Russia invades Ukraine

[Firebot]

Some rumours that Kadyrov's 2nd hand man Delimkhanov has likely been killed on a strike

It's believed that his position was given to Ukraine by Wagner PRC

https://twitter.com/user/status/1668911534184038403

https://twitter.com/user/status/1668969762779545602

There was also an unrelated strike in Kremmina. Seemingly Ukraine may have known of this meeting as well

https://twitter.com/user/status/1668929160071335938

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't even know what realpolitik means and I don't know what you mean by "where we are". Is that a site or a philosophy? Does it sound like I'm using realpolitik talking points or something? Honestly never heard of it.

I don't know, man. Maybe you're right. I just don't see how NATO benefits. Right now we're supplying their army with weapons and expertise and risking no lives. I'm very sympathetic towards Ukraine and I'm 100% supportive of my taxes helping Ukraine's military and people come to our country. I also don't want my kids to get roped up into some conflict in Russia/Ukraine at any point ever, so am happy that an attack on Ukraine didn't trigger a full-scale war that obligated Canada to join.

Yeah, Ukraine is going to have an experienced, large and capable army after this if they win. That's great for them. Still don't see what that has to do with NATO, though.

I think we have a moral obligation to protect these people under NATO after the war. The US and UK gave security guarantees in the 90s to Ukraine in exchange for denuclearization.

They've spent the better part of 20 years trying to join Europe/West, two revolutions rejecting Russian influence, and now a full out war of independence against NATO's sole geopolitical threat. Leaving them as a buffer zone between us and a hollowed out Russia would be seen as a betrayal.

They've done more in 15 months to eliminate the biggest threat to Europe than NATO has in it's entire existence. In 2021 Russia was considered the 2nd largest army in the world. Now that threat has been destroyed for at least a generation. We have paid almost nothing in blood and treasure for this.

Russia isn't an economic power and after the war will no longer be a military power. Why are we granting spheres of influence to countries with a GDP no bigger than Canada or Spain? The realist approach of tip toeing around a former superpower with an inferiority complex brought war to Europe in the 21st century. Authoritarianism was on the march prior to the war, and now it has been dealt a heavy blow which will reverberate for decades. I don't want my kid ending up in some ditch in Europe because we appeased delusion until it grew too large to handle.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I think we have a moral obligation to protect these people under NATO after the war. The US and UK gave security guarantees in the 90s to Ukraine in exchange for denuclearization.

They've spent the better part of 20 years trying to join Europe/West, two revolutions rejecting Russian influence, and now a full out war of independence against NATO's sole geopolitical threat. Leaving them as a buffer zone between us and a hollowed out Russia would be seen as a betrayal.

They've done more in 15 months to eliminate the biggest threat to Europe than NATO has in it's entire existence. In 2021 Russia was considered the 2nd largest army in the world. Now that threat has been destroyed for at least a generation. We have paid almost nothing in blood and treasure for this.

Russia isn't an economic power and after the war will no longer be a military power. Why are we granting spheres of influence to countries with a GDP no bigger than Canada or Spain? The realist approach of tip toeing around a former superpower with an inferiority complex brought war to Europe in the 21st century. Authoritarianism was on the march prior to the war, and now it has been dealt a heavy blow which will reverberate for decades. I don't want my kid ending up in some ditch in Europe because we appeased delusion until it grew too large to handle.

Is that so? That changes everything for me. US and UK should have been in there as of day one. #### that ####. Still not sure NATO need be involved, but US and UK most certainly should be.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Is that so? That changes everything for me. US and UK should have been in there as of day one. #### that ####. Still not sure NATO need be involved, but US and UK most certainly should be.

No. The Budapest Memorandum was more of a non-aggression pact (which Russia has broken). There were no security guarantees or obligations; the only thing countries were really required to do was seek UN Security Council assistance if Ukraine was threatened with or attacked with nuclear weapons. Here's a Cole's Notes of the terms that Russia, the UK, and the US agreed to:

1. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine 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".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by opendoor

No. The Budapest Memorandum was more of a non-aggression pact (which Russia has broken). There were no security guarantees or obligations; the only thing countries were really required to do was seek UN Security Council assistance if Ukraine was threatened with or attacked with nuclear weapons. Here's a Cole's Notes of the terms that Russia, the UK, and the US agreed to:

Thanks. Should have asked for his source.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Putin confirms today they’ll continue imperial expansion until they’re stopped forcefully.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1668657010789822466

The entire war is based on the return of “Russian lands” lost at the end of the Soviet Union.

So far they've been forcefully stopped and being pushed back in the first portions of Ukraine they tried to invade.....Putin may want to come up with some more realistic goals. Or, you know, focus on development within the existing Russian borders.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by opendoor

No. The Budapest Memorandum was more of a non-aggression pact (which Russia has broken). There were no security guarantees or obligations; the only thing countries were really required to do was seek UN Security Council assistance if Ukraine was threatened with or attacked with nuclear weapons. Here's a Cole's Notes of the terms that Russia, the UK, and the US agreed to:

Originally Posted by Sliver

Is that so? That changes everything for me. US and UK should have been in there as of day one. #### that ####. Still not sure NATO need be involved, but US and UK most certainly should be.

