an US citizen.

2. There is no treaty or written agreement with Russia on NATO. Some dude (Baker) went off his station and said something that was never officially put on paper. This is the equivalent of, in a neighboors dispute, of saying "he cannot do that, the previous owner of his land told me 30 years ago he would never do it".

[MaxQue]

Welcome to international politics. USSR lost and Russia needs to accept it. Russia needs to understand that if it wants good relationships with its neighbors, it needs to treat them well, not threathen them or invade as they always did.

"The Native Americans lost and need to accept it. Never mind that our treaties with them are legally-binding, they need to understand that if they wants good relationship with the U.S. government, they needs to treat them well, not threaten white settlers encroaching on their land."

Are you actually comparing the genocide of the Native Americans and the USSR losing the cold war?

I'm comparing the logic of apparently thinking it's okay to not uphold formal agreements just because the other side "lost."

You are right that's it's not okay. Except there is no formal agreement, there never was and lying about that won't change the facts.

[Big Abraham]

1. Native Americans are US citizens, they have rights and are electors. Russia isn't an US citizen.

Native Americans living in tribes were not U.S. citizens at the time. They were considered members of their respective independent nations and the U.S. federal government conducted treaties with them on that basis and which also involved land concessions, something that would not have been considered necessary if it was already all American land anyway. American Indians living on recognized Indian territory did not become U.S. citizens until President Coolidge in 1924; the Indian Wars were long over by then.

2. There is no treaty or written agreement with Russia on NATO. Some dude (Baker) went off his station and said something that was never officially put on paper. This is the equivalent of, in a neighboors dispute, of saying "he cannot do that, the previous owner of his land told me 30 years ago he would never do it".

It is officially put on paper, I literally linked to it earlier in this thread? There are two official versions of it (an American one and a Soviet one) and they both agree with each other in terms of substance. It was not a formal treaty but as mentioned it was a verbal agreement and such verbal agreements are considered legally binding, as it was between the two official representatives of the main powers of NATO and Warsaw Pact.

[President Johnson]

The Central Intelligence Agency of Ukraine also reported this information. In any case, I think Putin has already decided to invade and it will happen.

Do really think this is going to happen and affect the whole territory of Ukraine?

If so, the US and EU should cripple Russia with extremely tough sanctions and take as many Ukrainians as possible. Anyway, I hope you're going to be alright.

[MaxQue]

1. Native Americans are US citizens, they have rights and are electors. Russia isn't an US citizen.

Native Americans living in tribes were not U.S. citizens at the time. They were considered members of their respective independent nations and the U.S. federal government conducted treaties with them on that basis and which also involved land concessions, something that would not have been considered necessary if it was already all American land anyway. American Indians living on recognized Indian territory did not become U.S. citizens until President Coolidge in 1924; the Indian Wars were long over by then.

2. There is no treaty or written agreement with Russia on NATO. Some dude (Baker) went off his station and said something that was never officially put on paper. This is the equivalent of, in a neighboors dispute, of saying "he cannot do that, the previous owner of his land told me 30 years ago he would never do it".

It is officially put on paper, I literally linked to it earlier in this thread? There are two official versions of it (an American one and a Soviet one) and they both agree with each other in terms of substance. It was not a formal treaty but as mentioned it was a verbal agreement and such verbal agreements are considered legally binding, as it was between the two official representatives of the main powers of NATO and Warsaw Pact.

1. We are talking about right now. Native Americans are US citizens right now. Whatever rights or wrongs happened in the past is an important and interesting debate, but not relevent at all.

2. Was it ratified by the Senate? By the other members of NATO? The US Constitution states:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur;

[Big Abraham]

1. We are talking about right now. Native Americans are US citizens right now. Whatever rights or wrongs happened in the past is an important and interesting debate, but not relevent at all.

It's relevant considering that many at the time justified aggression against Indian territory in contravention of agreements made with the Natives with "oh well, the Indians lost, get over it." As some in this thread seem to say about the USSR now, despite the fact that Russia is the legal successor to the USSR (why do you think the Russian Federation has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?)

2. Was it ratified by the Senate? By the other members of NATO? The US Constitution states:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur;

Obviously the U.S. Constitution does not have jurisdiction over the verbal agreements agreed to by members of one military alliance vis-a-vis another, but it would have indeed been a good thing for NATO to uphold Baker's agreement with Gorby and prohibited further expansion by an official resolution among its member states. A lot of bloodshed in Eastern Europe would have been spared had they not done the opposite, by expanding up to Russian borders and fostering a crisis in Ukraine

[😥]

The Central Intelligence Agency of Ukraine also reported this information. In any case, I think Putin has already decided to invade and it will happen.

Do really think this is going to happen and affect the whole territory of Ukraine?

If so, the US and EU should cripple Russia with extremely tough sanctions and take as many Ukrainians as possible. Anyway, I hope you're going to be alright.

No, I don't think it will affect the whole territory of Ukraine. Ukraine will resist and it will not be a quick capture, it will be a long bloody war. I would say that Russia will not go further than the Left Bank Ukraine with some exceptions.

I would expect something like this:

Brown - already invaded
Red - will be invaded
Green - parts of the oblasts will be invaded
Blue - won't be invaded

Anyway, thank you for your support

[2952-0-0]

Does Putin have the domestic political power for such a massive war, though? Putin's Russia isn't the USSR, where the deaths of Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan could be covered up. The word will spread that Russian troops are getting killed in Ukraine by the "brotherly" Ukrainian people. Kremlin propaganda can only dismiss these as acts of fascist provocateurs for so long.

When Crimea was taken in 2014, it boosted Putin's domestic popularity because it cost zero Russian lives. Then he tried to repeat the trick in the Donbass, only to encounter Ukrainian resistance. He maintains the fiction that Russians aren't involved in the Donbass to this day, because he can't admit at home that he made Russians die for...half of two oblasts.

As for sanctions, well, Putin and his buddies have stashed their wealth in the countries they publicly despise. If the US was really, really into psy-ops, it could declassify documents about the apartment bombings, though the timing of that will be key.

[President Johnson]

Does Putin have the domestic political power for such a massive war, though? Putin's Russia isn't the USSR, where the deaths of Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan could be covered up. The word will spread that Russian troops are getting killed in Ukraine by the "brotherly" Ukrainian people. Kremlin propaganda can only dismiss these as acts of fascist provocateurs for so long.

When Crimea was taken in 2014, it boosted Putin's domestic popularity because it cost zero Russian lives. Then he tried to repeat the trick in the Donbass, only to encounter Ukrainian resistance. He maintains the fiction that Russians aren't involved in the Donbass to this day, because he can't admit at home that he made Russians die for...half of two oblasts.

As for sanctions, well, Putin and his buddies have stashed their wealth in the countries they publicly despise. If the US was really, really into psy-ops, it could declassify documents about the apartment bombings, though the timing of that will be key.

I think the domestic condition of Russia is Putin's actual motive. These so called demands for "security guaranties" is nothing but rhetoric. Does he or anyone else seriously believe that NATO would invade or attack Russia? Come on, it's not going to happen as preemptive military action. What Putin needs is an enemy outside of Russia that he can blame for his gross economic missmanagement and the immense wealth inequality in Russia. Furthermore, he doesn't want Ukraine to become a prosperous country with peace and freedom, because he fears the Russian people demanding the same then. That's why he actually has no desire for normalized and stable relationships with the US or even the EU. He's a thug and bully, still in this Cold War mindset that each "superpower" should have its sphere of influence.

[Omega21]

The Central Intelligence Agency of Ukraine also reported this information. In any case, I think Putin has already decided to invade and it will happen.

Do really think this is going to happen and affect the whole territory of Ukraine?

If so, the US and EU should cripple Russia with extremely tough sanctions and take as many Ukrainians as possible. Anyway, I hope you're going to be alright.

No, I don't think it will affect the whole territory of Ukraine. Ukraine will resist and it will not be a quick capture, it will be a long bloody war. I would say that Russia will not go further than the Left Bank Ukraine with some exceptions.

I would expect something like this:

Brown - already invaded
Red - will be invaded
Green - parts of the oblasts will be invaded
Blue - won't be invaded

Anyway, thank you for your support

A lot of the marked provinces are minority Russian, are you sure Putin would go for them?

Crimea and the 2 eastern "states" that have been taken are logical choices, because a good majority identify as Russian, so it's basically just "extending" Russia.

Taking a majority Ukranian province, however, is not as easy, since resistance and resentment is guaranteed.

[MaxQue]

The Central Intelligence Agency of Ukraine also reported this information. In any case, I think Putin has already decided to invade and it will happen.

Do really think this is going to happen and affect the whole territory of Ukraine?

If so, the US and EU should cripple Russia with extremely tough sanctions and take as many Ukrainians as possible. Anyway, I hope you're going to be alright.

No, I don't think it will affect the whole territory of Ukraine. Ukraine will resist and it will not be a quick capture, it will be a long bloody war. I would say that Russia will not go further than the Left Bank Ukraine with some exceptions.

I would expect something like this:

Brown - already invaded
Red - will be invaded
Green - parts of the oblasts will be invaded
Blue - won't be invaded

Anyway, thank you for your support

A lot of the marked provinces are minority Russian, are you sure Putin would go for them?

Crimea and the 2 eastern "states" that have been taken are logical choices, because a good majority identify as Russian, so it's basically just "extending" Russia.

Taking a majority Ukranian province, however, is not as easy, since resistance and resentment is guaranteed.

Putin has learn from the USSR. Holomodor Mark 2 will do the job.

[Frodo]

This sounds familiar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

And here is another infamous example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yanukovich was the popularly elected President of Ukraine and was overthrown in a coup with significant Western initiatives there.

Shut the f--k up.

[All Along The Watchtower]

And imagine thinking a verbal agreement with noted relevant person Mikhail Gorbachev means anything.

[BigSerg]

The Central Intelligence Agency of Ukraine also reported this information. In any case, I think Putin has already decided to invade and it will happen.

Do really think this is going to happen and affect the whole territory of Ukraine?

If so, the US and EU should cripple Russia with extremely tough sanctions and take as many Ukrainians as possible. Anyway, I hope you're going to be alright.

No, I don't think it will affect the whole territory of Ukraine. Ukraine will resist and it will not be a quick capture, it will be a long bloody war. I would say that Russia will not go further than the Left Bank Ukraine with some exceptions.

I would expect something like this:

Brown - already invaded
Red - will be invaded
Green - parts of the oblasts will be invaded
Blue - won't be invaded

Anyway, thank you for your support

A lot of the marked provinces are minority Russian, are you sure Putin would go for them?

Crimea and the 2 eastern "states" that have been taken are logical choices, because a good majority identify as Russian, so it's basically just "extending" Russia.

Taking a majority Ukranian province, however, is not as easy, since resistance and resentment is guaranteed.

Russia can occupy all these regions without any problems (blue regions). These regions are mostly pro-Russian

[2952-0-0]

Um, you do understand that supporting friendly relations with another country, and speaking the language of that country, is not the same as being okay with an invasion, right? Otherwise, the Irish should welcome the British army with open arms, and the same with the Austrians and Germany, Canadians and the US, and so on.