We can haggle over assurance vs guarantee, but this is precisely what paved the way for the invasion. Ukraine was hesitant to relinquish their arsenal but was cajoled into doing so with assurances on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and some form of military assistance from the UN security council.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

We can haggle over assurance vs guarantee, but this is precisely what paved the way for the invasion. Ukraine was hesitant to relinquish their arsenal but was cajoled into doing so with assurances on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and some form of military assistance from the UN security council.

It's not a small distinction, as the US made it quite clear during negotiations for it that they were never willing to offer security guarantees to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. I mean why would they? Russia was trying to get its weapons back and the US had an interest in preventing nuclear proliferation, but that doesn't mean they would offer security guarantees to every country who might try to get access to nuclear weapons. Whatever assurances they were offering to those countries were clearly spelled out, and were tantamount to a non-aggression pact. I mean, if Russia invaded Belarus tomorrow, do you think the UK and US are obligated to defend Belarus because of the Budapest Memorandum?

And the relatively weak assurances aren't too surprising, because Ukraine (as well as Belarus and Kazakhstan) wasn't really giving up all that much in the context of the time. They never really had a nuclear arsenal, at least in any way that could provide deterrence. The weapons were based in Ukraine, but the codes and infrastructure to maintain and use them were in Russian leadership's hands, both before and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It's possible that over a long enough time period they could have bypassed the blocking devices and created their own delivery systems for warheads, but that would have been difficult and likely would have severely impacted their standing with other countries. The bigger incentive for Ukraine was the billions in debt forgiveness and guaranteed access to fuel for their nuclear reactors that came along with the agreement.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Firebot

https://twitter.com/user/status/1668969762779545602

Bizarre to see a warlord (or any grown assed man) using so many emojis. I presume thats an encoded message to someone?

[Fuzz]

I was thinking (without knowing what any of the words are)each emoji was code for equipment needs, or losses? Like they lost 4 planes and a boat.

[NuclearFart]

"We lost our secret weapons Alice the dromedary and two surfer dudes! Require urgent resupply with a vespa, tuk tuk and that Traktor from Chelyabinsk!!"

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I was thinking (without knowing what any of the words are)each emoji was code for equipment needs, or losses? Like they lost 4 planes and a boat.

As well as 2 camels and 2 wooly mammoths.

Which given the state and age of Russia's military equipment, could actually be the case.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

As well as 2 camels and 2 wooly mammoths.

Which given the state and age of Russia's military equipment, could actually be the case.

I figured they were just re-using the symbols from previous battles. Don't you recall the Tramway Wars of 1993?

[Itse]

This was a bit of news from March that I at least completely missed, but there is a lot between the lines here:

https://www.rferl.org/a/kazakhstan-i.../32317248.html

Kazakh authorities have#impounded the property#of Russia's main operator of spacecraft launching sites in Baikonur (Baiqonyr) in the Central Asian nation's southern region of Qyzylorda.

Kazakhstan’s bailiff service banned Russia's Space Infrastructure Center from transferring its assets and property out of the country and ordered the entity's leader to remain in Kazakhstan, The Moscow Times newspaper reported on March 14.

According to the media outlet, the decision was made due to the Russian state company's debt of 13.5 billion tenges ($29.7 million) to the Baiterek Kazakh-Russian joint venture

So, two things:
- Russia had been skipping on paying some of it's bills for quite some time now. The sum should be peanuts to the Russian state compared the embarrassment, so they're likely really hurting here.
- Russia has no extra muscle left to do anything about someone seizing their assets.

[activeStick]

Very curious to see how people in this thread feel about these comments?

I suppose I should offer up my thoughts first: I'm very disappointed that this is being reasoned by the west. Especially when we have history to look back on.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1669273489654665221

[Street Pharmacist]

So maybe interesting development.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1669444707305369604

However...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1669447271841234945

If they do manage to somehow cross there and establish a crossing over the emptied reservoir, they've effectively rendered all those defensive lines to the east mostly moot. I'm skeptical that is what's happening and they may just be teasing to see if they can, but it's interesting. I circled where Nova Khakova is on the map

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Very curious to see how people in this thread feel about these comments?

I suppose I should offer up my thoughts first: I'm very disappointed that this is being reasoned by the west. Especially when we have history to look back on.

"...simply a cost of war," referring to state surveillance of civilians, is a scary statement from a leader.

[burn_this_city]

We justified as much during the war on terror when we weren't fighting a nation-state with vastly more resources and capabilities. It's a stretch to believe a substantial number of Russian immigrants are of any threat, but the country has formidable intelligence agencies and sleeper assets in all sorts of domestic structures.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...aria-1.6629384

Monitoring potential agents and high risk individuals is vastly different than interring the entire Japanese population of North America. The comparison was fairly idiotic, and short of total war and some kind of cataclysmic incident we would never see such things seriously contemplated.

[nik-]

The only thing that should be done regarding Russian immigrants is taking the families of those connected to government who are enjoying their wealthy lives in the "decadent West" and sending their asses back to Russia. Let your children live in the nation you built.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think it would be fair to surveil anyone just because they are of Russian descent.

But if someone left after the war started, I don't think it is wrong to hold them to a different standard. While the vast majority of those who left are anti-Putin, there are a lot of Russians who emigrated after the war started who are promoting their pro-Z ideology is their new countries. The way I see it, if you leave Russia and come to a country where the official policy is to oppose Russian aggression, but advocate for Putin and Russia, you should be deported right back. I think a certain level of suspicion is warranted until they show what their actual intentions are.

I feel this way about people from any country that has significant hatred towards the West.